It's not often that I just get totally stumped but this one has been bothering me.
The Mishna on somech daled amud aleph says a man is believed to say about his daughter "kedashtia, u'Gerashtia (-rashi "I accepted the get")" when she is a ketana.
However, when she is a gedola, or if he's testifying that she was nifdeis, he's not believed.
(a) The Gemara asks, lechora the difference between the reisha and the seifa, is that in the reisha it's beyado.
Rashi explain beyado to mekadesh her, and beyado to mekabel her get. Therefore, since he has to ability to ossur her to kahuna by accepting her get, why would he lie about it? (This is my understanding of Rashi).
Ma she ein kein is the seifa whereas it is not beyado to mekadesh her when she is a gedola, or to give her over to a goy. Therefore we are machzik him as a shakran because he doesn't have the ma li leshaker counter argument.
The gemara then precedes to ask that we see that granted it's not beyado to give her over to a goy, it is however beyado give her over to a cholol and pasul her to kahuna.
Now let's start the questions. Number one, the yesod (le aniyas daiti) of rashi dibur ha'maschil "reisha beyado" is that the father has a "ma li leshaker" argument founded upon his yad to accept her get. Since he could have just poseled her by accepting the get, why would he lie?
This is a pele! Beyado lekabel gita means nothing more than that he has to ability to accept her get, but that's all dependent on the ba'al. The ba'al is the one devorcing her, not the father.
I thought perhaps that Rashi's yesod is based on the words "beyado lekodsha le'acher". Based on the Rashba ad loc., these two states "beyodo lekoshsha" and "lekabel gita" go together. Meaning, the father marries her off to a yisroel, thus assuring her to everybody, and memeila to kahuna, in which case there is a 66% chance that she will remain assur to kahuna (ie., the ba'al can remain married, or he can divorce her as opposed to dying). If we also poskin that misa is not shchiach, it works out a bit better, but mima nafshach...Therefore it comes out that the father has effectively assured her to Kahuna by marrying her off to a yisroel. However, I still find that somewhat shver.
My second question is on the gemara's first attack. The gemara say the father is not believed in the case of a shvua, afilu ketana, because it is not beyado to give her to goyim.
(b) The gemara then says "ve'lo?" implying that gemara can think of a heichi timtza where it is beyado, to give her off to a shveua. Instead the gemara brings up cholol. Ma inyan shimita etzel har sinai?
Second, the fact that the father can marry her off to a cholol as a ketana, thus demonstrating that it is beyado to posul her off to kahuna as a ketana lechora is nothing more that a proof for the reisha.
I'm stumped.
Thank you very much.
Avi Block, Highland Park, NJ, USA
(b) The second question first. The reason the father is believed that she was a Shevuyah is because he it is b'Yado to create the same result (i.e. Pasul l'Kehunah and l'Terumah). But by marrying her off to a Yisrael she does not become Pasul from Terumah if she is a Bas Kohen (after her husband dies), whereas if she was a Shevuyah she is Pasul even from the Terumah of a Bas Kohen. By marrying her to a Cholol she becomes Pasul for Terumah even if she is a Bas Kohen, making a proper "b'Yado." (See Rashi)
(a) As for your first question if I understand you correctly it is Rav Ashi's question later in the Gemara. True, the Rashba does explain the Hava Amina of the Gemara before Rav Ashi's answer, however it does not seem that Rashi learned that way.
D. Zupnik