The Tosfos quotes Rabbeinu Tam as saying that the entire inyan is a
k'nas, and that the ishah is considered actually as not kavua. What isthe gemara's point, then, in distinguishing her case from that of
kinin? The tosfos lower on the daf seems to say that she is partially kavua. What does that mean?
To refine my question from last night -- It would seem that Tosfos holds that the woman's status as partially kavua must be a knas midderabanan.
Is it true that all of the rishonim hold that the other instances of
kavua in the gemara (9 chanuyos, pikuach nefesh, etc.) work on a
d'oraisa level to eliminate the operation of the d'oraisa principle of rov and that kol kavua is not a chumra miderabanan? If so, how would the Rambam reconcile this with his opinion that safek d'oraisa l'chumra works on a derabbanan level? Is it possible that ischazek ssurah makes a difference?
1) Tosfos writes that the question from Kinim is that it seems that even the person himself may take any bird for a pair. If the cases are similar, then there should be a Kenas for Kinim as well.
2) Tosfos explains that Kavu'a is only where, in the place where it is Kavu'a, it is clear which is the Isur and which is the Heter. In contrast, the Ishah is noy clearly Asurah even in the Makom ha'Kevi'us.
3) The author of Shav Shmaitsa cites many proofs that the Rambam agrees where there is a Vadai Isur.
D. Zupnik