Siman 2

A person must strive very, very much to take for himself a worthy wife, and he shall not marry one in whom there is a trace of disqualification, whether the disqualification is in her body, such as a licentious woman and the like, or whether the disqualification is in her family, such as if there is a disqualification of mamzirut in her family, or if he is a kohen and there is a disqualification of challalut in her family. And thus our sages, of blessed memory, said: That anyone who marries a woman in whom there is a disqualification, Eliyahu writes and the Holy One, Blessed be He, seals and says, "Woe to him who disqualifies his offspring and blemishes his family," and in the future to come Eliyahu binds him and the Holy One, Blessed be He, pierces him, as it were. And the reason that Eliyahu writes and binds is because he suffered greatly over the fact that Israel violated the covenant between them and Hashem, and he was pursued for this by the wicked of his generation. And as it were, the Holy One, Blessed be He, Himself testifies regarding him that his offspring is disqualified, as it is said: "The tribes of Yah, a testimony for Israel"—when is there a testimony for Israel? At a time when the tribes are the tribes of Yah, and then the Holy One, Blessed be He, testifies regarding them that they are His, and He does not rest His Shekhinah except upon the families of established lineage in Israel in which there is no trace of disqualification, as it is said: "At that time, says Hashem, I will be the God of all the families of the house of Israel, and they shall be My people"—meaning: those who are from the fit families of the children of Israel shall be My people. And anyone who marries a woman who is not worthy because of her beauty or because of her money—he will have children who are not worthy, and also the money will not endure [beginning of the fourth chapter of Kiddushin]. But if he marries a fit woman for the sake of money, such that were it not for her money he would have married another—there is no transgression in this, and on the contrary, it is proper to do so if he is a talmid chakham, for through this he will not need to be greatly preoccupied with worldly matters; and so upright people are accustomed to take a talmid chakham for their daughter and to give her much money and to support him at their table for several years so that he may sit and study, and you have no greater mitzvah than this, and in reward for this they succeed in their businesses.

One who wishes to marry a disqualified woman, the members of his family may protest against him. And if he does not wish to heed them—they should perform some act of publicity as a sign so that his offspring shall not mingle with their offspring. And one for whom much money was pledged for a match, and afterwards a circumstance arose such that the father of the bride is unable to fulfill all that he pledged, even though by the law the groom may delay—nevertheless, it is appropriate and proper that he not leave his bride an agunah because of this, and he should not quarrel with them, for such matters do not succeed. And conversely—when he does not quarrel, Hashem will give him blessing and his pairing will turn out well, for the money a person takes for his wife through force is not honest money, and anyone who does so is also included among "those who marry for the sake of money"; rather, whatever his father-in-law and mother-in-law give him he should take with a good eye, and then he will succeed. However, those whose intention from the outset is to deceive the groom regarding the dowry and think they are performing a mitzvah—they do not act well [Shelah].

Our sages, of blessed memory, said: A person should always strive to marry the daughter of a talmid chacham. If he does not find the daughter of a talmid chacham, he should marry the daughter of the great men of the generation, righteous individuals and men of deeds. If he does not find the daughter of the great men of the generation, he should marry the daughter of the heads of the assemblies. If he does not find the daughter of the heads of the assemblies, he should marry the daughter of the gabbai tzedakah. If he does not find the daughter of the gabbai tzedakah, he should marry the daughter of the teachers of children. And similarly, he should strive to marry his daughter to a talmid chacham, and he should not marry his daughter to an am ha'aretz who is not meticulous in the mitzvot. And our sages, of blessed memory, said that it is a mitzvah for a person to marry the daughter of his sister, as it is said: "And from your own flesh do not hide yourself," and the same applies to the daughter of his brother, for it is a mitzvah for a person to bring his relatives close. And some say specifically the daughter of his sister because a person's longings are much greater for his sister than for his brother, and through this he will cherish his wife. And the first opinion holds like that which we say in the Midrash: If a person marries a woman from his relatives, regarding him the verse says, "bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh." And the matter is: for the love of relatives is natural, and the love of a man for his wife comes by way of the actions of both of them which is an occurrence for them, and when both are joined together, then the tent will be established and there will be peace in the home. And it is known that you have no relative whom a person may marry closer than the daughter of the sister and the daughter of the brother. And in the Yerushalmi Kiddushin it is brought as a reason for why the sages required one who marries a woman to examine four mothers in her family, as will be explained, that the sages imposed a penalty so that a person should be attached to his tribe and to his family.

