Ketubot 146
אבל קידשה על תנאי וכנסה סתם הכי נמי דלא בעיא גיטא אדתני המקדש את האשה על מנת שאין עליה נדרים ונמצאו עליה נדרים אינה מקודשת ליתני כנסה סתם ונמצאו עליה נדרים אינה מקודשת וכל שכן הא
If, however, one betrothed a woman with a condition and subsequently married her without a condition she would not require a divorce. [If so, then, instead of stating, if a man betrothed a woman on the condition that she was not subject to any vows and she was found to be under a vow, her betrothal is invalid, it should rather have stated: If a man married a woman without attaching a condition and she was found to be under a vow, her betrothal is invalid, and all the more so to this case?
הכי נמי קאמר המקדש את האשה על מנת שאין עליה נדרים וכנסה סתם ונמצאו עליה נדרים אינה מקודשת קידשה סתם וכנסה סתם תצא שלא בכתובה
This is what was really meant: If a man betrothed a woman on the condition that she was not subject to any vows, and then he married her without making a condition, and she was found to be under a vow, her betrothal is invalid; if, however, he betrothed her without making any conditions and also married her without making any conditions, she may be divorced without receiving her ketubah;
כתובה הוא דלא בעיא הא גיטא בעיא ומאי שנא כתובה דלא בעיא דאמר אי אפשי באשה נדרנית אי הכי גט נמי לא תיבעי
it is only her ketubah that she cannot claim but it is necessary for her to receive a get. But what is different about the ketubah that she does not receive it? Because, he could say, “I do not want a wife that is in the habit of making vows.” But if that is the case there should be no need for her to receive a get either!
אמר רבה צריכה גט מדבריהם וכן אמר רב חסדא צריכה גט מדבריהם רבא אמר תנא ספוקי מספקא ליה גבי ממונא לקולא גבי איסורא לחומרא
Rabbah said: She requires a divorce from rabbinic law. So also said R. Hisda: She requires a divorce from rabbinic law. Rava replied: The tanna was in doubt. [Hence he adopted] the lenient view in monetary matters and the stricter one in the case of prohibitions.
אלא [אי אתמר הכי אתמר] אמר רבה מחלוקת בטעות אשה אחת כעין שתי נשים אבל בטעות אשה אחת גרידתא דברי הכל אינה צריכה הימנו גט
Rather, if it was said, this is what was said: Rabbah stated: They differ only in the case of an error [involving] a woman [who is in a position] similar [to that of one of] two women, but in the case of an error [involving] merely one woman all agree that she requires no divorce from him.
איתיביה אביי קידשה בטעות ופחות משוה פרוטה וכן קטן שקידש אע"פ ששלח סבלונות לאחר מיכן אינה מקודשת שמחמת קדושין הראשונים שלח ואם בעלו קנו ר' שמעון בן יהודה משום ר' ישמעאל אמר אם בעלו לא קנו
Abaye raised an objection against him: If a man betrothed a woman in error or [with something worth] less than a perutah, and, similarly, if a minor betrothed a woman, even if any [of them] has subsequently sent presents [to the woman], her betrothal is invalid, because he has sent these gifts on account of the original betrothal. If, however, they had intercourse they have thereby effected legal acquisition. Shimon b. Judah in the name of R. Ishmael said: Even if they had intercourse they have not effected legal acquisition.
לא טעות פחות משוה פרוטה פחות משוה פרוטה בהדיא קתני לה קידשה בטעות ופחות משוה פרוטה פרושי קא מפרש קידשה בטעות כיצד כגון שקידשה בפחות משוה פרוטה
No; [what was meant is] an error in respect of that which was worth less than a perutah. But was not “less than than a perutah” explicitly mentioned: “If a man betrothed a woman in error or [with something worth] less than a perutah”? [The latter part is] really an explanation [of the former:] What is meant by “If a man betrothed a woman in error”? If, for instance, he betrothed her with “something worth less than ‘a perutah.”
במאי קא מיפלגי מר סבר אדם יודע שאין קדושין תופסין בפחות משוה פרוטה וגמר ובעל לשם קדושין ומר סבר אין אדם יודע שאין קדושין תופסין בפחות משוה פרוטה וכי קא בעל אדעתא דקדושין הראשונים בעל
On what principle do they differ One Master holds that a person knows that with less than the value of a perutah betrothal is not effective, and consequently he would know that his intercourse was for the sake of kiddushin. The other Master holds that not everyone knows that with less than the value of a perutah no betrothal can be effected, and when a man has intercourse [after], he does so with the original act of betrothal in mind.
איתיביה הריני בועליך על מנת שירצה אבא אע"פ שלא רצה האב מקודשת ר' שמעון בן יהודה אומר משום ר"ש רצה האב מקודשת לא רצה האב אינה מקודשת והא הכא דכי טעות אשה אחת דמי ופליגי
He raised [another] objection against him: [If a man said to a woman,] “I am having intercourse with you on the condition that my father will consent,” she is betrothed to him even if his father did not consent. R. Shimon b. Judah stated in the name of R. Shimon: If his father consented she is betrothed but if his father did not consent she is not betrothed. Now here it is a case similar to that of an error involving one woman and they nevertheless disagree!
התם בהא קמיפלגי מ"ס על מנת שירצה האב ע"מ שישתוק האב והא שתיק ליה ומ"ס ע"מ שיאמר אבא הן והא לא אמר אבא הן
In that case, they differ over the following: One Master holds that [the expression], “On the condition that my father consents” means, ‘On condition that my father will remain silent,” and [the betrothal is valid] because, surely, his father remained silent. And the other Master holds the opinion [that the meaning of the expression is] that his father will say, “Yes,” and [the betrothal is invalid] because his father in fact did not say, “Yes.”
איתיביה מודים חכמים לרבי אליעזר בקטנה שהשיאה אביה ונתגרשה והיא יתומה בחיי האב והחזירה שחולצת ולא מתיבמת
He raised [another] objection against him. The Sages agree with R. Eliezer with regard to a minor who was married off by her father and who was then divorced, [in consequence of which] she is regarded as an “orphan” in her father’s lifetime, and who was then remarried, that she must perform halitzah but may not contract levirate marriage
במה דברים אמורים שגירשה כשהיא קטנה והחזירה כשהיא קטנה אבל גירשה כשהיא קטנה והחזירה כשהיא גדולה או שהחזירה כשהיא קטנה וגדלה אצלו ומת או חולצת או מתיבמת
When does this apply? When he divorced her while she was a minor and remarried her while she was still a minor; but if he divorced her while she was a minor and remarried her when she was already of age, or remarried her while she was still a minor and she became of age while she was still with him, and then he died, she may either perform halitzah or contract levirate marriage.