Page 184 - EFI-RAV ZILBERSTIN_VOL 8.EFI-RAV ZILBERSTIN_VOL 8.1A

Pg: 184 - 6-Front 21-10-31

Apparently in our case too then, the artificial vagina created for this
woman is not considered a true female organ and having intercourse
with her there is not considered having intercourse in the regular
manner.

My father-in-law Rav Y.S. Elyashiv zt”l (Kovetz Teshuvos, 152)
employed similar logic in considering the case of a child born with
neither male nor female organs. The physicians decided to use plastic
surgery to create a vaginal opening that would facilitate intercourse
with a man. His conclusion is that penetrating such an artificially cre-
ated opening would not be considered having relations with a woman
[assuming that she had been born without any site for intercourse
at all, not one that was merely covered as in the case of a tumtum].
An opening created this way would be viewed in the same way as an
opening created in, say, the thigh, which has the status of ‘cohabita-
tion’ with one of the limbs, which is not considered intercourse. The
Shulchan Aruch (Even Ha’ezer 20) rules that a person who ‘cohabits’
in this way [i.e. with a limb, not in the place for intercourse] with one
of the relatives who are forbidden to him receives lashes [for violat-
ing a rabbinical prohibition] and has also violated the prohibition of
emitting semen for naught [but is not guilty of the Torah prohibition
against having incestuous relations].

In regard to our case however, when I asked my father-in-law zt””l,
he responded that it would be permitted to have marital relations
with this woman. The explanation of the difference between our case
and the cases discussed by the Yaavetz and by my father-in-law in
Kovetz Teshuvos appears to be as follows. In the Yaavetz’s case the
child was never considered a male at all. Therefore creating an artifi-
cial organ does not make him into a male. Similarly, if a child is born
with neither male nor female organs, creating an artificial opening
does not make her into a female. In our case though, it was clear that
the child was female because she had only female organs [internally]
and was only missing a vagina. When we create an opening in the
place that was supposed to be open, it is as though we are removing
a piece of flesh which was blocking the vagina, which, when it is re-

168 1 Medical-Halachic Responsa of Rav Zilberstein