R. Aba bar Kahana/ R. Yaakov bar Idi citing citing R. Yehoshua ben Levi: There was a case of a girl who accepted Kidushin and performed nisuin without her father's consent and her father came and uprooted the marriage (in accordance with R. Yochanan).

Question: If she received Kidushin with her father's consent but performed nisuin without it, can she eat Terumah (if she married a Kohen)?

Answer: Rav said that she can eat. Shmuel said that she cannot eat.

Explanation #1 (R. Mana): Rav's reasoning is that since her father consented to the Kidushin, we can assume that he consented to the nisuin.

Explanation #2 (R. Yosi bei R. Bun): Rav's reasoning is that the law was originally that a betrothed girl may eat Terumah.

Question: What is the practical difference between the two explanations?

Answer: Her earnings. According to #1, her husband gets them; according to #2, her father gets them (since we are discussing earnings, not Terumah).

Question: If she dies, who inherits her? According to #1, her husband inherits her; according to #2, her father inherits her.

R. Yosi bei R. Bun follows the opinion of Rav that if she dies, her husband inherits her.

Question: If she accepted kidushin without her father's consent and then performed nisuin without his consent, can she eat Terumah?

Answer (Shmuel): She can eat.

Question: If he had consented to the kidushin but not to the nisuin, Shmuel said that she cannot eat; here would he say that she can eat?

Answer: She is treated as an orphan girl during her father's life. (If her father watched her accept kidushin and nisuin and did not protest, it signifies that he waived his right to control her.)