[Avodah] Chezkas Kashrus of Sifrei Torah

[Sholom Simon via Avodah]

>Students of RYBS have to deal with the question of whether a chazaqah
>disvara /can/ change. RYBS famously said that tan lemeisiv cannot:
>
>     Let me add something that is very important: not only the halachos
>     but also the chazakos which chachmei chazal have introduced are
>     indestructible. We must not tamper, not only with the halachos,
>     but even with the chazakos, for the chazakos of which chazal spoke
>     rest not upon transient psychological behavioral patterns, but upon
>     permanent ontological principles rooted in the very depth of the
>     human personality, in the metaphysical human personality, which
>     is as changeless as the heavens above. Let us take for example
>     the chazaka that I was told about: the chazaka tav l'meisiv tan
>     du mil'meisiv armalo has absolutely nothing to do with the social
>     and political status of women in antiquity. This chazaka is based
>     not upon sociological factors, but upon a verse in breishis --
>     harba arbeh itz'voneich v'heironeich b'etzev teildi vanim v'el
>     isheich t'shukaseich v'hu yimshal bach -- "I will greatly multiply
>     thy pain and thy travail; in pain thou shalt bring forth children,
>     and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee".
>     It is a metaphysical curse rooted in the feminine personality...
>
>Notice RYBS opens with a kelal, "the chazakos which chachmei chazal have
>introduced are indestructible." And yet he continues by talking about
>the perat, "[t]his chazaka is based not upon sociological factors,
>but upon a verse in breishis..."

(Apologies if this is a tangent that warrants a different subject heading.)

Apparently some of the students disagree?

Tradition – Winter 2014 (Rabbi N. Helfgot)

In a famous episode in 1975, the Rav strongly 
denounced a proposal raised by R. Emanuel 
Rackman, z”l to reevaluating the validity of the 
Talmudic dictum “a woman would always be rather 
married to anyone (even a scoundrel) than be 
alone” in the modern context. R. Rackman called 
on religious authorities to reevaluate the reach 
of this dictum as a way of addressing the scourge 
of modern day recalcitrant husbands who did not 
give their estranged spouses a get. The 
reevaluation of this principle might be an 
opening to examine the use of halakhic annulment 
of marriages. The Rav vigorously maintained that 
this principle, like all hazakot of Hazal, was 
“an ontological statement” about the nature of 
women, not subject to changing historical factors or changing social mores.

R. Lichtenstein in both private conversation with 
a number of talmidim over the decades, including 
this author and in remarks in public shiurim, 
noted his disagreement with the Rav’s assessment 
of this hazaka (and expressed astonishment at the 
vehemence of the Rav’s opposition at the time) 
given the clear cut evidence in the Rishonim in 
Yevamot and other places in Shas which clearly 
indicated that this hazaka was not one that 
applied in all contexts and at all times and in all situations.


-- Sholom
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170105/2f8b66c4/attachment-0004.htm>