A man should not marry a woman—neither from a family of metzoraim nor from a family of epileptics. And this is specifically when the family has been established three times that their children come to this, for three times constitutes a chazakah. And even though regarding a matter of danger we are concerned even for two times, as is written in Yoreh Deah siman 263 regarding two sons who died due to milah that they should not circumcise the third, nevertheless, regarding the establishment of a family, there is no chazakah there until they are established three times [Nimukei Yosef]. And according to this, if the woman has two sisters who are metzorot or epileptics—it is forbidden to marry her, for sisters establish a chazakah regarding milah as is written there, and the same law applies regarding this [Pitchei Teshuvah].

An am ha'aretz should not marry a daughter of a kohen, and if he married her, their union will not succeed, for either she or he will die quickly or another mishap will occur between them, because it is a disgrace for the seed of Aharon to cling to an am ha'aretz. However, a talmid chacham who marries a daughter of a kohen, this is pleasant and praiseworthy—Torah and priesthood in one place. And what is called an am ha'aretz regarding this matter? One who treats the mitzvot with contempt, but not one who observes the mitzvot even if he is not a talmid chacham; therefore, there is one who says that we do not have nowadays an am ha'aretz such as those the sages considered in Pesachim, see there.

A young man should not marry an old woman, for she is not capable of bearing children and he will neglect procreation. And an old man should not marry a young girl, for this matter causes licentiousness, as she will commit adultery while under him, and regarding this the Torah warned, "Do not profane your daughter to make her a harlot," and our sages, of blessed memory, said this refers to one who marries his daughter to an old man. However, when she truly desires him—it is permitted. And it is brought in Sefer Chasidim an incident involving a maiden who married an old man because she desired him, and from them emerged sons who were Torah scholars, and many such incidents are known. However, if her desire is only because he is wealthy—it is not proper to do so, for ultimately when she becomes accustomed to the wealth, her soul will loathe him and she will seek her needs.

A man shall not marry a woman with the intention of divorcing her, and regarding this it is said, "Do not devise evil against your neighbor while he dwells securely with you." Therefore, if he informed her beforehand that he is marrying her for a set time—it is permitted. And there are those who forbid even in such a case [Taz]. However, in our times there is no practical difference in this, for it is forbidden to divorce against her will by the enactment of Rabbeinu Gershom Me'or HaGolah; and in any event, if she consents to receive a get—even if he did not marry her for a set time he may divorce her, and if she does not consent, what benefit is there if he marries her for a set time? And he shall not marry a woman in two different places, as I wrote in siman 1, section 24; see there.

