JACOB Z. LAUTERBACH use of this contraceptive if the husband had no objection to it.

R. Akiva Eiger in his Responsa(Warsaw, 1834), nos. 71 and 72, pp. 51b-53a, also permits the use of an absorbent, but only if it is employed after cohabitation. The questioner, R. Eleazar Zilz, a rabbinical authority of Posen however argued that it should be permitted even when employed before cohabitation.

R. Moses Sofer in his Hatam Sofer (Pressburg , 1860), Yoreh Deah, no. 172, pp. 67b-68a, likewise permits it only when used after cohabitation. R. Abraham Danzig in his Hokhmat Adam and Binat Adam (Warsaw, 1914), Shaar Beit Hanashim, no. 36, p. 156, permits the use of an absorbent or a douche or any other method of removing or destroying the semen after cohabitation. He adds, however, that according to Rashi's interpretation, it would be permitted to the woman in question to whom pregnancy was dangerous, to use this contraceptive even before cohabitation.

R. Jacob Ettlinger(1798-1871) in his Responsa Binyan Tsion (Altona, 1868), no. 137, pp. 57b-58b, and R. Joseph Saul Nathanson (1808-1875) in his Responsa Shoe! Umeshiv, Mahadura Tenina(Lemberg, 1874), part IV, no. 13, are inclined to forbid the use of any contraceptive, even when used after cohabitation.

The authorities objecting to the use of an absorbent before cohabitation, do so, of course, on the ground that, like R. Tam, they consider such a practice kemetil al ha-etzim veal haavanim. On the same ground they would no doubt object to the use of a condum. But, as was already pointed out above, they could have no objection to the use of chemical contraceptives on the part of the woman.

In summing up the results of our discussion, I would say that while there may be some differences of opinion about one detail or another, we can formulate the following principles in regard to the question of birth control which are based upon a correct understanding of the halachic teachings of the Talmud as accepted by the medieval rabbinic authorities, and especially upon

187