Study Ketubot folio 73A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Do not say that Rav’s reason for requiring a bill of divorce is that since he married her without specification, this indicates that he waived his condition entirely, and therefore he must give her the payment of her marriage contract if he divorces her. Rather, Rav’s reason is because a person doe
The Talmud asks: But they already disagree about this fundamental issue of whether it may be assumed that a person does not intentionally engage in licentious sex one other time. As it is stated: With regard to a minor girl whose mother or brother married her off, and who did not refuse her husband
And Shmuel said: She requires a bill of divorce from the second one. Her first husband did not have sex with the intention that it serve as a new betrothal, rather he intended to continue the relationship established between them when she was a minor. Therefore, she is not considered to be his wife
The Talmud explains: It is necessary to state the dispute in both instances. For if it was stated only in that case of the minor who did not refuse, one could say that in that case Rav stated his opinion because there is no condition attached to the betrothal. Consequently, when she becomes an adult
And conversely, if it was stated only in this case concerning betrothal, it could be argued that in this case Shmuel said that the betrothal is not valid when he has sex with her, since she violated a condition, but in that case of the minor who did not refuse, one could say that he concedes to Rav.