From my husband:
The principle of “tav l’meitav” was never intended to be a universal statement advocating the choice of an undesirable husband over spinsterhood. Instead, it is applied to prove (Yevamos 118b, et. al.) that even though a particular type of husband is undesirable (e.g. he has boils all over his body), that type of husband is not
- so
undesirable that we can assume that no reasonable woman would prefer this husband to spinsterhood.
In other words, the gemara is asking “how bad does a husband have to be for a woman to prefer being single?” Also, the question isn’t asked about a woman choosing a particular bad husband – it is about a husband that the woman otherwise already has (a yavam). The gemara answers that boils over his body isn’t enough to nullify a marriage ab initio.
If one is to be offended by the principle of “tav l’meitav,” it should not be for its mere existence, but for where Chazal drew the line. All women (and men, for that matter) are willing to overlook significant physical flaws or negative character traits because they love the particular spouse that they chose (you can ask both me and my wife). According to Rav J. David Bleich, the theo-political controversies over “tav l’meitav” are caused only when people interpret a halachic test as a metaphysical principle: “nonsense is nonsense; theological analysis of nonsense can only create an aura of cogency where none exists.” (Orthodox Forum Series on Lomdus).