[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.

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?

While in your response to me you make a valid point, in that clearly
not every kidushin b'issur is batel adatei d'rabanan, eg., cohen who
marries a gerusha etc. So we now need some very clear guidelines as to
which cases are included in "daas Moshe v'Yisroel." We now need to ask
whether nidan didan would or would not be included. I am not suggesting
I know the answer, just that it is a valid question in my mind. But if
you definintely feel that nidan didan is not included under "daas Moshe
v'Yisroel," then you need to explain under what set of guidelines you
came to this conclusion.

Freilach'n Chanuka veKol tuv
Chaim Manaster