<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=text/html;charset=iso-8859-1 http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.7600.16671"></HEAD>
<BODY style="PADDING-LEFT: 10px; PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; PADDING-TOP: 15px"
id=MailContainerBody leftMargin=0 topMargin=0 CanvasTabStop="true"
name="Compose message area">
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri>RZS wrote:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri><FONT face="Times New Roman">Oh, I see, you mean a
real<BR>bigamous marriage. Could R Gershom could have decreed that
such<BR>marriages wouldn't be chal? I don't know; it seems presumptious
for<BR>a local rav, making a local takanah, to equate himself to the
"rabanan"<BR>on whose daas one is mekadesh. It makes sense to me that "das
moshe<BR>veyisrael" means the law of *all* yisrael, not including local
takanos<BR>of recent vintage and set to expire soon, which is what R
Gershom's<BR>cherem was at the time. He wasn't to know that it would
spread to the<BR>majority of Jewry, and be made permanent by minhag.<BR><BR>In
any event, though, whether he could or couldn't have made such a<BR>tenai, the
fact is that he didn't. So the marriage is chal, and the<BR>violator is in
cherem.</FONT><BR><BR>CM responds:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri>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 <FONT
face="Times New Roman">"kedas Mosheh veYisrael" or not with the appropriate
consequence as to whether the kedushin is chal?</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri>Freilach'n Chanuka veKol tuv</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri>Chaim Manaster</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri> </DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>