[Avodah] Having a boyfriend equivalent to being married?

[Chana Luntz]

RMB Writes:

> While the gemara speaks of kesheirim when saying "ein adam 
> oseh be'ilaso..." the Rambam omits the word.

Sorry?  I don't know what editions of the Rambam you have, but my
edition has him most definitely bringing the word (as I spelled out in
my previous post on the subject see Vol 24, Issue 99 wher I quote
Hilchos Ishus, perek 7 halacha 23.) 

 Unless we think 
> it's simple shibush, it would seem the Rambam is making a 
> point; that being kasheir is a happenstance in the gemara's 
> case, not an essential criterion. It is unclear therefore 
> that the Rambam would make this connection. But the gemara 
> seems to, so I assume someone I am unaware of does as well.

Well since I see it stated explictly in the Rambam, I guess I find the
rest of this a bit difficult to fathom.

> What I was trying to day, with caps to show emphasis, was: I 
> think that RYBS's position inclines us to say that NEITHER 
> kind of chazaqah is a form of rov.

Well I note that the Encylopedia Talmudit wants (at least at one point)
divide the chazaka into three types, one of which was a chazaka m'ikara,
one of which comes from the koach of rov and one of which is an even
stronger form of anan ztadi.  I confess I am a bit underwhelmed by the
Encylopedia Talmudit's analysis of Chazaka.  For a start they seem to
contradict themselves a couple of times within the article, but you
might want to have a look to see how somebody else tried to classify the
different kinds.  Note BTW that in their analysis of ain adam oseh
beilso understand it to be a part and parcel of chezkas kashrus, but in
their article on chazaka they seem to think it comes from rov (at least
at one point, I thought they resiled from that a bit elsewhere).
>
> My point was that given the existence of one law of birur 
> that defies rov, we can't assume that we can dismiss another 
> because today it violates rov.

But the problem seems to me bigger than this.  Because the gemora I
cited to you in Yevamos specifically says that chazaka only defies rov
according to Rabbi Meir (where you can add the miut that he is choshesh
for to the chazaka) and not according to the Rabbanan, who hold the
principle that ruba v'chazaka ruba adif, a statement again brought on
Kiddushin 80a  - which tosphos seems to bring on Yevamos there as a
general principle.  However on Kiddushin 80a, Tosphos appear to bring a
concept of a "rov chashuv" - so maybe you could say that the kind of rov
involved in your case in chullin is a rov sheino chashuv.  What makes
for a rov chashuv versus a rov sheino chashuv, I confess I have no clue
- which means I have no idea on what basis you could say that the rov in
your chullin case was ano chashuv.  But if indeed this is a rov and
chazaka conflict, I am not sure how else you get there, but that may
just as well be my lack of knowledge.  In other words, while I may have
identified one method in the rishonim of making distinctions, via this
tosphos, there may well be loads of others in other rishonim.  I am
pretty sure there is lots of subsequent discussion on this trying to
work out the individual cases.  But I think there is a very big risk in
identifying a case (such as your one in Chullin) which you assume shows
that chazaka can defy rov halacha l'ma'ase (but where it is not
identified by the gemora as doing so explicitly, so of course there may
be other reasons you and I have not thought of) and then using that to
draw conclusions, in the face of other places in the gemora where rov
and chazaka are indeed explicitly understood by the gemora as coming in
conflict, and where the gemora brings a principle which appears to be
the way we posken, namely  ruba v'chazaka, ruba adif.  At the very least
I would be very uncomfortable jumping to this kind of conclusion without
explicit rishonic support.  Otherwise aren't you saying that on the
basis of your own analysis, you are shlugging off a explicit principle
of the gemora?

 
> First possibility:
> We could have a law of birur that regardless of majority, we 
> assume that she felt tav lemeisav and the qidushin weren't a 
> meqakh ta'us.

In contradiction to the position, ruba v'chazaka, ruba adif.
 
> Second possibility:
> We could have a rov who deep down want the marriage and are 
> in denial, and thus the qiddushin weren't a mekach ta'us.

That is what I assumed he must be saying.

> SheTir'u baTov!
> -micha

Regards

Chana