One such discussion about the spacing of children and the use of breast-
feeding as a method of family planning can be found in Sefer H·asidim:
It is said: “After weaning Lo-Ruhama” (Hos. 1:8). Once she had given birth to a
son and a daughter, she weaned her. For his wife had already given birth to a son
and a daughter and there was a waiting period. But after the birth of the first son,
there was no delay, because he had not fulfilled the obligation of procreation. And
if a man has one son or one daughter and the mother nurses that son or that daugh-
ter, as long as she nurses, she cannot conceive. Furthermore, she is too poor to
hire a wet nurse^141 or she is concerned that the child will not nurse [from a wet
nurse] because he already recognizes his mother. In such a case, she should not
refrain from nursing the infant because of this danger. For the claim is that one
existing life does not supersede that of another possible life (Ohalot 7:6) that may
come into being if she conceives. But if the woman, the mother of the child,
nurses, and another woman nurses the child with her, since the other wet nurse,
who is not the mother of the child, provides for him, the mother of the child can
stop nursing so that she may conceive. And if she is poor, then they said, “the Holy
One, blessed be He, said: My children, borrow on my account and I will pay”
(Bez·ah 15b), especially since, in this case, the mother of the child does so in order
to become pregnant, as she cannot conceive while she nurses. Only [be sure] that
the wet nurse has abundant milk.^142Although this case does not discuss contraception at length, it does demon-
strate the general belief that a breast-feeding mother cannot conceive. We see
here that even when the H·asid clearly seeks to fulfill the commandment of
procreation, in this exceptional case, the health of the existing infant takes
precedence.
This discussion in Sefer H·asidimilluminates the ways in which attitudes to-
ward contraception are directly related to the understandings of procreation,
as discussed in chapter 1. As in the case of the commandment to procreate,
there is a clear difference between the roles men and women are expected to
play. Because men are instructed to procreate, they are not allowed to prevent
procreation. As a result, contraception was women’s business.^143 Despite the
ostensible differences between Jewish and Christian understandings of pro-
creation,^144 it is well known that in Christian society contraception was
women’s business as well, often called arte muliebri.^145 Thus, both in Jewish
society (with the explicit permission of male legal authorities), and in Chris-
tian society (despite the official prohibition of the practice), women practiced
forms of contraception, and this is an instance in which one can see how
women could control their fertility.^146
On the whole, medieval Jewish authorities do not discuss the issue of con-
traception at length; they merely repeat the sanction of the practice as it ap-
pears in the Mishna. One can only speculate on the reasons the issue is not de-