Study Ketubot folio 74A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
משום רבי אליעזר אמרו: חולצת ולא מתייבמת. והא הכא, דכטעות אשה אחת דמי, ופליגי!
In the name of R' 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 had sex 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.
התם נמי בהא קמיפלגי, מר סבר: אדם יודע שאין קידושי קטנה כלום, וגמר ובעל לשם קידושין, ומר סבר: אין אדם יודע שאין קידושי קטנה כלום, וכי קא בעל — אדעתא דקידושין הראשונים קא בעל.
The Talmud 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 have sex for the purpose of betrothal. Therefore, if the husband dies she may enter into levirate marriage. And one Sage, R' Eliezer, holds that a person does not know that the betrothal of a minor girl is nothing, and therefore when he has sex 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.
אתמר נמי, אמר רב אחא בר יעקב אמר רבי יוחנן: המקדש על תנאי ובעל — [דברי הכל] אינה צריכה הימנו גט. איתיביה רב אחא בריה דרב איקא בר אחתיה: חליצה מוטעת כשירה. איזו היא חליצה מוטעת? אמר ריש לקיש: כל שאומר לו ״חלוץ לה, ובכך אתה כונסה״.
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 R' Yoḥanan said: One who betrothed a woman conditionally and had sex 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.