Halacha k'divrei kulan l'hachmir

Rebbe paskens (in the first lashon) on daf 47b that the halacha is in accordance with all the opinions of when simanei bagrus or naarus (see last post for more on that) "l'hachmir."

Rashi has three explanations what this means. In his first pshat he says that it means whichever comes first. She's a full fledged bogeres when any one of the simanim in the list comes. He doesn't like his second pshat where he says that it's referring to miun because he says that all the simanim are talking about simanei bagrus so it doesn't make sense. In his third pshat he says what I think is pashut pshat in Rebbe's statement that we will be machmir until all of the simanim appear. From the time the first siman appears until the last one, she is a safek naara, safek bogeres so, for example, if she and her father both accepted kiddushin from two different men then she'll have to accept a get from both of them.

The difficulty with the first pshat in Rashi is that isn't being machmir like all the opinions. It could be l'kula and it could be l'hachmir. For an explanation as to why Rashi felt compelled to say this pshat see the Aruch Laner.

Tosafos just says that it's all misafek and Rebbe is just being machmir because he's unsure who is correct. It sounds like the second or third pshat in Rashi. On 46a though when Tosafos says that the Mishna is talking about simanei naara, they say that according to his explanation it makes sense why the gemara says "kulan l'hachmir l'inyan miun." In other words, this will answer Rashi's problem with the second pshat (that's how the Maharam explains it). So Tosafos seems to be saying that the second pshat is the correct one and that Rebbe is talking about simanei naara. That's all great. The only thing that bothers me a little is that Tosafos on 36a (d"h hilchasa) says that Rebbe's statement was by simanei bagrus. So he is clearly learning like the third pshat and not the second. I guess you could answer it's different baalei Tosafos.