we learn peh'she'asar from 'es biti natati leish hazeh'. whats the dimyon from our peh sheasar in mishnah where shes holding by her original statement of 'eshes ish hayeesi' to 'es biti natati' which 'leish hazeh ' is just a birur of the previous statement?!

I think Tosfos over there in 22A d"h Minayin. He answers in 2 ways. either in a case where the one who he Mikadesh to was standing in front of him at the time and didn't say immidiately, in the regular pace of speaking, that this is the one who was mikadish my daughter, it would seem that he is implying that it's not him. Then when he comes around and says Toych k'dai Dibor "to this guy" it would seem to controdict his first words, therefore he's not believed only because Pe Shasor.

The second answer is that you don't need a Pusek when it explains his first words, this is a S'varah, so, Im Aina Inyan when it doesn't conflict, Tnu Inyan when they conflict.

If it weren't for the words of Tosfos, I would venture to answer as following: That the shaila of Pe She'asor, before the gemarah takes on it's a S'varah, is do we say some type of splitting his words (Palgenon D'varov), and take his first words as fact, and now we are Machzikin Issura, and how afterwards could the person go against the established Isser and permit it. For this the Gemarah brings a proof from the father, when he says I married off my daughter he establishes the Isser. At that time everyone is usser, not from doubt but rather from being definite Usser, since we even kill from a Chazaka or Rov, and over here, the married man,until identified, is Butel B'rov, and the daughter is usser to everyone in the world. Now you want to Matter thru what the father pointing out who it is, it is going against a Chezkas Isser and hence cannot be believed if not for Pe Sha'ussor

I guess this is what you learnt last Z'man, what are you going to learn in the coming Z'man? whatever it is Hatzlacha Raba

im gng2hav2 argue with your suggestion.
'At that time everyone is usser, not from doubt but rather from being definite Usser,'
i dnt think so.every1 is ossur misafek.every guy could be the guy. and the 'hazeh' is just mevarer who that issur was too, as opposed to 'eshes ish hayiisi vegrusha ani' that she holds totally by the 100% vadai issur to every1 (besides her husband who she presumably tells us she was married to) and is manir an issur vadai thorough peh sheasar. the point of peh sheasar is tht shes holding by the original statement, (b/c if not there is another problem ,y dyou need peh sheasar, if she is talking toich kdei dibbur she is being choizer from her original statement and first sstatement of issur has no validity). i dunno. ive only learnt sugya briefly few weeks ago am learning 9th perek kesubos nxt zman.thanx for response.

I would like to answer my position. Bitul Birov makes the Me'ut as it's not there anymore. for example : 3 pieces of meat, 2kosher and 1 treif, most Rishonim say that 1 person can eat all 3. Even though he's definitly is eating treif, but bitul birov tells us that the traif one is not there anymore. It "magicly" disapears.
There is definitly a concept of certain halachas that we go after are a Birur and not just an hanhagah (Shmatsa 2 talks about this). If someone goes on his daughter, we kill him, even though he's only a daughter with a Rov. So that type of Rov is a definate, not just a sufaik. The same is true by Chazaka. If a family moves into town with a chezkas family, even though we have no physical proof they are related. We still would be chayiv Misah on a Biya, since we consider them definitly related. So to by bitul B'rov, as we said before, difines for sure that all things involved in the question is vadai, and not safaik

What you wrote that pe Shasser is only after Toch Kdai Dibor, is not Mashma in The Tosfos I brought in my first post. Tosfos says that Pe Shasser is only believed TK"D. But once established as fact and can't retract, then he's not be believed unless he's in truth is believed. That which you asked , if so he can anyhow retract. but the fact is that he didn't retract, thus he's only believed thru a Migo he could of retracted. This is why Tosfos calls it a Migo