Talmud - Kiddushin 46a קידושין מ״ו א׳

Rather, the statement of the student seems reasonable. Although Rav Yirmeya bar Abba was like a student compared with Rav Huna, his opinion makes more sense. Rava said: What is the reason of Rav Huna? Since an action was done with her that renders her like an orphan in the lifetime of her father, she is considered married and may partake of teruma. The fact that her father ignored both her betrothal and her marriage indicates that he has waived his rights to control whom she marries. She is therefore considered like an orphan, whose marriage is valid with her own consent.

§ It was stated that amora’im disputed the following issue: In the case of a minor girl who became betrothed without her father’s consent, Rav says: Either she or her father is able to prevent the betrothal from taking effect. And Rav Asi says: Her father can prevent it but not she, since she initially agreed. Rav Huna raised an objection to Rav Asi, and some say it was Ḥiyya bar Rav who raised an objection to Rav Asi: The baraita states in the case of a seduced woman: “If her father refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins” (Exodus 22:16). The Sages expounded: I have derived only the halakha that her father can refuse to give her to the seducer in marriage; from where do I derive that she herself can also refuse? The verse states: “If he refuses [ma’en yema’en].” The repetition of the verb indicates that the right of refusal exists in any case. Despite the fact that she was seduced, she can change her mind and say that she does not want to marry him.

Rav said to those who tried to offer support for his opinion: Do not go after the opposite, i.e., do not cite a proof from a source that could be understood in the opposite manner. Rav Asi can answer your argument by claiming that the baraita is referring to a case where he initially seduced her not for the sake of marriage. Their initial act of intercourse was not performed in order to effect betrothal, so they are not betrothed. The Gemara questions this: In the case of a seduction that is not for the sake of marriage, is a verse required to teach that she can refuse to marry him? Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: It serves to say that if she refuses to marry him despite her father’s consent to the match, the seducer nevertheless pays the fine like a standard case of a seduced woman. The obligation to pay the fine is not only for a case where her father refuses to let her marry the seducer.

Rav Yosef said to him: If so, if the baraita is discussing a case where intercourse was not performed to effect betrothal, this is what we learned in a baraita with regard to a seduced woman: “He shall pay a dowry for her to be his wife” (Exodus 22:15). This teaches that she requires betrothal from him. And if the verse is speaking of one who seduced her for the sake of marriage, why do I need betrothal? The act of intercourse can serve as the betrothal. Rather, the baraita must be referring to a case where he seduced her not for the sake of marriage. Abaye said to him: Even if he seduced her for the sake of marriage, she requires an additional betrothal with her father’s consent, since she is a minor and became betrothed without it.

MISHNA: In the case of one who says to a woman: Be betrothed to me with this date, and adds: Be betrothed to me with that one, then if one of the dates is worth one peruta she is betrothed, but if not, she is not betrothed, since he mentioned betrothal in connection with each date. But if he said: Be betrothed to me with this one, and with this one, and with this one, then even if all of them together are worth one peruta she is betrothed, but if not, she is not betrothed. If he gave her dates with the intention of betrothing her with them, and she was eating them one by one as she received them, she is not betrothed unless one of them is worth one peruta.

GEMARA: Who is the tanna who taught that it is only if he says: Be betrothed to me, be betrothed to me, in connection with each date that each act of betrothal is considered distinct? Rabba says: It is the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who said in the context of the laws of deposit oaths: He is never liable to bring more than one offering unless he will state an expression of an oath to each and every one.

The mishna teaches: If one said: With this one, and with this one, and with this one, she is betrothed even if all of them together are worth one peruta. The mishna subsequently states that if she was eating the dates one by one, she is betrothed only if one of them is worth one peruta. The Gemara asks: To which clause of the mishna is the case of the woman eating the dates one by one referring? If we say it is referring to the first clause of the mishna, when he betrothed her separately with each date, why would the mishna specifically state that she ate them? Even if she placed them down without eating them the same halakha would also apply, as he said: Be betrothed to me with this date, so each date must be worth one peruta. Rather, it must be referring to the latter clause, when he said that he is betrothing her with all the dates. In such a situation, if she ate them one by one, she is betrothed only if one of them is worth one peruta.

The Gemara proceeds to ask: And is she betrothed even if the first date is worth one peruta? But until he has given her all the dates for the betrothal, each individual date is considered to be a loan, because if he were to retract his betrothal before giving her all of the dates she would have to return them to him, and one cannot betroth a woman by giving her a loan. By the time he finishes giving her the dates, the first one has already been eaten, so it is not able to effect the betrothal. With regard to this difficulty Rabbi Yoḥanan says: There is a table, and there is meat, and there is a knife, and we have nothing to eat. In other words, everything in the mishna is explicit yet we cannot explain it.

Rav and Shmuel both said: Actually, the case of the woman eating the dates one by one is referring to the first clause of the mishna, where one betrothed the woman with each date separately, and it is speaking utilizing the style of: It is not necessary. The mishna stated, for stylistic reasons, a halakha that it did not need to state, and should be understood as follows: It is not necessary to state the halakha in the case of a woman who placed the dates down, that if one of them is worth one peruta, yes, she is betrothed, and if not, she is not betrothed. But in a case where she was eating them, one might think that since her benefit is immediate, say that she has decided to transfer herself to him by means of that date, although it is worth less than one peruta. The mishna therefore teaches us that she is nevertheless not betrothed.

Rabbi Ami said a different explanation: Actually, the case of the woman eating the dates one by one is referring to the latter clause of the mishna, where he betrothed her by giving her all of the dates. And what is the meaning of: Unless one of them is worth one peruta? It means: Unless the last of them is worth one peruta. But if one of the other dates is worth one peruta she is not betrothed, since they are considered a loan until all the dates have been given.

Rava says: Conclude three conclusions from this statement of Rabbi Ami: Conclude from it that in the case of one who betroths a woman with a loan, she is not betrothed, since she is not betrothed with a date that she has already eaten. And conclude from it that in the case of one who betroths a woman by forgiving a loan and giving her one peruta, her mind is focused on the peruta although the debt is far larger, and she will be betrothed. In the latter case, although the value of the dates she ate was more than the value of the last date, which was merely worth one peruta, she is nevertheless betrothed.

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

Kidushin 46a discusses a minor girl's betrothal without paternal consent and whether she or her father can annul it, weighing rabbinic disputes on refusal rights.