This might sound a bit silly, but "that's the Torah and I need to learn it" (R"A).

  1. A woman can be Mekudeshet in three ways which Halachah-wise are all equal (neither makes a better Kiddushin).

  2. A messenger can do the work on behalf of the sender either by money or a bill, but not ביאה (Kesubos 74a).

  3. We also hold that there does not have to be proof of the מעשה, only ראוי למעשה, so the witnesses only see them entering and exiting (and zipping up). So theoretically we could allow the messenger to seclude with the bride on behalf of the groom without doing the מעשה.

To remind that that ביאה is for Kiddushin only and is different from the second ביאה for Nissuim.

I need a source that speaks explicitly about why not the last. Thank you.

  • 1
    עיין תוספות רי"ד מצוות שבגופו כמו תפילין – kouty Nov 19 '18 at 16:37
  • 1
    For a Brisker take on the question: etzion.org.il/he/קידושי-ביאה – Joel K Nov 19 '18 at 16:39
  • 6
    Wouldnt the biah make her mekudashes and at the same time make her in to an adulterer, since she is now considered married to the meshaleach,so it's somthing which cant be allowed – sam Nov 19 '18 at 17:47
  • 1
    @chortkov For a) wouldn’t it be a case of קידושין שאינן נמסרו לביאה? – Joel K Nov 19 '18 at 18:43
  • 1
    3 is totally false – Double AA Nov 21 '18 at 13:01

R' Elchonon Wasserman in Kovetz Shiurim (Kesuvos 74a) brings this question from R' Akiva Eiger, and explains how the Kiddushin of Biah is fundamentally different from Kessef and Shtar, and why that has ramifications with Shlichus and Tnai.

Others (source to follow in edit, bli neder) explain that Kiddushei Biah is not just an arbitrary maaseh kinyan (like Kessef and Shtar would be); it's power lies in that fact that it is a haschalas ishus, which would only be if the husband (the Mekadesh) would perform the action. The Biah of the Shliach is not just performed by the wrong person, but is the wrong action.

  • R' Akiva Eiger's question would invalidate the second answer - he has a way of the Shliach performing the Kiddushin with the Biah of the Mekadesh. – chortkov2 Nov 19 '18 at 18:13
  • I haven't seen the sources inside for about six years, so please correct me if I misquoted. – chortkov2 Nov 19 '18 at 18:13
  • 1. THe first paragraph must be explained I think, not only referenced. 2. It is a common problem with "inventing" new, undefined terms to draw a distinction between other terms which makes it a Pandora box. The "haschalas ishus" term is not defined a-priori and therefore can not be used to explain other phenomena. Where does the Gemmorah in the forst Perek f Kiddushin speack of such a difference between Biah and Kesef? Both are mere Kinyonim. To remind you, that the First Biah only makes Kiddushin and for Nissuin one has to do it again. – Al Berko Nov 21 '18 at 10:09
  • The questioner asked for a source, not an explanation. When I have a moment to check it up again, I'll try place add an explanation. (The rough idea is that one is a chalos hatorah and the other is chalos ha'adam (terminology of pre-war Achronim - See Kovetz Haaros §74) – chortkov2 Nov 21 '18 at 11:54
  • The Kovetz Shiurim I referenced in the answer is Kesuvos 254, and the Kovetz Haaros is 76, not 74. – chortkov2 Nov 21 '18 at 20:23

You must log in to answer this question.

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