(Rav): If a minor became Mekudeshes without her father's knowledge, she can veto the Kidushin (herself), and also her father can.

(Rav Asi): Her father can veto the Kidushin (himself), but she cannot.

Question (Rav Huna - Beraisa): "Refuse, if her father will refuse (that his daughter marry the man who seduced her to have Bi'ah)" - the extra word "refuse" teaches that also she can refuse.

Answer (#1 - Rav, on behalf of Rav Asi): Perhaps this refers to when the seducer did not intend to be Mekadesh her through Bi'ah.

Question: If so, why must a verse teach that they can refuse that she be Mekudeshes?

Version #1 (Rashi) Answer (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): It teaches that a seducer pays the fine even when she vetoes the Kidushin.

Support (Rav Yosef - Beraisa): "He will (give to her a Kesuvah) and make her his wife" - he must be Mekadesh her.

If he seduced her to have Bi'ah l'Shem Kidushin, why must he Mekadesh her again?

Rejection (Abaye): He must be Mekadesh her with the father's consent.

Version #2 (Tosfos) Answer #2 (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): Rather, he intended to be Mekadesh her through Bi'ah;

The verse teaches that a seducer pays the fine even when she protests the Kidushin (but only the father can nullify the Kidushin).

Question (Rav Yosef - Beraisa): "He will (give to her a Kesuvah) and make her his wife" - he must be Mekadesh her.

If he seduced her to have Bi'ah l'Shem Kidushin, why must he Mekadesh her again?

Answer (Abaye): He must be Mekadesh her with the father's consent.

(Mishnah): If one told a woman 'be Mekudeshes to me with this date, be Mekudeshes to me with this (another) date...', she is Mekudeshes only if one of them is worth a Perutah.

If he said 'be Mekudeshes to me with this and this and this', she is Mekudeshes only if altogether they are worth a Perutah;

If she was eating them while he gave them to her, she is Mekudeshes only if one is worth a Perutah.

(Gemara) Question: Each time, he says 'be Mekudeshes.' (If he did not, all the dates would join to a Perutah.) Like whom is this?

Answer (Rabah): It is like R. Shimon, who says that 'Shevu'ah, I do not owe to you, and not to you and not to you' is considered like one oath, unless he said 'Shevu'ah' to each person.

(Mishnah): If she was eating them while he gave them to her, she is Mekudeshes only if one is worth a Perutah.

Question: To which case does this refer?

Suggestion: It refers to the Reisha ('be Mekudeshes to me with this, be Mekudeshes to me with this...').

Rejection: If so, why does it say that she was eating them? Even if she was storing them up, she is Mekudeshes only if one is worth a Perutah, for each date was a separate Kidushin!

Answer #1: It refers to the Seifa ('with this and this and this').

Question: She is not Mekudeshes if the first date is worth a Perutah! The first date is like a loan (she ate it before he finished his Kidushin)!

R. Yochanan: We cannot explain the Mishnah.

Answer #2 (Rav and Shmuel): Really, it refers to the Reisha (he said 'be Mekudeshes...' each time.) the Mishnah teaches a bigger Chidush:

If she was storing them up, surely she is Mekudeshes only if one of them is worth a Perutah. If she was eating them, and got immediate benefit, one might have thought that she is Mekadesh herself to him even if no one is worth a Perutah. The Mishnah refutes this. Even in this case, she is Mekudeshes only if one is worth a Perutah.

Defense of Answer #1 (R. Ami): The Mishnah says 'she is Mekudeshes if one is worth a Perutah', i.e. if the last one is worth a Perutah.

(Rava): We derive three laws from R. Ami.

Kidushin through (pardoning) a loan is invalid;

If one was Mekadesh with a loan (the first dates) and also gave a Perutah (the last date), she intends to become Mekudeshes through the Perutah (so the Kidushin is valid);

If Kidushin does not take effect, she must return the Kidushin money. (This is why the first dates are a loan. If she keeps the money, it is not a loan, and all the dates would join for Kidushin!)

(Rav): If a man was Mekadesh his sister, she must return the money.

(Shmuel): The money is a gift.

Rav says that she must return it. A man knows that he cannot be Mekadesh his sister. He gave it for a deposit.

Question: If so, he should have told her that it is a deposit!

Answer: He thought that she would refuse to guard it.

Shmuel says that the money is a gift. A man knows that he cannot be Mekadesh his sister. He gave it for a gift.

Question: If so, he should have told her that it is a gift!

Answer: This would embarrass her.

Question (Ravina - Mishnah): If one separated Chalah from flour (before kneading it), it is not considered Chalah. If (he gave to a Kohen and) the Kohen keeps it, it is considered theft.

According to Shmuel, we should say that one knows that he cannot separate Chalah from flour, so he gave it for a gift!

Answer: Indeed, letter of the law, the Kohen keeps it. Chachamim enacted that he return it, to avoid disaster;

If the Kohen thinks that the flour he received is (truly Chalah, which is) exempt from Chalah, he might add it to a dough made with less than five Reva'im of flour (the amount that obligates separating Chalah). He (mistakenly) thinks that his dough is exempt, and will eat (without separating Chalah, i.e.) Tevel!

Question: We said that people know that one cannot separate Chalah from flour! (The Kohen will not err!)

Answer: People know the law, but not the reason;

He knows that one may not separate Chalah from flour. He assumes that this is for the Kohen's benefit (so the Kohen will receive dough ready to bake). Therefore, if the Kohen agrees, it is Chalah!

Question: We should say that the flour is considered Chalah, but one may not eat it before separating Chalah from it! (We say similarly elsewhere!)

(Mishnah): (If a flowerpot has holes that allow nurturing from the land below, Terumah mid'Oraisa must be separated from what grows in it. If not, Terumah must be separated mid'Rabanan.) If one took Peros from a pot with holes to be Terumah to exempt Peros from a pot without holes, what he separated is considered Terumah, but one may not eat it before separating Terumah and Ma'asros from it.

Answer #1: There, the Peros came from different Kelim, so the Kohen accedes that the Terumah is invalid. He will comply, and separate Terumah on it;

Regarding flour, there are not different Kelim. The Kohen (insists that it is Chalah, and) he will not comply to separate Chalah from it!

Answer #2: Really, the Kohen would comply even regarding flour;

We are concerned lest the Yisrael who gave the flour will think that it was valid Chalah. He will not comply to separate Chalah again after he kneads, and he will eat (his bread, which is) Tevel!

Question: We said that people know that one cannot separate Chalah from flour! (The Kohen will not err!)

Answer: People know the law, but not the reason;

He knows that one may not separate Chalah from flour. He assumes that this is for the Kohen's benefit. Therefore, if the Kohen agrees, it is Chalah!

Question: We should say that the flour is treated like Chalah, but the Yisrael must again take Chalah after kneading!

(Mishnah): A man took Peros from a pot without holes to be Terumah to exempt Peros from a pot with holes, what he separated is Terumah, but he must separate more Terumah (from a pot with holes)!

Answer: We said above that when the Peros came from different Kelim, one accedes that the Terumah was invalid. He will comply, and separate Terumah again. Regarding flour, he will not comply!

Question (Mishnah): If one separated a gourd to be Terumah and found that it is bitter, or he separates a melon and found that it is spoiled, what he took is Terumah, and he must take Terumah again. (He will comply, even without different Kelim!)

Answer: That case is different, for mid'Oraisa, what he separated is Terumah.

(R. Ilai): "You will not bear sin if you take the best part to be Terumah" implies that you will bear sin if you take the worst part;

It follows that if one selects bad Peros to be Terumah, they become Terumah. (If the separation were void, why would he bear sin?!)