שמא נתרצה הבן לא אמרינן אמרי ליה רבנן לרבינא ודילמא שליח שויה לא חציף איניש לשויי לאבוה שליח ודילמא ארצויי ארצייה קמיה אמר ליה רבה בר שימי בפירוש אמר מר דלא סבר להא דרב ושמואל

and we do not say that perhaps the son desired the betrothal. The Sages said to Ravina: But perhaps the son appointed his father as an agent to betroth her, and the betrothal should take effect. He replied: A person is not so brazen as to appoint his father as his agent and thereby treat him as an assistant of sorts. They further inquired: But perhaps the son made his desire known to his father by speaking of his desire to marry the woman, and the father acted of his own accord upon his son’s wishes and betrothed her to him. Rabba bar Shimi said to Ravina: This is not a concern, since the Master, i.e., Ravina, explicitly said that he does not agree with this opinion of Rav and Shmuel that when a minor girl accepts betrothal there is a concern that perhaps the father desired it. So too, there is no concern that a father can act for the son without his awareness.

ההוא גברא דקדיש בכישא דירקא בשוקא אמר רבינא אפילו למאן דאמר חוששין שמא נתרצה האב הני מילי דרך כבוד אבל דרך בזיון לא

The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who betrothed a minor girl without her father’s consent with a bundle of vegetables in the marketplace. Ravina says: Even according to the one who says that when a minor becomes betrothed without her father’s consent we are concerned that perhaps the father desired the betrothal, this matter applies only if the man betrothed her in a dignified manner. But as the betrothal in this case was done in a degrading manner, there is no concern.

א"ל רב אחא מדיפתי לרבינא בזיון דמאי אי בזיון דירקא אי בזיון דשוקא נפקא מינה דקדיש בכספא בשוקא או בכישא דירקא בביתא מאי א"ל אידי ואידי דרך בזיון הוא

Rav Aḥa of Difti said to Ravina: What was the degradation in this manner of betrothal? Was the degradation from the fact that he used vegetables, or was the degradation due to the betrothal having been performed in the marketplace? The practical difference concerns cases where one betrothed a minor girl with money in the marketplace, or where one betrothed a minor girl with a bundle of vegetables in a house. What is the halakha? Ravina said to him: Both this and that, i.e., each of them is considered a degrading manner.

ההוא דאמר לקריבאי והיא אמרה לקריבה כפתיה עד דאמר לה תיהוי לקריבה אדאכלי ושתי אתא קריביה באיגרא וקדשה

The Gemara further relates: A couple wanted to marry off their minor daughter. That one, the father, said: I want to marry her off to my relative, while she, the mother, said she wanted to marry the daughter off to her relative. His wife pressured him and forced him until he said to her: Let the girl be married to her, i.e., the mother’s, relative. While they were eating and drinking the festive meal before the betrothal, his relative came to the roof and betrothed her to himself.

אמר אביי כתיב (צפניה ג, יג) שארית ישראל לא יעשו עולה ולא ידברו כזב רבא אמר חזקה אין אדם טורח בסעודה ומפסידה

The Gemara assumes that the father did not desire this betrothal. Why? Abaye said: It is written: “The remnant of Israel shall not do iniquity, nor speak lies” (Zephaniah 3:13). The father had agreed that she would marry his wife’s relative, and he would stand by his word. Since the betrothal of his minor daughter is dependent on his desire, there is no concern that the father desired his relative’s betrothal. Rava said a different reason: There is a presumption that a person does not take the trouble of preparing a meal and then cause it to be lost. Since he prepared a festive meal in honor of his daughter’s betrothal to his wife’s relative, he would not desire a betrothal that would render his efforts for naught.

מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו דלא טרח

The Gemara asks: What is the difference between these two explanations? The Gemara answers: The difference between them concerns a case where he did not take the trouble of preparing a meal. According to Rava, since he had not gone to any effort, there should be concern that the betrothal is valid. Abaye would hold that since he would not go back on his word, they are not betrothed.

