Ketubot 73B

לא, קידשה סתם, וכנסה סתם.

The Talmud rejects the proof: No, the case there is referring to where he betrothed her without specification and then married her without specification.

אבל, קידשה על תנאי וכנסה סתם ⁠— הכי נמי דלא בעיא גיטא? אדתני המקדש את האשה על מנת שאין עליה נדרים ונמצאו עליה נדרים אינה מקודשת, ליתני: כנסה סתם ונמצאו עליה נדרים ⁠— אינה מקודשת, וכל שכן הא.

The Talmud asks: But according to this explanation, if he betrothed her conditionally and then married her without specification, is it indeed the case that she does not require a bill of divorce? If so, instead of teaching in the Mishnah that if one betroths a woman on condition that there are no vows incumbent upon her to fulfill, and it was subsequently discovered that there are vows that are incumbent upon her, she is not betrothed, let the Mishnah teach instead a more novel halakha: If he betrothed her with a condition and married her without specification and then it was discovered that vows were incumbent upon her, she is not betrothed. And from this one can derive that all the more so the same halakha would apply in this case, where he betrothed her conditionally but did not repeat the condition when marrying her.

הכי נמי קאמר: המקדש את האשה על מנת שאין עליה נדרים וכנסה סתם, ונמצאו עליה נדרים ⁠— אינה מקודשת. קידשה סתם וכנסה סתם ⁠— תצא שלא בכתובה.

The Talmud answers: That is also what he is saying, and one should understand the Mishnah this way: One who betroths a woman on condition that there are no vows incumbent upon her to fulfill, and then marries her without specification, and it is then discovered that vows were incumbent upon her, she is not betrothed. If he betrothed her without specification and married her without specification, she requires a bill of divorce but may be divorced without receiving payment of her marriage contract.