Explanation #1 (Rashi): She would have a Kesuvah.

Question (R. Yitzchak): If so, why does it say "do not say..."? Obviously, one cannot say so, for the Mishnah explicitly says that if he did Nisu'in Stam, she leaves without a Kesuvah!

Answer: This is not difficult. We could establish our Mishnah when he did not have Bi'ah. Here, when he had Bi'ah, we say that he pardoned his Tenai.

Explanation #2 (R. Yitzchak): Do not say that Rav's reason is because once he did Nisu'in, even though he did not have Bi'ah, he pardoned his Tenai, and she needs a Get.

However, surely she has no Kesuvah in our Mishnah.

Rather, surely Rav's reason is because one does not [want to] have Bi'as Zenus.

[Abaye] argues with Ula in the name of R. Elazar, who says below that when he had Bi'ah, all agree that she needs a Get. Rav and Shmuel argue only about without Bi'ah.

Question: Here it connotes that Shmuel holds that a person has Bi'as Zenus, and there can be a Tenai in Nisu'in;

In a Mishnah in Yevamos (107a), Beis Shamai say that only Arusos may do Mi'un, and Rav Yehudah said in the name of Shmuel that their reason is because there cannot be a Tenai in Nisu'in;

If you would say that a Nesu'ah can do Mi'un, people will come to say that there can be a Tenai in Nisu'in!

Inference: Shmuel holds that there is no Tenai in Nisu'in! Beis Hillel argue only because they hold that there is no need to decree, for people know that marriage of an [orphaned] minor is mid'Rabanan;

However, [Beis Hillel] agree that there is no Tenai in Nisu'in.

Answer #1 (Rivan): There, the text should say "Rav Yehudah said in the name of Rav."

Objection #1 (Ri): This does not help at all according to Rabah, who says below that regarding a mistake about one woman, all agree that she does not need a Get;

Inference: Also Rav holds that there is Tenai in Nisu'in.

Objection #2: There we ask "if she entered Chupah but did not have Bi'ah, how can we answer?", and answered that there is no Tenai regarding Chupah!

Answer #2 (R. Yitzchak): Abaye does not explain Beis Hillel's reason to be because people know [that marriage of an orphaned minor is mid'Rabanan], rather, because there is a Tenai in Nisu'in;

The Sugya there is like Ula, who says below that if one was Mekadesh with a Tenai with a Tenai and had Bi'ah, all agree that she needs a Get, for there cannot be a Tenai in Nisu'in.

Assertion: We must change the text to say "Rav said", for if it says Shmuel, we can challenge him from one who entered Chupah but did not have Bi'ah;

According to Ula in the name of R. Elazar, if there was no Bi'ah, Shmuel holds there can be a Tenai [in Nisu'in]!

Implied question: It says in Yevamos (95b) regarding the argument of Rav and Shmuel about "a Yevamah is like an Eshes Ish", according to one version, Abaye says that Shmuel refers to R. Yitzchak Nafcha's words, who explains R. Yosi's opinion to be because there is no Tenai in Nisu'in!

Answer: This is not because a Tenai cannot help. Rather, it is not common that Nisu'in is Batel due to a Tenai from Kidushin, for normally [the husband] finds out and refrains from Nisu'in, or decides to pardon it, and they do not retract at the time of Nisu'in.

Support: You are forced to explain like this Shmuel's teaching there "[a Yevamah] is not like an Eshes Ish" discusses Kidushin, and all agree that there can be a Tenai in Kidushin.

Answer #3 (R. Chaim): Also Beis Shamai's reason is like this. [They do not allow a Nesu'ah to do Mi'un] because there is no Tenai in Nisu'in, i.e. it is not common that Nisu'in is Batel due to any Tenai;

If you will say that a Nesu'ah can do Mi'un, will people come to say that there is a Tenai in Nisu'in?! This is said in astonishment. I.e. will it cross anyone's mind to say that it was Batel due to a Tenai?! This is not common;

Also, they do not know about Kidushin of [orphaned] minors [that it is mid'Rabanan]. Rather, they will say that an Eshes Ish leaves without a Get.

Question: What was the Hava Amina to say that if he made Nisu'in without Bi'ah, he pardoned his Tenai and she needs a Get?

Since he was Mekadesh on condition that she has no vows, and she had vows, if so, she is not Mekudeshes;

How does pardon of the Tenai afterwards help, unless he is Mekadesh her again?

Answer #1: If Chupah acquires (makes Kidushin on a single woman, like Rav Huna says (Kidushin 5a)), this is fine.

Answer #2: Even if you will say that Chupah does not acquire, we can say that at the time of Kidushin, he intended that if he will make Nisu'in at the end, his Tenai will be pardoned.

Explanation: We must say that due to this, he intended to be Mekadesh through Bi'ah.

Suggestion: Perhaps one does not [want to] have Bi'as Zenus, therefore he pardons his Tenai, and the Kidushei Kesef takes effect!

Rejection: If so, what was the question "they already argued about this elsewhere!"?

There, she is Mekudeshes because he had Bi'ah l'Shem Kidushin. Here, she is Mekudeshes due to the first Kidushin!

Assertion: According to Rav, even if he was Mekadesh with a Tenai and made Nisu'in with a Tenai, since he had Bi'ah, she needs a Get.

Source: Below, we ask against Rabah from the case of "I have Bi'ah with you on condition that..."

If they argued about a mistake of one woman, it would be fine for [Rabah], that they argue like Rav and Shmuel, even though he stipulated at the time of Bi'ah;

[We would say that] he did not make a Tenai to be Mevatel the Kidushin, only for [exemption from paying] a Kesuvah.