נתקדשה לדעת אביה והלך אביה למדינת הים ועמדה ונישאת אמר רב אוכלת בתרומה עד שיבא אביה וימחה רב אסי אמר אינה אוכלת שמא יבוא אביה וימחה ונמצאת זרה אוכלת בתרומה למפרע הוה עובדא וחש לה רב להא דרב אסי

§ If a minor became betrothed with her father’s consent, and her father left for overseas, and she went ahead and got married of her own accord in her father’s absence, Rav says: If she is an Israelite who married a priest, she may partake of teruma until her father comes and protests, explicitly stating that he does not agree to the marriage. Rav Asi said: She may not partake of teruma. Perhaps her father will come and protest, and it will be found retroactively that a non-priest has partaken of teruma. The Gemara relates: There was an incident of this kind, and Rav was concerned for this opinion of Rav Asi and did not allow a girl in this situation to partake of teruma.

אמר רב שמואל בר רב יצחק ומודה רב שאם מתה אינו יורשה אוקי ממונא בחזקת מריה

Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak says: And Rav concedes that if the minor girl dies, the husband does not inherit from her, because of the principle: Establish money in the possession of its owner. Since the validity of her marriage is a matter of uncertainty, as the father might protest it, the money remains with her previous inheritors.

נתקדשה לדעת וניסת שלא לדעת ואביה כאן רב הונא אמר אינה אוכלת רב ירמיה בר אבא אמר אוכלת

The Gemara cites another dispute between the Sages: If a minor became betrothed with her father’s consent, and she married without his consent, and her father is here, i.e., present, Rav Huna said: She may not partake of teruma. Rav Yirmeya bar Abba said: She may partake of teruma.

רב הונא אמר אינה אוכלת ואפי' לרב דאמר אוכלת התם הוא דלא איתיה לאב אבל הכא דאיתיה לאב האי דאישתיק מירתח רתח רב ירמיה בר אבא אמר אוכלת ואפי' לרב אסי דאמר אינה אוכלת התם הוא דשמא יבוא אביה וימחה אבל הכא מדשתיק איתנוחי איתנחא ליה

The Gemara explains the two opinions: Rav Huna said she may not partake of teruma, and even according to Rav, who said that if her father is overseas she may partake of teruma, this is so only there, in the case where the father is not present. But here, where the father is present, he does not consent to the marriage; the reason that he was silent in this situation and refrained from protesting is that he was so angry that he did not wish even to speak to her. Conversely, Rav Yirmeya bar Abba said: She may partake of teruma, and even according to Rav Asi, who said that she may not partake of teruma, it is there that there is a concern that perhaps her father will come and protest. But here, from the fact that he was silent the assumption is that he is comfortable with the marriage.

נתקדשה שלא לדעת אביה וניסת שלא לדעת ואביה כאן רב הונא אמר אוכלת רב ירמיה בר אבא אמר אינה אוכלת אמר עולא הא דרב הונא (משלי י, כו) כחומץ לשנים וכעשן לעינים השתא ומה התם דקידושי דאורייתא אמרת לא אכלה הכא לא כל שכן

The Gemara cites another case: If a minor became betrothed without the consent of her father, and married without his consent, and her father is here, Rav Huna said: She may partake of teruma. Rav Yirmeya bar Abba said: She may not partake of teruma. Ulla said: This opinion of Rav Huna, that in this case she may partake of teruma, is irritating “as vinegar to the teeth, and as smoke to the eyes” (Proverbs 10:26), as it contradicts his earlier ruling. Now consider: And what about there, i.e., in a case where her betrothal was with her father’s consent, when there is at least betrothal by Torah law, you said she may not partake of teruma in case he did not consent to the marriage. Is it not all the more so the case that here, i.e., where even the betrothal was performed without her father’s consent, she should not be permitted to partake of teruma?