Yevamot 113A

מימנעי ולא נסבי לה.

others would refrain from marrying her at all, as she can issue a declaration of refusal indefinitely, whereas in the case of a minor there is a time limit with regard to her option of a refusal.

ומאי שנא קטנה דאכלה בתרומה, ומאי שנא חרשת דלא אכלה בתרומה? דתנן: העיד רבי יוחנן בן גודגדא על החרשת שהשיאה אביה שיוצאה בגט, ועל קטנה בת ישראל שנשאת לכהן שאוכלת בתרומה, ואילו חרשת לא אכלה!

§ The Talmud further asks: What is the difference between a minor girl, that she may partake of teruma when she is married to a priest, and a deaf-mute woman, that she may not partake of teruma when she is married to a priest, despite the fact that both of their marriages apply by rabbinic law? As we learned in a Mishnah (Gittin 55b): R' Yoḥanan ben Gudgada testified with regard to a female deaf-mute whose father married her off, that she can be divorced with a bill of divorce. And he testified with regard to a minor girl, daughter of an non-priest who was married to a priest, that she may partake of teruma, whereas a deaf-mute woman, it may be inferred, may not partake of teruma.

גזירה שמא יאכיל חרש בחרשת. וליכול, קטן אוכל נבלות הוא!

The Talmud answers: The reason that a deaf-mute woman may not partake of teruma, even if she is married to a halakhically competent priest, is due to a rabbinic decree lest a deaf-mute priest likewise feed teruma to his deaf-mute wife. The Talmud asks: And which prohibition would that violate? Let him feed her, as he is equivalent to a minor who eats meat from unslaughtered animals. This is referring to the halakha that there is no obligation to prevent minors from committing transgressions. Since a deaf-mute, who is not legally competent, has the status of a minor, the same reasoning should apply in this case. Consequently, the court should be under no obligation to prevent this deaf-mute woman from eating teruma unlawfully.