[Avodah] Having a boyfriend equivalent to being married?

[Zev Sero]

Micha Berger wrote:

> I would think that RYBS's response to R' Rackman's beis din would be
> loosely applicable. RYBS says that tav lemeisiv is inherently true
> based on Chava's qelalah and is an existential reality regardless of
> how society changed.
> 
> This opens the door to saying something parallel for other chazaqos.
> Perhaps it's a deep human truth, that no matter how much she consciously
> is willing to be a perutzah, her yetzer hatov is thinking "this is *the
> real thing* and we're going to be together forever", justifying it in
> context of marriage.

No.  It's explicit (I don't remember an exact source, though) that this
chazaka doesn't apply to prutzim.  And anan sahadi that this is true.
Just look around you and you can see that plenty of people are boel
leshem znus.  And in any case, "this is the real thing" is *not* the
same thing as "hareini boel lesheim kidushin, kedas moshe veyisrael".
Leshem kidushin has to be a specific intent; the chazaka lets us assume
that this specific intent was there, but when it's obvious that it
wasn't then it doesn't apply.


> RZS's notion that any eidim could probably assumed to be pasul

When did I say that?  I said that the people who know them, being
21st-century people, wouldn't assume they were married, thus they
are not eidim at all.  They may be perfectly kosher for eidus, but
they haven't seen anything.

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