My question is: We discuss that why isn't the case of daughter in the mishna, and have various answers. Who exactly would the father (the mi-ah-nais) pay the knas to? Himself?
Binyomin Goodman, New York, USA
It is possible to suggest that the case of "daughter" in the Mishnah actually includes all cases of women which are Chayavei Misas Beis Din, such as granddaughter -- it is as if it said "daughter etc.". (D. Zupnick)
However, the Yerushalmi and Rishonim do not accept this answer. They ask your question (see TOSFOS 29a DH v'Al Eshes Achiv, TOSFOS HA'ROSH 36b, etc.), and offer three answers:
(a) The Yerushalmi says that the case of Bito is valid in one of the cases where the girl is entitled to her own Kenas, such as where she was divorced previously (according to Rebbi Akiva, Daf 38a). Even though the Mishnah is discussing a Mefutah (according to the Gemara in Sanhedrin 74a), and a Mefutah is Mochel any money that is coming to her by agreeing to the act willingly, nevertheless the Yerushalmi holds that she cannot be Mochel the Kenas; it is not yet in her possession to be Mochel it.
The Bavli, though (32a, according to Rashi's Girsa at least) does not accept this reasoning and holds that a Mefutah is Mochel, and can be Mochel, even the Kenas.
(b) The Ra'ah (36b) explains that the case is where she was divorced previously (according to Rebbi Akiva, Daf 38a), as we said above. Even if a Mefutah normally is Mochel the Kenas, the Mishnah might be discussing a Shoteh Mefutah. Since she is a Shoteh, she cannot be Mochel the Kenas.
(c) The Yerushalmi says further that the Mishnah can be discussing a situation where she has became a Bogeres (or lost her father) before the Ha'amadah b'Din, and therefore the Kenas is given to the daughter (as the Mishnah says on 41b). (The TOSFOS ROSH, ibid., rejects this for another reason.)