[Avodah] Having a boyfriend equivalent to being married?

[Chana Luntz]

RJE writes:

> This seems to be asking about what their intentions
> were. But their intentions are irrelevant in the face
> of a chazakah..

I think this is a misunderstanding of a chazaka.

A chazaka in general is a rebuttable presumption.  That is, we assume
something, usually about an existing status continuing, if we do not have
the information to know to the contrary.  For example, take the case of the
chazaka on Yevamos 119b - since at the time the husband left with his
co-wife he was childless, given that we do not know what had happened, the
presumption is that he remained childless at his death, and hence the wife
he left behind has a chazaka for yibum.  If we find out that her co-wife
conceived and had a child, then of course the chazaka goes away.

Which is why the gemora there can make a statement like v'chazaka lo adif ki
ruba - ie that the principle of majority can be considered to override a
chazaka (in this case that most women conceive and give birth, so rov would
suggest that the co-wife that went with the husband did conceive).

> Why does it matter what the eidim assume? 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?), the
> chazakah should apply. Just like we don't take into
> account the couple's intentions, we shouldn't take the
> eidim's assumptions into account either. Even if the
> eidim think it was biah zenut, the chazakah should
> hold.

No, if the eidim think it was a biah znus, then the chazaka would definitely
not apply.   The only reason we might not believe what the couple themselves
say is because of the principle that a person cannot make himself out to be
a rasha.

And I agree with RZS that the chazaka of ain adam oeseh bialso bilas znus is
generally only regarded as applying to "kasherim" according to the Rambam -
see Hilchos Ishus, perek 7 halacha 23.  And as the Rema Even Ha'Ezer siman
32 si'if 1 puts it "im kvar chukzak l'znus or she'yesh lo isha acheres lo
chashinan"

This is not surprising when you think about the fact that this chazaka is
really only one facet of the general principle giving everybody a chezkas
kashrus.  Which is why your second original case:

> You might say that the chazakah doesn't apply to her
> because she was not observant. What if she was, but
> just transgressed in this one particular area?

Might have something more in it (assuming both he and she were observant).
If you would not dream of eating from their food, I think we can discount
the kashrus of their relationship pretty easily.  If on the other hand you
and everybody else would feel comfortable eating from their food and
generally relying on their hezkas kashrus in other ways, then there might be
an issue if they could not be considered to be "chukzak in pritzus".  A
series of boyfriends/girlfriends would seem to make the matter pretty clear
though even in that regard.

And that is before you get into the question of rov in today's non frum
society.

> Josh

And then RZS wrote:
 
> 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.  

Not only is RYBS's interpretation not muchrach in the pasuk, but, as I keep
pointing out, it is not muchrach in the gemora's description of tav lemaisiv
either.  The gemora seems rather to be discussing the social status that a
woman gains by having her "MRS", even if the man concerned is completely
inappropriate.  The relevant piece of gemora ends by concluding that a woman
who takes one of these inappropriate men and yet is happy to flaunt her
married status also satisfies her sexual needs by taking lovers and bringing
up those children as her husband's - see eg Yevamos 118b "v'kulan mezanos
v'tolos b'balehen".  That is hardly a description of a woman who ve'el
isheich teshukateich. If anything the opposite.

Which is why I think we are barking up the wrong tree if we are take a
"better a bad marriage than a good divorce" type understanding of tav
lemaisiv.  In a society where marriage is everything, and what separates a
woman from a child, there can be reasons why a woman wants to and is
prepared to get married (and perhaps stay married) which has nothing to do
with any real relationship with her husband.  And it is only the strong
willed woman who is going to be prepared to hold out for a man who is truly
suitable (which is after all the shvach of the bnos Zlofchad). 
Regards

Chana