[Avodah] Having a boyfriend equivalent to being married?

[Zev Sero]

Micha Berger wrote:

> Ve'el isheikh teshuqaseikh sure seems like a maqor for tav lemeisiv.
> If you do not believe tav lemeisiv is a universal, you need to explain
> why this part of Chavah's onesh ended, or how it doesn't mean what it
> seems to. The connection seems inescapable. (With 20:20 hindsight once
> someone pointed it out.)

Only if you interpret "ve'el isheich teshukateich" that way in the
first place.  RYBS's interpretation is not muchrach.  Rashi on chumash
understands it differently.  (Rashi's explanation is also difficult
to understand as an eternal and universal statement of human nature,
since it seems contradicted by the metziut, but that's another
discussion.)

It seems to me that RYBS would have difficulty explaining why, at
least among USAn goyim, the majority of divorces are initiated by the
wife.  According to him this should be quite rare, and certainly far
from a majority.

 

> Back to RZS's email:
> :> IF the chazakah is operational, then as long as they are
> :> witnesses to the actual biah, (or, I suppose, to a  yichud
> :> that is equivalent to witnessing biah?)
> :
> : When would there ever be witnesses to that?
> 
> Witnesses to yichud? If they're "a couple", it's quite likely.

Really?  Since your wedding, how many people do you suppose could
testify that they'd seen you and your wife isolated together for
8 consecutive minutes?  In the ordinary course of events that's
not something people usually see.


-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev at sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas