This article shows that there are some poskim who have said that a mamzer is unable to end the problem by marrying a shifcha knaanis because no governments recognize slavery today. However, according to that view, all kiddushin would be invalidated simply because no government would recognize the idea of a man purchasing a woman (kinyan)in marriage! So I guess we should be happy that this problem can indeed be solved according to other poskim.....Here is the article: http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/mamzerShifcha.pdf
David Goldman, USA
Governments would recognize the Kinyan of Kidushin according to Jewish law. This is because, according to the Halachah, Kidushin does not mean that the husband acquires a financial ownership of his wife. Rather what it means is that the husband acquires all of the "Ishus" of his wife. Bs'd, I will explain what this means.
1) The Ramban (Kidushin 3a, DH li'Me'utei) writes that the Kinyan of Chazakah is not applicable for Kidushin because the body of the wife is not acquired by her husband. We learn from the Ramban that Kidushin does not mean a physical ownership.
2) The Rashba (Kidushin 6b, DH Iy Neima) writes that the wife's body is not actually owned by the husband. The Teshuvas Avnei Milu'im (#21, DH u'Mah) writes that this is because Kidushin does not mean buying an object but rather that she thereby becomes forbidden to the rest of the world.
3) This is commonly termed a "Kinyan Ishus." The husband is the sole "owner" in the world of any permission to have Bi'ah with his wife. (Not only would governments accept this concept, but it may very well be the source for the government enforcement of monogamy in the first place.)
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom
Thank you. However, this is somewhat of a technical distinction, and we know he cannot sell his wife like he can a slave.
But ultimately the wife has no way of being released from the marriage without a get, just as a slave cannot be released without a get, or possibly based on a "ta'us" which are difficult for a wife to get proven.
She remains in a type of subordinate legal position in relation to the husband in marriage. It is not a contractual partnership or a pilegesh situation, which both save a woman from the risk of being an agunah, mamzerim, etc. In 2016 that could probably make a huge difference to many women.
I would have thought that due to the two institutions of Rabbeinu Gershom Me'or ha'Golah -- (1) the Cherem on divorcing a woman against her will, and (2) the Cherem against having more than one wife -- that this in effect makes the husband and wife fairly equal in marriage.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom