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 does not intentionally engage in licentious sexual intercourse. He is aware that the initial betrothal may possibly be nullified, rendering sexual intercourse licentious. Therefore, when he marries her, he does so with the intention that the consummation of the marriage serves as unconditional betrothal. However, as he does not entirely waive his condition, if it becomes clear that the condition was not fulfilled, she may be divorced without receiving payment of her marriage contract.

The Gemara asks: But they already disagree about this fundamental issue of whether it may be assumed that a person does not intentionally engage in licentious sexual intercourse 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, despite having the right to do so, and when she became an adult she arose and married someone else, Rav said: She does not require a bill of divorce from the second one. Since she did not refuse the first husband while still a minor, and presumably he later engaged in sexual intercourse with her when she became an adult, and since the assumption is that he does not intentionally engage in licentious relations, the first marriage is binding and the second is meaningless.

And Shmuel said: She requires a bill of divorce from the second one. Her first husband did not engage in sexual intercourse 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 and the second marriage is binding.

The Gemara 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, he engages in sexual intercourse with intent to betroth her, as he recognizes that the initial betrothal was ineffective. But in this case, where there is a condition and it is unfulfilled, one could say that he concedes to Shmuel that he did not intend to betroth her through intercourse, and she does not require a bill of divorce.

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 engages in sexual intercourse 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. Therefore, it is necessary to state the argument explicitly in both cases.

The Gemara discusses proofs for both sides of this dispute: We learned in the mishna: If he married her without specification, and it was discovered that vows were incumbent upon her, she may be divorced without receiving payment of her marriage contract. The Gemara infers: She does not require or receive payment of her marriage contract, but she does require a bill of divorce. What, is it not speaking about the case discussed in the first clause, namely that he betrothed her conditionally and then married her without specification? If so, the mishna is a conclusive refutation of Shmuel’s opinion.