## Kiddushin Daf 45b

###### Kiddushin 45b:1
[Kiddushin 45b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/45b:1)

שֶׁמָּא נִתְרַצָּה הַבֵּן לָא אָמְרִינַן. אָמְרִי לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן לְרָבִינָא: וְדִילְמָא שָׁלִיחַ שַׁוְּיֵהּ? לָא חֲצִיף אִינִישׁ לְשַׁוּוֹיֵי לַאֲבוּהּ שָׁלִיחַ. וְדִילְמָא אַרְצוֹיֵי אַרְצְיַיהּ קַמֵּיהּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבָּה בַּר שִׁימִי: בְּפֵירוּשׁ אָמַר מָר דְּלָא סָבַר לְהָא דְּרַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Kiddushin 45b:2
[Kiddushin 45b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/45b:2)

הָהוּא גַּבְרָא דְּקַדֵּישׁ בְּכִישָׁא דְיַרְקָא בְּשׁוּקָא. אֲמַר רָבִינָא: אֲפִילּוּ לְמַאן דְּאָמַר חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא נִתְרַצָּה הָאָב – הָנֵי מִילֵּי דֶּרֶךְ כָּבוֹד, אֲבָל דֶּרֶךְ בִּזָּיוֹן – לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Kiddushin 45b:3
[Kiddushin 45b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/45b:3)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא מִדִּיפְתִּי לְרָבִינָא: בִּזָּיוֹן דְּמַאי? אִי בִּזָּיוֹן דְּיַרְקָא, אִי בִּזָּיוֹן דְּשׁוּקָא? נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ דְּקַדֵּישׁ בְּכַסְפָּא בְּשׁוּקָא, אוֹ בְּכִישָׁא דְיַרְקָא בְּבֵיתָא, מַאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי דֶּרֶךְ בִּזָּיוֹן הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Kiddushin 45b:4
[Kiddushin 45b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/45b:4)

הַהוּא דְּאָמַר לְקָרִיבַאי, וְהִיא אָמְרָה לְקָרִיבַהּ. כְּפַתֵּיהּ עַד דַּאֲמַר לַהּ: ״תֶּיהְוֵי לְקָרִיבַהּ״. אַדְּאָכְלִי וְשָׁתוּ אֲתָא קָרִיבֵיהּ בְּאִיגָּרָא וְקַדְּשַׁהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Kiddushin 45b:5
[Kiddushin 45b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/45b:5)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: כְּתִיב ״שְׁאֵרִית יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא יַעֲשׂוּ עַוְלָה וְלֹא יְדַבְּרוּ כָזָב״. רָבָא אָמַר: חֲזָקָה אֵין אָדָם טוֹרֵחַ בִּסְעוּדָה וּמַפְסִידָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Kiddushin 45b:6
[Kiddushin 45b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/45b:6)

מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ דְּלָא טְרַח.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Kiddushin 45b:7
[Kiddushin 45b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/45b:7)

נִתְקַדְּשָׁה לְדַעַת אָבִיהָ, וְהָלַךְ אָבִיהָ לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם וְעָמְדָה וְנִישֵּׂאת, אָמַר רַב: אוֹכֶלֶת בִּתְרוּמָה עַד שֶׁיָּבֹא אָבִיהָ וִימַחֶה. רַב אַסִּי אָמַר: אֵינָהּ אוֹכֶלֶת, שֶׁמָּא יָבוֹא אָבִיהָ וִימַחֶה, וְנִמְצֵאת זָרָה אוֹכֶלֶת בִּתְרוּמָה לְמַפְרֵעַ. הֲוָה עוֹבָדָא וְחַשׁ לַהּ רַב לְהָא דְּרַב אַסִּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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*.


###### Kiddushin 45b:8
[Kiddushin 45b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/45b:8)

אָמַר רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק: וּמוֹדֶה רַב שֶׁאִם מֵתָה – אֵינוֹ יוֹרְשָׁהּ. אוֹקִי מָמוֹנָא בְּחֶזְקַת מָרֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Kiddushin 45b:9
[Kiddushin 45b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/45b:9)

נִתְקַדְּשָׁה לְדַעַת וְנִיסֵּת שֶׁלֹּא לְדַעַת, וְאָבִיהָ כָּאן, רַב הוּנָא אָמַר: אֵינָהּ אוֹכֶלֶת. רַב יִרְמְיָה בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר: אוֹכֶלֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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*.


###### Kiddushin 45b:10
[Kiddushin 45b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/45b:10)

רַב הוּנָא אָמַר: אֵינָהּ אוֹכֶלֶת. וַאֲפִילּוּ לְרַב, דְּאָמַר אוֹכֶלֶת – הָתָם הוּא דְּלָא אִיתֵיהּ לְאָב, אֲבָל הָכָא דְּאִיתֵיהּ לְאָב, הַאי דְּאִישְׁתִּיק – מִירְתָּח רָתַח. רַב יִרְמְיָה בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר: אוֹכֶלֶת. וַאֲפִילּוּ לְרַב אַסִּי דְּאָמַר אֵינָהּ אוֹכֶלֶת, הָתָם הוּא דְּשֶׁמָּא יָבוֹא אָבִיהָ וִימַחֶה, אֲבָל הָכָא מִדִּשְׁתֵיק – אִיתְנוֹחֵי אִיתְנְחָא לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Kiddushin 45b:11
[Kiddushin 45b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/45b:11)

נִתְקַדְּשָׁה שֶׁלֹּא לְדַעַת אָבִיהָ, וְנִיסֵּת שֶׁלֹּא לְדַעַת, וְאָבִיהָ כָּאן, רַב הוּנָא אָמַר: אוֹכֶלֶת, רַב יִרְמְיָה בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר: אֵינָהּ אוֹכֶלֶת. אָמַר עוּלָּא: הָא דְּרַב הוּנָא ״כַּחֹמֶץ לַשִּׁנַּיִם וְכֶעָשָׁן לָעֵינָיִם״. הַשְׁתָּא וּמָה הָתָם דְּקִידּוּשֵׁי דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא אָמְרַתְּ לָא אָכְלָה, הָכָא לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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*?