Our Sages, of blessed memory, said [Kiddushin 76a]: One who marries a woman of priestly lineage must check her family for four mothers, which are eight, for he checks four mothers—two from the father's side and two from the mother's side, which are eight, each one a mother and her mother. And this is the checking: her mother, and her mother's mother, and her mother's father's mother, and her mother, and her father's mother, and her mother, and her father's father's mother, and her mother. And for a Levi woman and an Israelite woman, they add one more to them—one mother higher in each pair, which are ten mothers [the Rambam]. And some say that they also check her mother, which are twelve mothers. And the halacha was decided in the Gemara there that this is only when a challenge arose against the family, but ordinarily all families stand under the presumption of fitness. And what is the checking? That there was no mamzerut in them or other disqualifications for the congregation, and automatically the checking is even if the one marrying is not a kohen; and when he is a kohen, he checks if there are found in them disqualifications for the priesthood such as a concern of chalalut. Only if he marries a woman from a family of kohanim, they did not require checking more than four mothers, because kohanim are more presumed in their lineage, and if she is from a family of Levites or Israelites, they were more stringent to check one more generation. And why did they require checking her mothers and not her fathers? Because when males quarrel with one another, they quarrel regarding matters of lineage, and if there were any disqualification it would be known to all, and since it is not known—they did not require checking. But females, when they quarrel with one another, they quarrel regarding their own lineage and not regarding the lineage of the fathers, and the matter is not publicized even when there is a disqualification in her family; therefore, they required checking her mothers and not her fathers. And why does he check her family and she does not check his family? Because in matters of priesthood, when she is a daughter of a kohen, she is permitted to marry even those disqualified from the priesthood, and the daughters of Aaron were not warned to marry specifically those fit for the priesthood. And therefore they were not concerned even for disqualifications for the congregation like mamzerut, even though in disqualifications for the congregation women are warned like men, since this is only a mere concern. And what is the challenge that arose? The Rambam, of blessed memory, wrote [Chapter 19 of Issurei Biah]: That two witnesses testified that a mamzer or a chalal or a slave was mixed into the family. And Rashi, of blessed memory, explained that it was not complete testimony but rather a mere rumor, and through the rumor two witnesses called out a taint of disqualification upon the family. And one should not ask against the Rambam that when there are witnesses to the mixing of a mamzer, then this is not a concern and by law she is forbidden to marry anyone from the family, and why should she not check his family? For it can be said that it is true that a mamzer was mixed into the family, nevertheless, each individual of the family is only a doubtful mamzer, and a doubtful mamzer is permitted by the Torah to marry a daughter of Israel, for the Torah only forbade a certain mamzer and not a doubtful mamzer, as I wrote in siman 4; and even though by rabbinic law she is forbidden to marry as I wrote there, nevertheless, she does not need a checking of generations but only checks that man specifically, since it is only rabbinic [see Chelkat Mechokek subsection 5]. And according to Rashi—she does not need to check at all since it is only a mere concern. And even though if the one marrying is not a kohen his law is equal to a woman, nevertheless, since a kohen who marries has in it a Torah concern, therefore they were stringent even for one who is not a kohen, which is not the case for women, for there is no woman who would have in her a Torah prohibition—they were not stringent regarding them in checking generations. However, this is simple: that if the challenge is only regarding a disqualification for the priesthood, such as if they testified that a chalal was mixed into the family—the one marrying does not need to check unless he is a kohen [ibid. subsection 3]. And although some say that even according to the Rambam and Rashi, of blessed memory, they only required checking for a kohen, and not for a Levi or Israelite in any case [Tosafot Yom Tov and Pnei Yehoshua], nevertheless, most poskim did not write so. However, regarding the addition to a Levi woman and an Israelite woman of one more generation, it is explained from Rashi, of blessed memory, that they only required this for a kohen who marries, and all that has been explained in this section is according to the method of Rashi and the Rambam, of blessed memory. [And this is the intent of Rashi there who wrote "And since the Torah was not particular etc. the Rabbis also did not act etc.", meaning that by the Torah a doubtful mamzer is permitted, and the question of the Tosafot is answered, and see Be'er Heitev subsection 9 and Chelkat Mechokek subsection 5, and I have combined both of them, see there. And look closely].

And there are those of our teachers who ruled that when the investigation is for a kohen due to a concern of chalalut, one must investigate four mothers, which are eight, and when the investigation is due to a concern of mamzerut—whether it is a kohen marrying a kohenet or a Leviyah or a Yisraelit, or whether it is a Levi or a Yisrael marrying a kohenet or a Leviyah or a Yisraelit—they add one more pair to the investigation, for regarding a concern of mamzerut they were more stringent than regarding a concern of chalalut for the priesthood. And in truth, the woman also needs to investigate his family when the concern is due to mamzerut or other disqualifications for the congregation [Me'or and Ramban as the Maggid Mishneh wrote, and so wrote the Ran in his name, see there].

And there are some of our teachers who ruled that no investigation is necessary, neither for a kohen who is marrying and certainly not for a levi or a yisrael, for a mere challenge is nothing. And even if the challenge is clear, nevertheless, an investigation of generations is not required; rather, the investigation of generations is only for a kohen who is marrying and is concerned lest when the Beit HaMikdash is built—and then they will refine the families of the kohanim so that there will not be in them a trace of disqualification, and they and their sons will be excluded from the service—and therefore a kohen who is concerned for this when he comes to marry a woman and there is some challenge in the family, if she is from a family of kohanim he shall investigate four generations, and if she is a leviyah or a yisraelit he adds one more pair [so it is according to the explanation of our teacher, the Tam, there, and certainly this is also according to the conclusion when they called it a challenge, and what the Tur wrote regarding the explanation of our teacher, the Tam—it requires further study, and see there in Ketubot 24 and in the Ran].

And behold, according to all the opinions that have been explained, there is no concern regarding families about whom no protest has been raised, and anyone who comes to marry from them—whether a kohen, a Levi, or an Israelite—requires no investigation. And so is the evident opinion of the Rif and the Rosh, who did not write this entire matter at all; it is evident that they hold that even when a protest has been raised, we are not concerned with this, because they hold that the investigation is only for a kohen for the sake of the Temple service when it is rebuilt speedily in our days, and in this time there is no practical difference in all of this [Yam Shel Shlomo, and the difficulty of the Beit Yosef is resolved, see there]. However, it is a simple matter according to all opinions that when there is a clear protest with witnesses, an investigation is required according to all opinions; and granted that according to the opinion in section 6 and the Rif and the Rosh an investigation of generations is not required, nevertheless, an investigation of the parents of the woman herself is certainly required. But without a protest—all families stand in their presumption of fitness.

However, there are some of our teachers who hold that that which we said, "all families stand in a presumption of fitness"—this refers to a family that has a presumption of fitness, for then it does not require investigation. But one whose family is not known requires proof of lineage, to bring two witnesses that it is a fit family, and even one witness is not believed for this, only two witnesses [Ramah in the Tur]. However, this is a minority opinion and all the poskim do not hold accordingly. However, regarding a kohen—there are many of our teachers who hold that no kohen is permitted to marry a woman from a family that is not known to be presumed fit, for they were very concerned regarding those disqualified from the priesthood [Ramban and the Ra'ah and the Ritva in Shita Mekubetzet Ketubot 24, and the Ran and the Rashba in the Novellae there]. According to these teachers of ours, that which the Sages, of blessed memory, said, "all families stand in a presumption of fitness"—this is regarding those disqualified from the congregation and not regarding those disqualified from the priesthood. Therefore, every kohen must be careful not to take a wife except from a known family that is presumed fit.

And so it appears to me that the opinion of Rashi and the Rambam is that even though all families stand in a presumption of fitness, nevertheless, this applies to a family; but a man who comes from afar and wishes to marry a woman—we do not give him one until it is known who he is and from which family he is, and perhaps he is a mamzer or possesses another disqualification. For it is well and good that a family established as Israelites we establish in a presumption of fitness, but the man who comes from afar and we do not know him, behold, he has no presumption. And one of the great Acharonim wrote that the Rambam holds like the previous opinion and so holds Rashi, of blessed memory, that one whose family is not known must bring witnesses that it is a fit family. But it appears to me as I wrote, that if he has a family—he does not need proof at all, and proof is only needed for a solitary man who comes from afar and we do not know his family. Therefore, regarding the law, it is simple that one must be careful not to marry a man who is not known to us, and similarly a woman who is not known, since many of our teachers hold so even according to our words. And know, that truth be told that all families stand in a presumption of fitness—this is for the fitness of an Israelite because they have a presumption of fitness, but to establish himself or another as a kohen—one must bring proof that his family is established as kohanim, for regarding priesthood, behold, he has no presumption, and it will be explained in siman 3 with the help of Heaven, and so it is explained from the Rambam chapter 20, see there.

