<html>
<body>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Students of RYBS have to deal
with the question of whether a chazaqah<br>
disvara /can/ change. RYBS famously said that tan lemeisiv
cannot:<br><br>
Let me add something that is very important: not only
the halachos<br>
but also the chazakos which chachmei chazal have
introduced are<br>
indestructible. We must not tamper, not only with the
halachos,<br>
but even with the chazakos, for the chazakos of which
chazal spoke<br>
rest not upon transient psychological behavioral
patterns, but upon<br>
permanent ontological principles rooted in the very
depth of the<br>
human personality, in the metaphysical human
personality, which<br>
is as changeless as the heavens above. Let us take for
example<br>
the chazaka that I was told about: the chazaka tav
l'meisiv tan<br>
du mil'meisiv armalo has absolutely nothing to do with
the social<br>
and political status of women in antiquity. This
chazaka is based<br>
not upon sociological factors, but upon a verse in
breishis --<br>
harba arbeh itz'voneich v'heironeich b'etzev teildi
vanim v'el<br>
isheich t'shukaseich v'hu yimshal bach -- "I will
greatly multiply<br>
thy pain and thy travail; in pain thou shalt bring
forth children,<br>
and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall
rule over thee".<br>
It is a metaphysical curse rooted in the feminine
personality...<br><br>
Notice RYBS opens with a kelal, "the chazakos which chachmei chazal
have<br>
introduced are indestructible." And yet he continues by talking
about<br>
the perat, "[t]his chazaka is based not upon sociological
factors,<br>
but upon a verse in breishis..."</blockquote><br>
(Apologies if this is a tangent that warrants a different subject
heading.)<br><br>
Apparently some of the students disagree?<br><br>
<dl>
<dd>Tradition – Winter 2014 (Rabbi N. Helfgot)<br><br>
<dd>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.<br><br>
<dd>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.<br><br>
<br>
</dl>-- Sholom<br>
</body>
</html>