[Avodah] Kiddushin and Bigamy

[Hankman]

RZS wrote:
Oh, I see, you mean a real
bigamous marriage.  Could R Gershom could have decreed that such
marriages wouldn't be chal?  I don't know; it seems presumptious for
a local rav, making a local takanah, to equate himself to the "rabanan"
on whose daas one is mekadesh.  It makes sense to me that "das moshe
veyisrael" means the law of *all* yisrael, not including local takanos
of recent vintage and set to expire soon, which is what R Gershom's
cherem was at the time.  He wasn't to know that it would spread to the
majority of Jewry, and be made permanent by minhag.

In any event, though, whether he could or couldn't have made such a
tenai, the fact is that he didn't.  So the marriage is chal, and the
violator is in cherem.

CM responds:
The question still makes sense without regard to R. Gershom's Intent or the original breadth of the Takanah. Now, given that the Takanah of R. Gershom has indeed spread far and wide and accepted by  the large majority of Kelal Yisroel, would this be considered "kedas Mosheh veYisrael" or not with the appropriate consequence as to whether the kedushin is chal?

Freilach'n Chanuka veKol tuv

Chaim Manaster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20101206/f3194216/attachment-0002.htm>