Question: In Kesuvos (73a), regarding one who was Mekadesh on condition and did Nisu'in with her Stam (and the condition was not fulfilled, Rav says that she needs a Get, and) Shmuel taught that she does not need a Get;

Abaye established their argument to be when there was Bi'ah. Rav holds that a person does not have Bi'as Znus.

Inference: Shmuel holds that there can be a Tenai in Nisu'in even with Bi'ah!

Strengthening of question: Beis Hillel argue [with Beis Shamai] only because they hold that we need not decree, for people know that Nisu'in of a Ketanah is mid'Rabanan. However, they agree that there cannot be a Tenai in Nisu'in!

Answer #1: Rivan changed the text here to say "Rav Yehudah said in the name of Rav."

Objection #1 (Ri): Still, this is difficult according to Rava, who says there that Rav agrees about a simple mistake involving only one woman that there can be a Tenai in Nisu'in!

Objection #2: Even if she entered Chupah but did not have Bi'ah, we say here that there cannot be a Tenai in Chupah!

Answer #2 (Ri): Abaye does not explain that Beis Hillel's reason is because "people know..." Rather, they hold that there can be a Tenai in Nisu'in;

Our Sugya is like Ula in the name of R. Elazar, who says there that if one was Mekadesh on condition and had Bi'ah, all agree that she needs a Get, for there cannot be a Tenai in Nisu'in;

The text: The text here says "Rav Yehudah said in the name of Rav", for according to Shmuel, if she entered Chupah but did not have Bi'ah, there can be a Tenai [in Nisu'in].

Implied question: Above (95b), Abaye said regarding the argument of Rav and Shmuel that a Yevamah is like an Eshes Ish...

In one version, Abaye said that Shmuel refers to R. Yitzchak Nafcha, who explains R. Yosi's opinion because there is no Tenai in Nisu'in!

Answer: He does not mean that a Tenai in Nisu'in does not help. Rather, it is not common that Nisu'in is Batel due to a Tenai that was in Kidushin.

Normally, either he finds out and refrains from Nisu'in, or they resolve and pardon [the Tenai] to each other at the time of Nisu'in.

Support: You are forced to say that Shmuel's teaching "she is not like an Eshes Ish" means that we discuss Kidushin. All agree that Tana helps for Kidushin.

Answer #3 (R. Chaim): Also here it means like this. "There is no Tenai in Nisu'in" means that it is not common that Nisu'in is Batel due to any Tenai;

If you will say that a Nesu'ah may do Mi'un, will people come to say that there is Tenai in Nisu'in?! Would it cross their minds to say that it is Batel due to a Tenai?! This is not common!

Also, people do not know [that she leaves due to] Kidushei Ketanah. Rather, they will say that an Eshes Ish goes out [from her husband] without a Get.

Question (Ri): In Gitin (81a), regarding one who divorced his wife and lodged with her in an inn, Beis Shamai say that she does not need a Get;

The Gemara explains that this is because they hold that a person does have Bi'as Zenus. We should not be concerned lest he was Mekadesh her through Bi'ah. Rather, he had Bi'ah with her without Kidushin!

Answer: There is different. Since he divorced her and was secluded with her, he revealed that his Bi'ah is Bi'as Zenus;

However, here, where initially he had Nisu'in with her, or in general, when there is no proof, we should not say that one would have Bi'as Zenus.

Question: It says in Bava Metzi'a (39a) that one who spent money on his minor wife's property, he is like one who spent on a stranger's property;

They pay him what he spent. If so, he does not lose anything through her Mi'un!

Answer (Ri): In any case, he will hastily consume [the Peros]. Even if he finished off the branches and the land itself he need not pay, even if he consumed improperly!

Proof: This is clear from Kesuvos (101a). The Mishnah taught that she (a Sheniyah, or one who did Mi'un or was found to be an Ailonis) gets no Bala'os (e.g. she brought property into the marriage, and it depreciated). Shmuel said "this refers only to Nichsei Melug, but she gets [Bala'os] of Nichsei Tzon Barzel";

Citation (101a - Rav Papa) Question: Which [of the women] does he refer to? If he refers to Mema'enes, if the property is intact, she gets both of them (Nichsei Melug and Nichsei Tzon Barzel)! If the property is not intact, she does not get [compensation for depreciation of] either of them!

He discusses property that he finished off improperly, for he finished off also the principal;

If he discussed when he was allowed to finish it off, how can we conclude regarding an Ailonis "if it is not intact, we should say oppositely. He should pay Peros of Nichsei Melug!"?

Why should he pay Peros, since he was allowed to consume them?! Rather, surely we discuss Peros that he consumed improperly. Since they are not intact, he does not pay for them.

Conclusion: The Gemara [here] properly says that he will hastily consume Peros, since he will not pay anything.

R. Chananel's text: Both of them are pleased that it becomes known that they are married.

The text does not say that he is pleased, for also she is pleased, like it says in Gitin (49b) "more than a man wants to marry, a woman wants to be married."

Also, it says in Kidushin (41a) [that a woman reasons] "it is better to live like two (with a husband, than to remain a widow)."

Question (Rabbeinu Yehudah): If so, when she did Mi'un to her husband, why is she permitted to his father? We should be concerned [to forbid her] like one who received a Get, who is forbidden to his father!

Answer (Rabbeinu Yehudah): Perhaps here (Mi'un to her Yavam) there is more reason for concern, since she is not his wife and [if we would say that] she is not forbidden through Mi'un, [people will say that] similarly a Get does not forbid her, since she is not his wife.

Note: A Get forbids her to do Yibum only mid'Rabanan! Normally, we do not make a decree to protect a decree! Apparently, here Chachamim saw a need to do so.

Inference: However, R. Oshaya agreed with him;

[R. Yochanan said] "if she did Mi'un to one, she is permitted to the brothers", i.e. to all of the brothers. This is like R. Oshaya, who says that she cannot do Mi'un to his Zikah.

Citation: [Rava said that] R. Oshaya did not agree with him (R. Yochanan).

Note: In old texts, this begins a new Dibur ha'Maschil.

Explanation: He (R. Oshaya) holds that one cannot do Mi'un to the entire Zikah;

However, Rav Asi agrees with him. He holds that one cannot do Mi'un to half the Zikah. This implies that one can do Mi'un to the entire Zikah!

[R. Yochanan said] "... she is permitted to the brothers", i.e. even to him, since one cannot do Mi'un to half the Zikah.

Citation: The other version [of Rava] says that Rav Asi did not agree with him, and all the more so R. Oshaya. Also Rashi explained like this.

Citation (Yerushalmi) Question: If someone does something improper, do we permit his [wife, who is forbidden to others due to] Ervah?!

Citation (cont.) Answer (Rav Chisda): This teaches that if she transgressed and did Mi'un from Nisu'in or not in front of him, Beis Shamai holds that it is Mi'un.

Observation: The question was not so difficult. We can say that Kidushei Ketanah are mid'Rabanan, and Rabanan uprooted the Kidushin from him!

Explanation: The same applies to one (Mi'un in front of him is valid), just [it mentions two because] she needs testimony that she did Mi'un.

Explanation (R. Chananel): This is only b'Di'eved, but not l'Chatchilah. "Machshirim" connotes b'Di'eved.