Our sages, of blessed memory, said [Kiddushin 71a]: When the Holy One, Blessed be He, purifies the tribes, He purifies the tribe of Levi first, as it is said, "And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver; and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness" [Malachi 3], and this will be in the time to come. They further expounded: What is "an offering in righteousness"? The Holy One, Blessed be He, performed a charity with Israel, that a family that has become assimilated—remains assimilated. This means those families into which disqualified individuals, such as mamzerim, were mixed due to their wealth and were not identified, and many families of Israel clung to them—the Holy One, Blessed be He, will not separate them from Israel; rather, since they have become assimilated, they remain assimilated. And regarding this they said, money purifies mamzerim, meaning: those mamzerim who, through their money, were mixed into Israel and were not recognized. And so wrote the Rambam, of blessed memory, at the end of his work: In the days of the King Messiah, all of Israel will be genealogically recorded by his word through the holy spirit that will rest upon him, as it is said, "And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier etc.," and he purifies the sons of Levi first and says, "this one is a genealogically fit Kohen" and "this one is a genealogically fit Levi," and he pushes away those who are not genealogically fit to Israel etc., and he only records the genealogy of Israel according to their tribes, informing that this one is from such-and-such tribe and this one is from such-and-such tribe, but he does not say regarding those who are in a presumption of fitness, "this one is a mamzer" and "this one is a slave," for the law is that a family that has become assimilated—remains assimilated. Thus far his words. And it would seemingly appear, since the Rambam wrote this regarding the time to come and not in the laws of forbidden relations, that now this law does not concern us at all, but our teachers did not write so. This is their wording: It is simple to us that there is no difference between this world and the days of the Messiah regarding the commandments at all, and just as we see that Elijah will not reveal the assimilated families even though they will all be revealed before him, so too we are not required to reveal them nor are we permitted to do so [Ran ibid., and so he wrote in the name of our teacher Yonatan HaKohen, see there]. Another of the Rishonim wrote that in this time, when over the length of days the disqualified have mixed with the fit etc., and the sages said every family that has become assimilated remains assimilated, and it is in a presumption of fitness since they did not mix with the disqualified knowingly, and one does not reveal the assimilated families, but one does reveal the disqualified who have not been assimilated and announces them so that the fit may be careful of them; therefore, a person in this time need only be careful of the disqualified who are known to him in his days [Shiltei HaGibborim in the name of the Riaz]. And one who knows of a disqualification is not permitted to reveal it but should leave it in its presumption of fitness, and in the time to come, even though the matter will become known, it will be fit. However, it is possible that it is proper to reveal it to the modest ones so that they do not cling to them, even though if they had clung to them without knowledge there would be no prohibition at all, but because the offspring is not prepared for holiness and purity, as the Holy One, Blessed be He, only rests His Presence upon genealogically fit families in Israel—it is a proper thing to reveal them. And this is what we learn in the Gemara [Kiddushin 71a]: There was yet another family there and the sages did not want to reveal it, but the sages hand them over to their students [Ran ibid.]. And all this is regarding Israel, but Kohanim and Levites will be pushed away from their standing against their will, and regarding them it is said, "and he shall purge them as gold and silver," and if so, regarding a disqualification of Kehunah or Leviyah—one is permitted to reveal it. And one should not ask and say: By what permission will they leave the families in their fitness, for is there not no difference between this world and the days of the Messiah? For it can be said that by the law, each one of the family is permitted as it is like a double doubt, as will be explained in the law of a doubtful disqualification that was mixed into a family, and even though it will be known to Elijah through the holy spirit, behold "it is not in heaven" and we do not judge the laws of the Torah from prophecy and the holy spirit, and since by the law it is permitted, therefore the Holy One, Blessed be He, will have pity on the families mixed with disqualified ones and purify them, except for the tribe of Levi which is prepared for the service of the Beit HaMikdash—that one they shall purify and purge and refine as gold and silver. And one should not raise a difficulty that according to this, how are all these examinations of the woman's generations found, since they are all fit in the time to come, and even now we are not permitted to reveal them? For it can be said that certainly it is so, but nevertheless, when a protest arises against the family, behold it is forbidden by the law until he examines it, and a Kohen certainly should not marry without examination even without a protest, as I wrote in section 12, so that he does not disqualify his offspring in the future, for regarding Kohanim, when they find a disqualification, they will necessarily be separated from their Kehunah as I wrote. And the same applies to a Levi—it is proper to be exacting according to what has been explained. [See Chelkat Mechokek subsection 9 and Beit Shmuel subsection 19, and study it].

