Alleyways To Torah

off the top of my head I would suggest that before matan-Torah the requirements for marriage were not the sae. Maybe then the only intent needed was for marriage and that they had, despite the fact that it was the wrong person

Rafi G is very serious and obviously single. Otherwise he would know that in every marriage there is a mekach taus. I mean, which one of us would have agreed to get married if we knew we had to pick up our socks every morning. :)

see the rambam beginning of hilchos ishus.

( Rav Ally - In the case of "Makach Taus" post siniatic revelation would the Chasson be obligated to give the (wrong) Kallah a "get?" or would the marriage be considered null and void?)

I think perhaps rafi g is correct. Before Matan Torah the Avots were not bound by Halacha.

Yakov also seemed to violate the halacha of not marrying two sisters at the same time when he married Leah and Rachel. Marrying two sisters at the same time is regarded as one of the twenty illicit sexual relations.

If you want to say that this was outside of eretz yisroel so it wasn't strictly against Halacha the majority of poskim hold that Mitzvah's applly outside of the Land of Israel just as it applies within. (and if it doesn't apply outside of eretz yisroel one is still obligated to follow halacha outside eretz yisroel for practice)

The Rama believes that the verse expounded in the Talmud means to demonstrate that Avraham followed the entire Torah and not necessarily his descendants, so Yaakov clearly did not keep the entire Torah nor did yitchak.

This is also problematic, because we see from other psukim that suggest that Yitchak and Yakov did in fact follow the torah.

Reb Chaim Volzhiner says in regard to the marrying of the two sisters that they relied on the fact that there hadn't taken place the siniatic revelation and that technically there status vis'avi Halacha was technically the status of a Noachide.

A Noachide is allowed to perform marriages which are otherwise forbidden for a jew post Siniatic Revelation.

So I think the same thing applies here. It was a "mekech Taus" but only after the siniatic revelation is that a problem - before the revelation - the Avos had the status of a noachide and were not bound by Halacha (mekach Taus) as we know it today.

IF a kinyan is a mekach taus can the buyer be mochel on it and still accept or is it by definition null and void? If its not by definition null and void then maybe yaackov was mochel on the taus.

IF a kinyan is a mekach taus can the buyer be mochel on it and still accept or is it by definition null and void? If its not by definition null and void then maybe yaackov was mochel on the taus.

IF a kinyan is a mekach taus can the buyer be mochel on it and still accept or is it by definition null and void? If its not by definition null and void then maybe yaackov was mochel on the taus.

although i think that the pre-sinai answer is most likely the right answer, an alternative approach popped into my mind:

along a similar vein to being mochel or m'vater, once yaakov became aware of the fact, b'dieved, he must have had in mind the next time he was intimate with his wife that it should be l'shem kedushin.