Birth Control

It's understandable, with the burgeoning sexual revolution on college campuses in the 1960s, and after Pope Paul VI issued an encyclical on the subject of birth control earlier in 1968, that my father would give a Jewish perspective on the subject. That he did so by dusting off and revising a sermon originally given in 1951 in Lexington, Kentucky is more perplexing — it is unclear what would have motivated him to speak on what must have been a sensitive topic in the South in that era. Regardless, even with some editing in the 1968 version, it's clear that the opinions expressed herein preceded full awareness of the nascent Women's Liberation movement in that the sexual biases of the Torah and the ancient rabbis are reported without apology. On the other hand, that anachronistic rhetoric notwithstanding, one could argue that Jewish law has always been relatively progressive in regard to birth control.

Most Jewish leaders today see themselves as acting in accord with Jewish tradition when they are advocates of Planned Parenthood and birth control. Like the opponents of birth control, they do stress the importance of the family unit, but they feel the welfare and happiness of that family unit is best served by intelligently determining the size and spacing of the members of that unit. 

WE LIVE NOW IN A TIME OF TENSION AND REBELLION. One of the most surprising rebellions is what we see within the Catholic Church. After long consideration Pope Paul finally issued a statement of Church policy with regard to birth control, and it has not been to the liking of many Catholics both laymen and priests. The opinion of the Church is that "each and every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of life."[1] Thus the implication is that no artificial means of birth control is permissible. This attitude is not really surprising if we remember the traditional attitude of the Church toward marriage in general. According to Paul the Apostle[2] celibacy was preferable, but marriage was acceptable only as a concession to human weakness. "It is better to marry than to burn with passion[3],” was his statement. Within such a context the physical relationship between the sexes would more likely be considered justifiable only if associated at least with procreation, and its fulfillment out of any other motive such as a physical need or as an expression of love would not be considered commendable.
 
What about Judaism in this respect? Judaism's attitude toward marriage has been quite the opposite. It has never considered celibacy a virtue and has regarded marriage as highly desirable because divinely ordained. We read in the Bible in the creation story, "it is not good for man to be alone, I will make him a helper fit for him."[4] "A man who has no wife is not a complete man," said the rabbis. Marriage is a highly desirable relationship and even the relationship between God and Israel is often described in terms of a marriage. This is not to say, however, that Judaism therefore wholeheartedly favors birth control because of its favorable attitude toward the marital relationship, but it creates a more favorable setting. Actually, there has, in the course of the years, been some difference of opinion in Jewish circles with both opponents and proponents of birth control going back to the classic Jewish sources to support their arguments and giving varying interpretations to passages of the Bible and Talmud which are considered to have some bearing on the question. The most significant of these passages is the biblical commandment in Genesis to man "to be fruitful and multiply."[5] This is the very first commandment in the Bible and throughout the ages it has been considered by Judaism as one of the prime duties of man to continue the human race by leaving offspring behind them. The Shulchan Aruch[6], most honored code of traditional law, states that,

Every man is obligated to marry in order to be fruitful and multiply, and he who does not fulfill this obligation is as though he were spilling blood and diminishing the Divine image, and he causes the Divine presence to part from Israel.

Other passages also are used by the opponents of birth control, such as the story of Onan[7] in the book of Genesis and a rabbinic comment in the Talmud which is interpreted to mean that the generation of the flood was destroyed among other reasons for their practice of preventing conception.
 
Many Jewish opponents of birth control, however, do at least concede that Talmudic authorities have permitted it when the life and health of the woman or child is endangered and also in cases where previous children of the marriage have been born with mental or physical problems. According to Rabbi Immanuel Jacobovitz,[8] who is noted for his book on Jewish medical ethics,

…the opinions for and against the use of some artificial methods to prevent conception where danger to life may otherwise ensue are about equally balanced​

Of course, those who did not favor the practice of birth control where health was concerned would certainly not favorite it when health was no problem. Thus there has been indeed some Jewish opinion that would agree with the point of view of the Church.
 
However, perhaps the best statement on the Jewish view has been made by a now deceased teacher of Talmud at the Hebrew Union College, who some years ago examined the question at the request of the Central Conference of American Rabbis, and it was his finding that on the basis of his study of the classic sources that birth control was by no means contrary to the Jewish tradition. He points out — and anyone familiar with Hebrew can verify this easily — that some of the passages used by the opponents have not been given a proper interpretation and are really irrelevant to the question.
 
To understand the Jewish position fully, however, we must be careful to distinguish between planning parenthood or limiting the number of offspring, and absolute prevention of any offspring altogether. The Jewish point of view definitely does not sanction childless marriages when it is physically possible to have children. To this extent the principle which is founded on the biblical commandment "be fruitful and multiply" is accepted both by those who support as well as oppose birth control on the basis of Jewish tradition. In Jewish thought marriage is a consecrated union of a man and woman that must find its fulfillment, whenever possible, in having children and reproducing the race. The bearing of children is a moral and religious obligation. There are, however, some exceptions stated in rabbinic law. When the woman is in capable, when it might endanger her life, and one more — a man may delay marriage or remain unmarried altogether if he is engaged in some noble or moral pursuit like the study of Torah. If he is so engaged in study and he fears that having a family would interfere with his studies, then he may remain a bachelor, or if he marries, he may refrain from having children. And in this event, the rabbis preferred that he marry, even if he does not have children, rather than to suffer ungratified desires.
 
The rabbis did not glorify total abstinence. From the rabbinic point of view this was wrong. They were in accord with modern psychological teachings. They recognized the significance of the sex impulse in man, and they favored a normal marriage for every man even if the basic purpose of rearing children could not be achieved. Marriage was not an inevitable concession to the flesh as the Catholic attitude has it, and they did not look askance at the sexual relationship.
 
Although there was an obligation to have children, in Jewish thinking that obligation has been fulfilled when a couple has reproduced a boy and a girl in their family. The Shulchan Aruch says, ​

When a man has a boy and the girl, he has fulfilled the commandment to be fruitful and multiply. Then there no longer remains any moral compulsion to bring more children into the world.

Although the rabbis feel it is desirable to have more children, nevertheless, there is no obligation to do so and there is nothing immoral about preventing further conception, as long as husband and wife both agree on the matter.
 
In Dr. Lauterbach’s[9] article several items of interest with regard to birth control are noted. He points out that several cases are mentioned in rabbinic literature when the practice of birth control was even mandatory. The medical facts upon which the law was based were not always as we understand them today, but the principle behind them is what is of interest. When there is danger of harm to the wife or what the rabbis considered danger either to an infant already born or yet unborn, then birth control was mandatory. Other cases are mentioned where the matter is optional and Dr. Lauterbach concludes from these facts that there is no difference in principle between what the rabbis had in mind and in practicing birth control today to protect the health of the wife or to protect children today from the economic difficulties that are inherent in families with large numbers of children. Most Jewish leaders today see themselves as acting in accord with Jewish tradition when they are advocates of Planned Parenthood[10] and birth control. Like the opponents of birth control, they do stress the importance of the family unit, but they feel the welfare and happiness of that family unit is best served by intelligently determining the size and spacing of the members of that unit. They see no difference between the Talmudic examples of protection for the mother and children when health is involved in the protection that is needed today from poverty, overcrowding, and other environmental difficulties. Opponents of birth control speak of violating the will of God. But proponents of birth control point to the fact that high birth rates bring high infant mortality rates which inflicts suffering and the danger of infectious diseases. And they believe it is the will of God who gave man intelligence that man should use his intelligence with relation to his own creative powers just as he is expected to use in relationship to the powers of nature. In days gone past it was argued that many of the human inventions were contrary to the will of God. God did not want men to travel at such great speeds and so on. And the argument against birth control is considered just as relevant.
 
The CCAR is on record as follows:

We recognize the need of exercising great caution in dealing with the delicate problem of birth regulation in view of the widespread disregard of the old sanctions affecting the institution of marriage and the family. We honestly desire to guard against playing into the hands of those who would undermine the sanctity of these time-honored institutions through reckless notions and practices. We are especially mindful of the noble tradition obtaining among the Jewish people with respect to the holiness of domestic relations. But at the same time we are keenly aware of the many serious evils caused by a lack of birth regulation among those who by reason of lack of health or of a reasonable measure of economic resources or of intelligence or of all of these, are prevented from giving to their children that worthy heritage to which all children are entitled. We therefore urge the recognition of the importance of intelligent birth regulation as one of the methods of coping with social problems.

The Rabbinical Assembly,[11] the Conservative group, has spoken out even more strongly:

Careful study and observation have convinced us that birth control is a valuable method for overcoming some of the obstacles that prevent the proper functioning of the family under present conditions. Hence we urge the passage of the legislation by the Congress of the United States and the state legislatures to permit the dissemination of contraceptive information by responsible medical agencies. We maintain that proper education in contraception and birth control will not destroy, but rather enhance the spiritual values inherent in the family and will make for the advancement of human happiness and welfare.

So often it has happened that traditional Jewish teaching with regard to certain principles have found their justification in that they blend with modern psychological knowledge and sociological considerations. In this matter also I think we may pride ourselves that even traditionally our approach to the problem has left the door open for reasoning that is enlightened and humane. I think it is unfortunate in the extreme that such a powerful influence as the Catholic Church does not see it in the same light that we do.


[1] Humanae vitae (Latin Of Human Life) is an encyclical written by Pope Paul VI and issued on July 25, 1968. Subtitled On the Regulation of Birth, it re-affirms the orthodox teaching of the Catholic Church regarding married love, responsible parenthood, and the continued rejection of most forms of birth control.

[2] Paul the Apostle (c. 5 – c. 67), originally known as Saul of Tarsus, was an apostle (though not one of the Twelve Apostles) who taught the gospel of Christ to the first-century world. Paul took advantage of his status as both a Jew and a Roman citizen to minister to both Jewish and Roman audiences.

[3] 1 Corinthians 7-9: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.  But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. … Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. I say this as a concession, not as a command. I wish that all of you were as I am. … Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.”

[4] Genesis 2:18

[5] Genesis 1:28

[6] Authored in Safed, Israel by Yosef Karo in 1563 and published in Venice two years later, the Shulchan Aruch, together with its commentaries, it is the most widely accepted compilation of Jewish law ever written.

[7] Genesis 38:3-10 Onan was a minor Biblical figure. After Onan's older brother Er was slain by God, his father Judah told him to fulfill his duty as a brother-in-law (levirate marriage) to Tamar, by giving her offspring. When Onan had sex with Tamar, he withdrew before climax and "spilled his seed on the ground", since any child born would not legally be considered his heir. God slew Onan in retribution for being "evil in the sight of the Lord" through being unwilling to father a child by his widowed sister-in-law. This suggests how important it was for a woman to conceive and how objectionable it was for Onan to practice this form of birth control.

[8] Immanuel Jakobovits, Baron Jakobovits (1921 – 1999) was the Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth from 1967 to 1991. He was regarded as an authority in medical ethics from a Jewish standpoint.

[9] Jacob Zallel Lauterbach (1873–1942) was an American Judaica scholar and author who served on the faculty of Hebrew Union College and composed responsa for the Reform movement in America. Among his scholarly publications was "Talmudic-rabbinic view on birth control" [A responsum] (1927), C.C.A.R. Yearbook 37:369–384.

[10] Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), usually referred to simply as Planned Parenthood, is a non-profit organization that directly provides a variety of reproductive health services, is involved in sexual education efforts, contributes to research in reproductive technology, and engages in legal and political efforts aimed at protecting and expanding reproductive rights.

[11] The Rabbinical Assembly (RA) is the international association of Conservative rabbis around the world.