[Avodah] Having a boyfriend equivalent to being married?

[Micha Berger]

On Mon, December 24, 2007 6:30 pm, Chana Luntz wrote:
: 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.)

OTOH, see Geirushin 10:19. However, I can't again find which gemara
had mention of kesheirim.

So it would seem that while in this case, we can assume we're dealing
with "Yisraelim kesheirim", the Rambam applies the kelal even to
sinners.

:> 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 was simply presenting the ShSh's position, not being a baqi in what
else is out there. I don't recall anything different than the ShSh in
Shaarei Yosher, but that could just be that I wasn't paying sufficient
attention and just placed the new into the existing mental buckets.

: 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....

The notion that this is only by a chazaqah demei'ikarah is the
aforementioned point of the ShSh. I'm not sure how my suggested
explanation for the ShSh makes the question any stronger.

We might even get into strange turf, that ein adam oseh be'ilaso and
and adam kasher meiYisreh be'ilaso are different kinds of chazaqah.
And we migh even say that R' Meis and the Rabanan are arguing as to
our very point -- whether ein adam oseh is a chazqah disvara or a
chazaqah demei'karah, and thus consequence differences WRT chazaqah
verov.

But bekhol zos, leaping back from ShSh to RYBS... RYBS's case was tav
lemeisav, not ein adam. He can't possibly hold that both kinds of
chazaqah (if he holds there are 2 kinds) override rov, since that
would go against the gemara. My sevara here does fail. We're left with
my other suggestion, that RYBS presumes that the typical modern woman
is in denial.


Perhaps now we can discuss the reverse game WRT Rav Moshe -- since he
holds "ein adam oseh be'ilaso" doesn't necessarily apply bizman hazeh.
Assuming the Rambam in Geirushin proves he doesn't limit the chazaqah
to kesheirim, and thus there is no precedent, it would seem IM is
saying that this limitation of the chazaqah is in response to new 20th
cent realia. So, why couldn't RMF say the same of tav lemeisav?

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One who kills his inclination is as though he
micha at aishdas.org        brought an offering. But to bring an offering,
http://www.aishdas.org   you must know where to slaughter and what
Fax: (270) 514-1507      parts to offer.        - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv