WHEN DOES A MAN FORGO HIS CONDITION?
(Rav): If a man was Mekadesh a girl on condition and did Nisu'in with her Stam (and the condition was not fulfilled), she needs a Get from him (before she can marry someone else);
(Shmuel): She does not need a Get.
(Abaye): Rav does not assume that since he did not mention the stipulation at the time of Nisu'in, this shows that he pardoned it;
Rather, a person does not have Bi'as Znus (Rambam - therefore, he pardons his stipulation; Rashi - he intends that the Bi'ah make Kidushin).
Question: Rav and Shmuel already argued about this elsewhere!
(Rav): If an orphaned minor (married mid'Rabanan) became an adult without doing Mi'un and married another man, she does not need a Get from the second man;
Shmuel: She needs a Get from the second man.
Answer: They needed to argue in both cases:
Had they argued only about a minor, one might have thought that there Rav does not require a Get because her first husband did not stipulate (therefore, he wants Bi'ah to make Kidushin mid'Oraisa once she matures), but Rav would agree in our case, for the Mekadesh was insistent about his condition!
Had they argued only here, one might have thought that here Shmuel requires a Get because her first husband stipulated (therefore, he does not want Bi'ah to make Kidushin), but Shmuel would agree there, for there was no stipulation!
(Mishnah): If he did Nisu'in Stam and she was found to have vows, she leaves without a Kesuvah.
Inference: She leaves without a Kesuvah, but she needs a Get.
Suggestion: The case is, he was Mekadesh her on condition, and did not mention it at the Nisu'in. This refutes Shmuel!
Rejection: No, he did not stipulate at the Kidushin or at the Nisu'in.
Question: This implies that if he was Mekadesh her on condition and did Nisu'in Stam she would not need a Get;
If so, why does it teach that if he was Mekadesh on condition, the vows are Mevatel the Kidushin? It should teach a bigger Chidush, that even if he also did Nisu'in Stam she is not Mekudeshes, all the more so if he was only Mekadesh her!
Answer: Indeed, the Mishnah teaches this:
If a man was Mekadesh a woman on condition that she has no vows, and did Nisu'in Stam and she was found to have vows, she is not Mekudeshes;
If he was Mekadesh her Stam and did Nisu'in Stam, and she was found to have vows, she leaves without a Kesuvah.
Inference: She gets no Kesuvah, but she needs a Get.
Question: Why do we distinguish?
She does not get a Kesuvah, because he can say that he did not want a wife who vows. If so, she should not need a Get either!
Answer #1 (Rabah): She needs a Get only mid'Rabanan.
Answer #2 (Rava): The Tana is unsure whether or not she is Mekudeshes. We are lenient about money (he does not pay a Kesuvah), but we are stringent about Isurim (so she needs a Get).
THE ARGUMENT OF RAV AND SHMUEL
(Rabah): Rav and Shmuel argue about a mistake involving two women. All agree that no Get is needed for a mistake involving only one woman.
Question (Abaye): The Mishnah discusses one woman, and we challenged Shmuel from the Mishnah (i.e. they argue)!
Correction (Rabah): Rather, Rav and Shmuel argue about a mistake involving one woman like the case of two women. All agree that no Get is needed for a simple mistake involving one woman.
Question #1 (Abaye - Beraisa): If a man was Mekadesh a woman by mistake, or with less than a Perutah, or when he was a minor; even if he later sent pre-nuptial gifts, she is not Mekudeshes. This is because he relied on the initial Kidushin (he did not intend for these gifts to make Kidushin);
If he had Bi'ah with her, he acquired her;
R. Shimon bar Yehudah says, he did not acquire her.
This is like the case of one woman, and Tana'im argue!
Suggestion: The mistaken Kidushin was because he thought that she had no vows.
Answer: No, the mistake was that he gave her less than a Perutah.
Objection: That is the next case in the Beraisa!
Answer: The Beraisa explains itself. It means, if a man was Mekadesh a woman by mistake, e.g. with less than a Perutah...
Question: What do the Tana'im argue about?
Answer: The first Tana holds that a man knows that Ein Kidushin Tofsin with less than a Perutah. He intended that Bi'ah make Kidushin;
R. Shimon ben Yehudah holds that a man thinks that less than a Perutah can make Kidushin. He had Bi'ah assuming that she was already Mekudeshes, and did not intend to acquire her.
Question #2 (Beraisa): If a man said to a woman 'I will have Bi'ah with you to be Mekadesh you on condition that my father will consent', even if the father does not want, she is Mekudeshes;
R. Shimon ben Yehudah says, Kidushin takes effect only if the father wants.
This is like an error about one woman, and Tana'im argue!
Answer: They argue about what 'my father will consent' means:
The first Tana holds that it means that he will be quiet (not object). R. Shimon ben Yehudah holds that it means that he will say that he approves.
Question #3 (Beraisa): If a girl (a minor) was married off by her father and divorced from Nisu'in, she is like an orphan in her father's lifetime. If she remarried her ex-husband (and he died without children), Chachamim agree with R. Eliezer that she does Chalitzah but not Yibum, since she was fully divorced, but not fully remarried;
This is only if she was divorced and remarried before maturity (Na'arus). If she was divorced before maturity and remarried after maturity, or if he remarried her before maturity and she matured before he died, she may do Chalitzah or Yibum;
R. Eliezer says, she must do Chalitzah.
This is like a mistake about one woman, and Tana'im argue (about whether or not he intended for Bi'ah to make Kidushin after she matured)!