There's a parsha of T'nai (stipulation), that applies to various kinyanim, halachic changes in status. The third chapter of Kiddushin has many cases of tenai when it comes to Kiddushin.

I'm wondering if anyone holds its possible to do Nisuin, the final stage of marriage, aka Chuppah, with a tenai. For example, you say you want nisuin to work on condition she doesn't sleep that day. Or on condition she doesn't own a dog. If she does, they're still in the stage of erusin.

The reason I ask is because I found two Achronim that try to prove that T'nai isn't possible by Nisuin. Rabbi Akiva Eiger (Teshuvos Tinyana #106) says because nisuin can't be done through a shliach, and Kesubos 74a teaches you need this prerequisite for tenai to be possible1. Rav Asher Weiss in Minchas Asher Bereishis #27 says tenai is only applicable to kinyanim, and he holds nisuin is a matzav, a situation, not a change in status.

1Rabbi Akiva Eiger acknowledges that Tosafos to Kesubos 48b hold nisuin can be executed through a shliach with regards to annulling her vows and inheritance (although she cannot eat Teruma yet if he is a cohen) , but he rejects that opinion in favor of Rashi, who holds nisuin can't be done through a shliach except with regards to inheriting her, but neither husband or father can annul her vows.

  • 2
    In other words, you’re looking for someone who argues on R’ Akiva Eiger and the Rosh?
    – DonielF
    Jan 11, 2018 at 5:16
  • @DonielF where does the Rosh come in? Jan 11, 2018 at 5:31
  • @רבותמחשבות Sorry, I saw “Rav Asher” and misread as “Rabbeinu Asher.”
    – DonielF
    Jan 11, 2018 at 5:33
  • As it stands, this Q is nonsense, you're mesueses (?) to me on condition you don't sleep today, since that not how we do Nisuin (by talking). Can you please update it with a real-word use case. (E.g. the Me'urasim go into Cheder Yichud on condition??? What would the use case be?) Jan 11, 2018 at 13:15
  • 1
    @DanntSchoemann both parts of your statement are incorrect. I suggest you look at the sugya of tenaim. Biah is a method of kiddushin, which certainly can have a stipulation beforehand. The mi shepora is irrelevant. I give you my tie on condition you don't wear it on Tuesdays, and you do hagbaah, it works.
    – robev
    Jan 11, 2018 at 13:45

4 Answers 4


According to Rabbi Akiva Eiger quoted by the questioner here: it would seem that according to Tosfos, the Rif, Rashba, Shiltei hagibborim, Riaz, and most of the rishonim on Kesubos 48b excluding Rashi and the Tur* would hold that since the full extent of Nissuin can be executed through a Shaliach it is not Mitzva Shebaguf (that only his body can fulfill e.g Tefillin Tzitzis) rather only a Hechsher mitzva (preperation that leads to the ultimate fulfilling of the Mitzva) like Kidushin or Geirushin for which one can make a Tenai (stipulation).

However Rabbi akiva Eiger continues that Biah (relations) for the sake of the marriage is a Mitzva Shebaguf of "onah" marital relations, so there cannot be any stipulation whatsoever from that point onward according to everyone, as he has now accepted her.

*(see maginei Shlomo quoted who argues with Rabbi Akiva Eiger and says all the rishonim agree Min hatorah that there is Shelichus for every matter of Nissuin according to which there can be a stipulation with Nissuin)


I actually had the same question though I took it for granted it works based on the gemara kesubis 72a which says that if somone made a condition on arusin he did not intend for it to go onto nissuin because he doesnt want all his biah to end up bias znus. I wondered simply why we don't do it. Apparently according to this https://www.koltorah.org/halachah/unaccepted-proposals-to-solve-the-aguna-problem-part-iii-by-rabbi-howard-jachter it was a big machlokes between some french rabbis and basically every European rabbi. Read this http://www.hebrewbooks.org/595 for some of the main responses against this nissuin (Im actually reading through it now extremely slowly. I'm terrible at Hebrew). This shaila was brought up again with the lieberman clause https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lieberman_clause used by conservative community and was rejected by many rabbis though most didnt bother listing a reason. Rabbi eliezer berkovitz defended Nissuin al tnai in his sefer T'nai Bi'N'suin u'V'Get (1966) (though i havent found that sefer yet myself though ive seen it listed in several places including here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliezer_Berkovits. He supported the use of Nissuin al tnai and allegedly got into a big fight with Rabbi Moshe Feinstien about it https://haemtza.blogspot.com/2009/02/man-i-knew-dr-eliezer-berkovits.html?m=1 Im trying myself to look more into this subject but this is about all I know currently.

  • 2
    I don't think you understood my question as your whole answer is discussing something else. I'm asking about nisuin al tenai, if it even works. You're discussing why people don't make a tenai on Kiddushin, I think.
    – robev
    May 17, 2018 at 3:36
  • @robev no the discussion(s) I linked to are around the nissuin aspect. While the title is kiddushin it means nissuin. Everyone agrees arusin can be done al tnai. Read the links
    – Orion
    May 17, 2018 at 5:44
  • 1
    Everything you wrote was about Kiddushin. I suggest you remove it and summarize what the links you copied say, because as of now I don't see an answer.
    – robev
    May 17, 2018 at 12:17
  • @robev By kiddushin I mean nissuin. Kiddushin means marriage as in both arusin and nissuin. Ive edited all kiddushins to arusins to avoid confusion. All you have to do is read the links (where all the real information is) and its pretty clear its all about nisuin al tnai. I even mentioned the gemara in the beggining of the answer where it mentioned doing nissuin al tnai. How was it unclear I was talking about nisuin al tnai? I even mentioned the sefer T'nai Bi'N'suin u'V'Get (1966). Seems pretty clear.
    – Orion
    May 17, 2018 at 16:11
  • The gemarra you quote is about a tenai on erusin lasting through nisuin or are you mochel with biah; 100% unrelated to my question. I haven't read that book so I don't know what it's about. So as I said, summarizing the points in the links would show me how you are addressing my question, as I don't have time to read all those websites.
    – robev
    May 17, 2018 at 17:10

Actually yes, Tziunim brings it at the end of Frenkel's Rambam:

enter image description here

בני אהובה is the book by R' Jonathan Eybeschutz (from Google Books, you can download a PDF file):

Here's what he wrote (on Ishus 8, 23):

enter image description here

As he holds this opinion he quotes all the Poskim and sources that support this view.

  • 2
    This doesn't appear to about a tenai on nissuin, rather a tenai on Kiddushin made at the time of biah
    – robev
    Feb 13, 2019 at 18:43
  • @robev You probably misunderstood the whole point. Biah IS the act of Nissuin. So the question is whether that Biah can be made conditional as an act of Nissuin.
    – Al Berko
    Feb 13, 2019 at 19:05
  • 2
    No I don't think I misunderstood
    – robev
    Feb 13, 2019 at 23:52
  • and what do you think - Biah is not connected to Nissuin? So what's the discussion here about the Biah after Kiddushin?
    – Al Berko
    Feb 14, 2019 at 13:32

Here are some of my thoughts on Nisuin and Kiddushin:

Rambam Ishus 1: "קודם מתן תורה היה אדם פוגע אשה בשוק אם רצה הוא והיא לישא אותה מכניסה לתוך ביתו ובועלה בינו לבין עצמו ותהיה לו לאשה.
כיון שנתנה תורה נצטוו ישראל שאם ירצה האיש לישא אשה יקנה אותה תחלה בפני עדים ואח"כ תהיה לו לאשה שנאמר כי יקח איש אשה ובא אליה: "

Why the procedure of marriage before MT is important? And why after MT he "acquires her first" and then what? I understand, that "תחילה" means that after the Kiddushin, things continue to what it was before MT - namely the Nisuin, that are universal to all humans.

In short, the Kiddushin is a framework that surrounds Nissuin (Yihud), which remained unchanged from before MT. Kiddushin is "an acquisition" - a "theoretical" bound, a legal statement, a "state of affairs", Nissuin is a practical physical deed of Yihud. Therefore the Kiddushin can be conditional, but Nissuin can not (same as before MT). Also for Kidushin by Biah an intention is mandatory, but for Nissuin by Biah (like Yevum) it is optional. That means that once the couple secluded before witnesses, it does not help to designate the Yihud for any other purpose (like Znus)1 but Nissuin.

If you're interested in Halakhic discussion, look at Metivta Kiddushin I, at the end there's a very thorough one: enter image description here

and it goes on for 2 pages.

1 If it was possible, for Nissuin to be on condition, and the condition was not met, what would it make to Biah?

  • 1
    You seem to be saying nissuin is "a matzav" so no tnai. The op mentioned that view. He wanted to know if any disagree. I don't see how this answers the question.
    – mevaqesh
    Jan 11, 2018 at 21:06
  • @mevaqesh I explain why stipulation can not be possibly done in Nissuin without referring to Shaliah or else. Nissuin is what gentiles have also and it is a Maase, not an idea like Kiddushin. Maase can not be conditioned.
    – Al Berko
    Jan 11, 2018 at 22:35
  • נכנסה לחופה ולא נבעלה is a method of Nisuin that exists by Jews and not by Non Jews. Who says a condition won't work? Your differentiation between Maaseh and idea is ill defined. Kiddushin is also a Maaseh, which effects a kinyan. Maybe Nisuin is the same, and should have the rules of kinyanim (ie: being subject to tenaim).
    – robev
    Jan 12, 2018 at 0:04
  • @robev Can you differentiate between a Kinyan and usage? Kiddushi is a Kinyan, it is a hypothetical state of affairs. Like being a Jew or a Cohen. Nissuin is a "use" of a woman. Let me give you an example, you can buy a car on condition there'll be no snow in Israel this winter. So you're an owner on condition, because ownership is a theoretical idea, but you can not use the car on condition, you either use it or not. In Nissuin it is called "בעולת בעל". Once you make use of or consume woman you can't reverse it.
    – Al Berko
    Jan 13, 2018 at 16:24
  • I am trying to generalize concepts to make it clear. Unfortunately, I did not see any Posek make a clear definition of those terms - what it is and what it does. No Posek starts his interpretations defining the concepts, that's why it is so hard to understand what everyone has in mind. Rif, Rosh, Rashi, Rambam, Tur, Sho"A - no one defines concepts. THis is why so much of disagreement and disputes.
    – Al Berko
    Jan 13, 2018 at 16:27

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .