Chaim Ozer Grodzinski

There's a lack of kabbalah from this tshuva.

Rav Shem Yitzchak wrote about her, Rav Chaim Ozer wrote about her all the time.

They all say, you can't be negar such a person.

How are you going to be negar a woman, if you know in advance you're not going to keep Tarek HaMishpoch HaLev, Pelel HaMoam Pelel, no, but two.

He says he didn't understand the electricity.

So then Rav Avadya quotes the majority of achronim, including Rav Chaim Ozer Grzezinski.

Rav Chaim Ozer was the undisputed Gadol Ador after the death of the Chavez Chaim in 1933.

Rav Chaim Ozer in Vilna says, you absolutely can.

And not only that, the reason why Rav Chaim Ozer was insistent on you can was because there's another related argument, which is what about the use of electricity on Shabbos? Exactly.

So Rav Chaim Moser was of the opinion who says that using electricity on Shabbos is a biblical violation.

And to demonstrate that, he would specifically recite Borei Ma'ori Ha'Eish on Motsi Shabbos on an electric light.

Because, on an incandescent bulb, because he wanted to tell people, this is Eish! Now, There are those who have issue with that a little bit because it had a glass encasement, which is related to a different Shuvah of Rav Adjov Adjov.

We, I don't have to listen to me.

We can listen to the-- He quotes the Shut Achi Ezer, Rav Chaim Ozer Grodzensky, who says that mikeva d'osem ze avak dak l'tzorech ha'maada.

The point of the gelatin is you make this fine dust of it, and the point of it is that it helps, um, ha'maada.

I think it helps emulsify.

It's not that I've made the string important to me.

It's that I needed it for these other purposes.

So Rav Chaim Ozer had said that's why gelatin should be okay.

K'mochein says, says to the Ezer in his long parenthetic comment that's coming to an end.

"For it is worse than a moch, for there he spills his zera inside the womb, vagina itself, but it falls on the moch, which is not the case in our situation, where he expels semen into a pouch that covers the entire male organ, around which the pouch creates a barrier, and he does not touch the vagina itself at all.

It is truly hotza'at zera levatala, and there is no way to be lenient except on account of saving a life." On the other hand, Rav Chaim Ozer Grodzensky rules in the 1930s that condoms can be permitted in a case of danger because it is doubtful whether they present as great halachic impediment to relations as a moch.

He writes in Responsa Achiezer three twenty-four five, [Hebrew].

"Regarding intercourse with a moch, where the fundamental prohibition is on account of it not being in the way of all the world, and perforce all these three women have intercoursed with a moch because of danger, for in this it is like all the world, and so it is in all these cases where there is danger.

The verse, as expounded in Sanhedrin fifty-five, reveals that there are two types of intercourse, for one is liable even for relations not in the normal way, anal intercourse.

One can say that there is no Torah prohibition with a condom, and it is only rabbinic, and on account of the mitzvah of onah they permitted it.

And behold, I agree with his honor to permit the matter." According to Rav Chaim Ozer, relations with a condom are clearly more the proper way of relations than relations with a moch and intuitively seem no worse than anal relations.

Once anal intercourse is recognized as a form of intercourse, such that some halachic authorities permit it even with ejaculation, wouldn't relations with a condom also be considered an act of relations, at most a rabbinic prohibition? A rabbinic prohibition could be overridden by danger and the importance of fulfilling mitzvat onah.