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

[Kenneth Miller via Avodah]

[RAK gives credit to others in fn. 1. It is not his transcript. -micha]

R' Micha Berger posted R' Ari Kahn's transcript of Rav YB Soloveitchik:

>                                   ... This is not a psychological
> fact; it is an existential fact, which is due not to the inferior
> status of the woman, but rather to the difference, the basic
> distinction, between the female personality and the male personality.
> Loneliness frightens the woman, and an old spinster's life is much
> more miserable and tragic than the life of an old bachelor. This was
> true in antiquity; it is still true, and it will be true a thousand
> years from now. So, to say that tan du mil'meisiv armalo was or
> is due to the inferior political or social status of the woman
> is simply misinterpreting the chazaka tan du mil'meisiv armalo. ...

 From what I understand, the objection to hafkaas kiddushin comes from a
presumption that a woman would prefer to stay with her husband, even if
he seems to be a terrible person, and even if she tells us that in *her*
opinion he is a terrible person -- and we have this presumption because
of the chazaka of tan du.

But I do not see Rav Soloveitchik making that case here. All he is saying
is that "an old spinster's life is much more miserable and tragic than
the life of an old bachelor."

He does say that this relative perspective on singlehood is a "permanent
ontological principle[s] rooted in the very depth of the human
personality," and that it will never change, and that this information
is Revealed in the words of Bereishis. But this refers ONLY to the misery
and tragedy of a single woman as opposed to a single man.

And that's NOT that argument against hafkaas kiddushin, at least not
how I've heard it. The argument that I've heard -- that is to say, the
supposed translation of "tav l'meisiv tan du" -- is that a woman would
prefer living with ANY man rather than to be alone.

I can easily understand opposition to Hafkaas Kiddushin on the grounds
that widespread use would give *all* marriages a sort of "tentative"
status. But that's not what people are referring to here, right? When
they invoke "tan du" against Hafkaas Kidushin, they're saying that despite
the wife's protestations, the wife would actually prefer to stay married,
and that's why they're unable to annul the marriage. Or am I mistaken?

Akiva Miller