Reference for Yevamot 219:5

ומי אמר רב כי בעל אין אי לא בעל לא והא ההיא עובדא דהוה בנרש ואיקדישה כשהיא קטנה וגדלה ואותביה אבי כורסייא ואתא אחרינא וחטפה מיניה ורב ברונא ורב חננאל תלמידי דרב הוו התם ולא הצריכוה גיטא מבתרא

but in the former<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. supra p. 765, n. 13. ');">¹⁸</span> he agrees with Rab.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cur. edd. read, 'For if that had been stated, (it might have been assumed that) in that case only did Rab maintain his view, because there existed a condition and as soon as (the man) cohabited with her he dispensed with his condition; but in this case it might have been assumed that he agrees with Samuel; and if this had been stated (it might have been assumed that) in this case only did Samuel maintain his view; but in that, it might have been said, he agrees with Rab'. [Rashi rejects this reading in view of the passage in Keth. 72a which states distinctly that Rab's ruling was not because he held that the man dispenses with the condition on intercourse, but because he renews betrothal at the time to avoid intercourse degenerating into mere fornication. Tosaf. s.v. [H] retains the reading of cur. edd., and explains that it is because no man would render his intercourse mere fornication that we assume that he dispensed with the condition, since he made no mention of the condition at the time. Had he, however, repeated the condition at intercourse, the condition would stand]. ');">¹⁹</span> [Hence both were] required. Did Rab, however, state that only where [the husband] cohabited with her<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The minor who has attained majority. ');">²⁰</span> does she require a letter of divorce<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'yes'. ');">²¹</span>

Jastrow