Kiddushin

we [certainly] do not say: ‘Perhaps the son consented.’1 But perhaps, urged the Rabbis to Rabina, he [the son] had appointed him [the father] his agent? — A man is not so insolent as to appoint his father an agent. But perhaps he [the son] had shewn a desire for her in his presence?2 Said Rabbah b. Simi to them: The Master [Rabina] has [once] distinctly stated that he does not accept this view of Rab and Samuel.3 A certain man betrothed [a minor] with a bunch of vegetables in a market place.4 Said Rabina. Even on the view that we fear lest her father consented, that is only [when it is done] in an honourable manner, but not contemptuously. R. Aba of Difti asked Rabina: What displayed contempt? the vegetables, or [the fact that it was done in] a market-place?5 The practical difference arises if he betroths her with money in the market place, or with a bunch of vegetables at home. What then? — Both, he replied, are contemptuous.6 A certain man insisted, ‘[Our daughter must be married] to my relation;’ whereas she [his wife] maintained, ‘To my relation.’ She nagged him until he told her that she could be [married] to her relation. Whilst they were eating and drinking,7 his relation went up to a loft and betrothed her. Said Abaye: It is written: The remnant of Israel shall not do iniquity, nor speak lies.8 Raba said: It is a presumption that one does not trouble to prepare a banquet and then destroy it.9 Wherein do they differ? — They differ in the case where he did not trouble.10 If she [a minor] became betrothed with her father's consent, and her father departed overseas, and she arose and married11 Raba said: She may eat terumah12 until her father comes and protests [against the nissu'in].13 R. Assi said: She may not eat, lest her father return and protest, and so a zarah14 will retrospectively be found to have eaten terumah. Such a case occurred, and Rab paid regard to15 R. Assi's opinion. R. Samuel b. Isaac said: Yet Rab admits that if she dies he [her husband] is her heir,16 [because] the ownership of money is vested in its possessor.17 If she became betrothed with [her father's] knowledge and married without his knowledge, and her father is present,18 — R. Huna said: She may not eat [terumah]; R. Jeremiah b. Abba said: She may eat. ‘R. Huna said: she may not eat’: even on Rab's view that she may eat [in the first case], that is only there, since the father is absent;19 but here, that the father is present, the reason he is silent is that he is angry.20 ‘R. Jeremiah b. Abba said: She may eat’: even according to R. Assi, who ruled that she may not eat: it is only there, for her father might return and protest; but here, since he is silent, [it shows that] he does consent. If she became betrothed and married without her father's knowledge, and her father is present, — R. Huna said: She may eat [terumah]: R. Jeremiah b. Abba said: She may not eat. Said ‘Ulla: This [ruling] of R. Huna is ‘as vinegar to the teeth, and as smoke to the eyes’:21 if there, that her kiddushin was Biblically valid,22 you say that she may not eat, how much more so here! man takes more care. One has no rights over his son's marriage, unless he is authorised. without the latter's knowledge. previous intimation. This is the true reason of Rabina's ruling. His statement, ‘even on the view, etc.,’ was merely to give it wider acceptance. used in the text, connotes both contemptuous and undignified). Now, to what would the father really take exception? had certainly not instructed his daughter secretly beforehand to accept the kiddushin.) take his consent to the huppah for granted, since he consented to the kiddushin, unless he returns and objects. not know whether he will give the huppah his retrospective consent, it remains so.