[Avodah] RYBS's Talk on Hafkaas Kiddushin, Talmud Torah and Kabalas Ol Malchus Shamayim

[Chana Luntz via Avodah]

RMB writes:

>As the gemara was taught to me, what they set up as a chazaqah was
>pretty much as RYBS describes it. Women feel the loneliness of singlehood
>more.

>The flow of the sugya in the two gemaras are quite similar, from the
>point where Reish Laqish is quoted staying "tav lemeisiv" onward. RL,
>illustrated with meshalim by Abayei, R' Papa, and R' Ashi, followed by
>a tana saying that they all are mezanos and then blame their husbands.

>So, it would seem that tav lemeisiv is about a desire to be married.
>This has nothing to do with romance or eros, since we are told that a
>woman who is just married so s not to be like a widow (milemeisiv
>armelu) do tend to end up cheating.

>But tav lemeisiv isn't about the affairs, 

I agree that tav lemeisiv is not brought initially to refer to the issue of
affairs, but rather indeed about a desire to be married which is then
brought to make a halachic point within another context (eg maezakeh get
l'eishto) - but once the gemora is discussing tav lemeisiv marriages - it
then takes the time out, twice, to explain what these marriages mean.  And
it explains, after going through the flow of Abaye etc, that these marriages
mean inevitable adultery.  Ie according the gemora a tav l'meisiv marriage =
adultery.  Now, that means, the more tav l'meisiv marriages there are, the
more adultery there is.  So the more you stress that the world is full of
tav l'meisiv marriages, the more you are saying that the world is full of
Bnos Yisrael committing adultery. That tav l'meisiv marriage results in
adultery is clearly part and parcel of the definition of what a tav l'meisiv
marriage is - one where a woman will prefer to be married than to be alone.
And it is not a disputed statement, it is a concluding statement rounding up
the discussion of what a tav l'meisiv marriage is. 

In order to break the equation, you have to say that Chazal didn't really
mean what they said, or that they were talking about their time and place,
but women today are different - but that means denying the truthfulness and
accuracy of Chazal's statements (or understanding them differently) in
exactly the way that RYBS objects to as kefira.  You can't say that a woman
prefers to be married than to be alone is a universal truth because it was
stated by Chazal, and simultaneously that women in tav lemeisiv marriages
commit adultery is not a universal truth, as they are bound up in the same
discussion and you are picking and choosing your Chazalic statements - this
one I like, this one I don't, and not just any statement, but the concluding
statement rounding up the discussion defining the concept.

....

>The bit about mezanos vetolos beba'aleihen is not the basis for any
>halakhos. I have no reason to believe it's a chazaqah.

So why did Chazal say it?  For the fun of casting aspersions on Bnos
Yisrael?  Twice?  In the context of a halachic discussion? 

If this was any other discussion, would anybody dream of suggesting that
when Chazal said that something inevitably happened in the context of a
halachic discussion they were not, at the very least, postulating a chazaka
(albeit perhaps a rebuttable one) and possibly something even stronger? One
might say - well nature has changed (eg kol treifos), or one might say -  we
have to treat something as halachically following Chazal's statement, even
if we know or suspect the metzius is different (hence my line about a Beis
Din being required to treat a tav l'meisiv marriage as one where adultery
has been committed, and those enabling such a marriage being prohibited from
so doing based on lifnei iver).  That is the way we generally treat Chazalic
statements of this nature.  In this case, of course, we have another option,
if tav l'meisiv marriages themselves do not occur very often, then we do not
necessarily have to worry about, as common, the adultery which is part and
parcel of their definition.  But if they are in fact common and inevitable
where the husband is not as a matter of fact suitable for the wife, then I
cannot see how you can claim that this is not a significant societal and
halachic concern.

Regards

Chana