Ketubot 145
לא תימא טעמיה דרב כיון שכנסה סתם אחולי אחליה לתנאיה אלא טעמא דרב לפי שאין אדם עושה בעילתו בעילת זנות
Do not say that Rav's reason is that because the man has married her without attaching any conditions, he has forgone those conditions. Rather, Rav's reason is that no man treats his intercourse as a mere act of fornication.
הא פליגי בה חדא זימנא דאתמר קטנה שלא מיאנה והגדילה עמדה ונישאת רב אמר אין צריכה גט משני
Surely they already disputed such a principle. For it was stated: [An orphan] minor who did not exercise her right of refusal and who, when she came of age, left [her husband] and married [another man]: Rav said: She does not need a get from her second husband, and Shmuel said:
צריכא דאי אתמר בההיא בההיא קאמר רב משום דליכא תנאה אבל בהא דאיכא תנאה אימא מודי ליה לשמואל
[Both disputes were] necessary. For if it had only had been stated with regard to the latter, it might have been assumed that Rav stated his opinion in that case only because there was a condition, but that in the former case, where there was a condition, he would agree with Shmuel.
ואי אתמר בהא בהא קאמר שמואל אבל בהך אימא מודי ליה לרב צריכא
And if it had been stated in the former case, it might have been assumed that Shmuel stated his opinion in that case only but that in the latter he agrees with Rav. [Hence both were] required.
תנן כנסה סתם ונמצאו עליה נדרים תצא שלא בכתובה כתובה הוא דלא בעיא הא גיטא בעיא מאי לאו קידשה על תנאי וכנסה סתם תיובתא דשמואל
We have learned: If he married her without making any condition and she was found to be under a vow, she may be divorced without receiving her ketubah [which implies that] it is only her ketubah that she does not receive but she does require a get. Now does not this refer to one who betrothed a woman on condition [that she was under no vow] and married her without making any condition and it is a refutation of Shmuel.