Question: We need both of these [arguments]!

Had only the first been taught, I would have thought that Rav obligates a Get due to Safek, for we do not know whether he has Bi'ah l'Shem Kidushin;

If another man was Mekadesh her, perhaps she needs a Get also from him!

Had only the second been taught, I would have thought that Shmuel says that she needs a Get from the latter due to Safek, and she needs a Get also from the first, for perhaps he had Bi'ah l'Shem Kidushin.

Answer (Ri): We ask as follows. They already argued about this. Why did they argue about this in two places? They could have taught us [their opinions] in one case!

It should have said that if he was Mekadesh with a Tenai and had Bi'ah, Rav says that she needs a Get from the first, and not from the second, and Shmuel says that she does not need a Get from the first, only from the latter.

Or, in the latter argument, it should say "if she matured and married, Rav says that she does not need a Get also from the second, and she needs from the first, and Shmuel says that she needs a Get from the latter, but she does not need from the first mid'Oraisa, but she needs mid'Rabanan.

Implied question: A Mishnah in Yevamos (109a) says that if [a minor was married mid'Rabanan, and her adult sister was married to her husband's brother, and] the adult's husband died, R. Gamliel says, if she does Mi'un, fine. If not, she waits until she matures, and this one (her sister) goes out [without Chalitzah or Yibum] because she is Achos Ishto [of her Yavam];

The Gemara explains that R. Gamliel's reason is because it is like Mekadesh Achos Yevamah. The Yevamah is exempted, and goes [may marry a stranger]. The younger sister, who grew up with the Yavam and he had Bi'ah, is like one who was Mekadesh her;

According to Shmuel, Stam he does not have Bi'ah l'Shem Kidushin!

Answer #1: We must say that there he explicitly says that he has Bi'ah l'Shem Kidushin.

Answer #2 (Ri): There, since his Yevamah and his wife are both in front of him, even Stam he has Bi'ah l'Shem Kidushin, in order to dispel his Yevamah from him;

He prefers his wife to his Yevamah, and he does not transgress [having Bi'ah with Achos Zekukaso] according to R. Gamliel, who holds that Ein Zikah (we do not consider a Shomeres Yavam to be Safek Mekudeshes to the Yavam).

Question: We should challenge Shmuel from Rabanan of R. Eliezer! They say that when he [divorced a minor and] remarried her when she is a minor, and she matured with him, Stam he has Bi'ah l'Shem Kidushin;

Suggestion: The case is, he explicitly says that he has Bi'ah l'Shem Kidushin.

Rejection: If so, what we ask below from there against Rabah is not difficult at all!

You are forced to say that he has Bi'ah Stam. We cannot say that he specified [l'Shem Kidushin], for that is the same as when he remarried her when she is an adult!

Answer #1 (Ri): Shmuel holds like R. Shimon ben Yehudah, who says below (73b) that if they had Bi'ah, they did not acquire.

Answer #2: He holds like R. Yishmael, for below (74a) Shmuel said in the name of R. Yishmael "she was not grabbed..." [and in a case of mistaken Kidushin, even if her son is on her shoulder, she may do Mi'un and leave him. See Tosfos Yevamos 110a.]

Observation: In Yevamos (110a), we explain oppositely why they needed to argue in both cases;

Citation (110a): Had they argued here, we would have said that here Rav says [that she needs a Get], because there is a Tenai. Since he had Bi'ah, he pardoned his Tenai;

Explanation: Because one does not [want to] have Bi'as Zenus, we should say that he pardons his Tenai, and he wants Kidushei Kesef to take effect;

However, here, where there is no Bi'as Zenus, for there is Kidushin mid'Rabanan, I would say that he agrees to Shmuel.

Question: This is astounding, that the Gemara there says opposite to our Gemara!

Answer: According to R. Elazar, who says below (74b) that if one was Mekadesh with a Tenai and had Bi'ah, all agree that she needs a Get, we can say the reasoning there;

Even though Shmuel agrees that one does not have Bi'as [Zenus], and it is Kidushin, even so, he argues with Rav about a minor who did not do Mi'un;

This is because Bi'as Zenus does not apply there, since there is Kidushin mid'Rabanan.

Implied question: Shmuel holds like his Rebbi, R. Yishmael!

Answer: In any case, Shmuel should not abandon our Stam Mishnah due to R. Yishmael.

Observation: We could have given this Tzerichusa above, when we asked that they already argued about this elsewhere.

Note: Maharam Shif Kadmon says that this Dibur pertains to 74a.

Question (Ri): Since we compare Kidushei Ketanah to [Kidushei] Ta'os, also the Beraisa above is difficult!

It says "and similarly, a minor who was Mekadesh..." and they argue, even though it is like a mistake about one woman!

Answer: A minor who was Mekadesh is not difficult, since Kidushei Katan has no effect, even mid'Rabanan. [After adulthood,] he has Bi'ah l'Shem Kidushin;

However, Kidushei Ketanah mid'Rabanan is more like Kidushin on Tenai.

Question: Based on what now [the Makshan] does not know any distinction between Kidushin on Tenai and Kidushei Ketanah, Rav contradicts himself!

Above he said that if a minor did not do Mi'un, [after adulthood] he (her husband) has Bi'ah with her l'Shem Kidushin, even though this is like a mistake about one woman!

Answer: Perhaps [the Makshan] had not heard the argument about a minor who did not do Mi'un.