In the name of Rabbi Eliezer they said that even in this case she performs ḥalitza, but she may not enter into levirate marriage. This dispute seems to hinge on whether, when he engaged in sexual intercourse with her as an adult, he did so for the purpose of betrothal, or whether he relied upon the invalid betrothal performed when she was a minor. But here, this should be considered similar to an error concerning one woman, and yet they disagree.

The Gemara refutes this claim: This is not the nature of the disagreement. Rather, there too they disagree over a possible halakhic error: One Sage, the first tanna, holds that a person knows that the betrothal of a minor girl is nothing, and consequently, after she reaches adulthood, he decides to engage in sexual intercourse for the purpose of betrothal. Therefore, if the husband dies she may enter into levirate marriage. And one Sage, Rabbi Eliezer, holds that a person does not know that the betrothal of a minor girl is nothing, and therefore when he engages in sexual intercourse with her after she reaches adulthood, he does so on the basis of the initial betrothal, which is not effective according to Torah law, and therefore she cannot enter into levirate marriage.

It was also stated in accordance with Rabba’s opinion, that there is no dispute with regard to an error concerning one woman: Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: One who betrothed a woman conditionally and engaged in sexual intercourse without specifying that he is voiding the condition, all agree that she does not require a bill of divorce from him. Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, son of Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov’s sister, raised an objection to his opinion from a baraita that states: A mistaken ḥalitza is valid. The amora’im asked: What is meant by the term: A mistaken ḥalitza? Reish Lakish said: Any situation when someone says to a man whose married brother died childless [yavam] not well versed in halakha: Perform ḥalitza with her and by doing so you will thereby marry her. Although he did not intend to release their bond with this ḥalitza, it is nevertheless effective.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: I teach with regard to the halakhot of ḥalitza: Whether he intended to release her through ḥalitza and she did not intend it, or whether she intended this outcome and he did not intend it, her ḥalitza is invalid; it will always be invalid until they both intend the appropriate outcome. And you say that in that case, when he intended to marry her and not to release her, that her ḥalitza is valid? Rather, Rabbi Yoḥanan said that in fact, in such a case, the ḥalitza would be invalid, and the term: A mistaken ḥalitza, concerns any situation where someone says to the yavam: Perform ḥalitza with her on condition that she gives you two hundred dinars as payment, and afterward she refuses to give him the money.

The Gemara returns to our issue: Apparently, it can be seen from here that since he performed an action, the halakha views this as though he explicitly waived his condition, for although he stipulated a condition, once he actually performs ḥalitza the condition is ignored. If so, here too, with regard to a conditional betrothal, since he engaged in sexual intercourse, he has waived his condition, which contradicts Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov’s view.

He said to him: Student of the academy, have you spoken well? The reason why the ḥalitza is valid is not because he waived his condition, but rather because the condition was invalid to begin with. After all, from where do we learn through tradition all the laws of conditions? From the conditions made with the descendants of Gad and the descendants of Reuben. Moses made a condition with the tribes of Gad and Reuben: If they would go with the rest of the nation to fight in the battles for the land of Canaan on the western side of the Jordan, they would receive their inheritance on the eastern side, as they requested (see Numbers, chapter 32).

The Gemara derives the halakhot of contractual conditions from that incident, and these include the rule that a condition that can be fulfilled by means of an agent, as was done there, when Moses transferred responsibility for implementing the condition to Joshua and the Elders, and such a condition is a valid condition. Whereas a condition that cannot be fulfilled by means of an agent as was done there is not a valid condition. Accordingly, since ḥalitza cannot be performed by means of an agent, the condition is of no effect and the ḥalitza is valid. There is therefore no proof from here that a husband who performs an action waives his condition.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But sexual intercourse is something that cannot be fulfilled by means of an agent as was done there, in the case of the descendants of Gad and the descendants of Reuben, and yet it is considered a valid condition. If a man says that he is engaging in intercourse with a woman for the purpose of betrothal on condition that a certain stipulation be fulfilled, if that condition is broken the betrothal is invalid.

The Gemara answers: There, in the case of betrothal, there is a special reason for this law, because the different ways of becoming betrothed are juxtaposed to each other. The Torah describes betrothal with the term becoming, as in the expression: ''And she becomes another man’s wife'' (Deuteronomy 24:2). Betrothal can be performed through the transference of money or an item of value, through a document, or through sexual intercourse. All three forms are juxtaposed with one another. Conditions can be stipulated for betrothal performed via transference of money or through a document, since these methods of betrothal can be fulfilled through an agent. Therefore, a condition may also be stipulated for betrothal through sexual intercourse, although that cannot be fulfilled through an agent.

Rav Ulla bar Abba said that Ulla said that Rabbi Elazar said: In the case of one who betroths a woman with a loan by forgiving a debt she owes him, which does not effect betrothal, and subsequently engages in sexual intercourse with her; or one who betroths a woman conditionally and the condition was not fulfilled, and he subsequently engages in sexual intercourse with her; or one who betroths a woman with an item worth less than the value of a peruta, and he subsequently engages in sexual intercourse with her, in all of these cases, all agree that she requires a bill of divorce from him. Although the initial betrothal was invalid, they are betrothed due to the subsequent sexual intercourse.

Rav Yosef bar Abba said that Rabbi Menaḥem said that Rabbi Ami said: In the case of one who betroths a woman with an item worth less than the value of a peruta and subsequently engages in sexual intercourse with her, she requires a bill of divorce from him. This is because it is in this matter that he does not err. He knows that betrothal must be performed with an item worth at least a peruta, and he therefore must have engaged in intercourse with her for the purpose of betrothal. But with regard to those other cases, i.e., a loan or a condition, he does err. He engages in intercourse based upon his initial betrothal, and therefore she does not require a bill of divorce.

Rav Kahana said in the name of Ulla: In the case of one who betroths a woman conditionally and the condition was not fulfilled, and he subsequently engages in sexual intercourse with her, she requires a bill of divorce from him, in accordance with Rabbi Elazar. The Gemara relates: This was an incident that actually occurred. A man betrothed a woman conditionally and then engaged in sexual intercourse with her without specification, and the Sages did not have the power to allow her to leave her husband without a bill of divorce, since they could not definitively rule that the betrothal was invalid. Therefore, they forced him to give her a bill of divorce.

The Gemara comments: This statement comes to exclude the opinion of this tanna, as Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: The verse states with regard to a woman suspected by her husband of having been unfaithful [sota]: ''And she was not seized'' (Numbers 5:13), i.e., she was not raped. That is, she is forbidden to her husband since she willingly committed adultery with another man. Consequently, a woman who in fact was seized is permitted to her husband. And you have another woman who, although she was not seized but rather engaged in sexual intercourse willingly, is nevertheless permitted to her husband and is not considered a sota. And who is this? This is referring to one whose betrothal was a mistaken betrothal, as even if her son from this marriage is riding on her shoulders,