פירוש על קידושין 10:2

"I could include huppah which purchases elsewhere and purchases here. But couldn't the common denominator [of contract, sex, money] be that it's against her will [which would exclude huppah, which must be with her consent]!?" Even though he hands over his minor daughter to the huppah without her consent, since he stands in place of his daughter, it is not considered to be without her consent [his consent stands in place of her consent]. Problem: But will can still find a huppah which is against her will! Designation [of a Hebrew slavegirl to marry the master or his son] is separate from marriage, so it will turn out that after designation the master enters her to the huppah without the father's consent! Solution: Even though the designation can be done without the father's consent, the huppah needs to be done with his consent.

The Talmud now tries to take money and intercourse together and use them both as a kal vehomer to prove that huppah can acquire in betrothal. Money and intercourse are both means to acquire “elsewhere” (in purchases or in the case of the yevamah) and in betrothal. Huppah acquires “elsewhere” (in marriage) and therefore should also acquire here, as a means of betrothal.