The Rambam, of blessed memory, wrote [chapter 19]: Even though all families are under the presumption of fitness and it is permitted to marry from them ab initio, nevertheless, two families that are constantly incited against one another, or a family that is constantly a master of strife and contention, or a man who constantly increases contention with everyone and is exceedingly brazen-faced—one is concerned regarding them and it is proper to distance oneself from them, for these are signs of unfitness. So too, anyone who constantly disqualifies others, such as if he placed a taint of unfitness upon families or individuals and says of them that they are mamzerim—one is concerned regarding him that perhaps he is a mamzer; and if he says of them that they are slaves, one is concerned regarding him that perhaps he is a slave, for anyone who disqualifies, disqualifies with his own blemish. So too, one who possesses brazen-facedness and cruelty and hates people and does not perform acts of kindness—one is concerned regarding him that perhaps he is a Gibeonite, for the signs of Israel, the holy nation, are that they are bashful, merciful, and performers of acts of kindness. Thus far his words. And regarding a kohen, when he is somewhat brazen-faced there is no concern, as it is written: "And your people are like those who contend with a kohen" [Beit Yosef]. Nevertheless, if he constantly increases contention—one is concerned regarding him [Beit Shmuel]. And the Maharshal wrote [Yam Shel Shlomo, Kiddushin chapter 4, siman 4]: And I say, if in our time you come to be stringent regarding families incited against one another—you have not left a family for our forefather Abraham that would be under the presumption of fitness, for due to our many sins the generation is breached and there is no teacher, and families are always incited against one another; and because of this, it appears that even one whose way is to disqualify families and to say of them that they are unfit—one is not concerned regarding him that he is the unfit one, for the generation is breached and accustomed to this, and one is not concerned regarding his family, but rather he alone is vinegar the son of wine. Thus far his words. And if the Maharshal said so in his generation—how much more so in these generations.

We hold that silence is like an admission; therefore, the Sages of blessed memory said [Ketubot 14] that when they call a person by some disqualification and he remains silent, we are concerned for this. And so wrote the Rambam there: Anyone whom they call a mamzer and he is silent, or a natin and he is silent, or a challal and he is silent, or a slave and he is silent, we are concerned for him and for his family, and one may not marry from them unless they investigate as we have explained. Thus far his words. And we also do not say that since he was silent, conclude from this that he is the disqualified one and all of his family are fit; rather, there is also a concern for the family via his silence. However, there are some of our teachers who hold that, on the contrary, anyone who is silent—it is a sign of his lineage, for it is an honor for a person to desist from strife. And that which the Sages of blessed memory said, that when he is silent we are concerned for him—this is when a protest regarding this disqualification has already emerged against the family, and if it were a lie he would not have been silent in such a case; and since he was silent, conclude from this that he admitted to the protest. And on the contrary—from his silence it is proven that he is the disqualified one in his family and because of him the protest emerged, and the rest of the family are fit. And if it is difficult—behold, even without the silence, since a protest emerged, does it not require investigation? However, in truth, in such a case investigation is of no avail since he admitted, and the family does not require investigation. And even if we say that investigation is of avail, nevertheless there is a practical difference if they called him a doubtful mamzer or a doubtful challal and the protest emerged similarly; for without the silence, if one of the members of the family married, she would not be removed because it is a double doubt as will be explained, but with silence, she would be removed without clarification, for behold, this is like an admission that he is disqualified. And there are some of our teachers who also hold that silence is nothing, but that which the Sages of blessed memory were concerned for regarding silence—this is when he is not silent regarding another disqualification when they call him, but regarding this disqualification he is silent; conclude from this that it is the truth.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that all this applies to a disqualification that affects himself, but if they wish to disqualify his offspring in his presence and he remains silent – this is not considered an admission, though we must nonetheless be somewhat concerned. Thus far his words. And even if a rumor had previously circulated, nevertheless, his silence will not further avail to disqualify them, for even if we consider his silence as an admission, nevertheless, according to several poskim even his admission does not avail regarding the sons, except regarding the matter of the birthright. And when they have been established in their fitness – according to everyone his admission does not avail, as will be explained in siman 4, and all the more so that through mere silence we shall not disqualify his sons and we are not concerned with his silence. And even though when they disqualify him – it follows that his sons are disqualified as well, nevertheless, when the disqualification is upon his sons and not upon himself – his silence is nothing.

However, regarding the primary disqualification arising from silence, our teachers the Rishonim agreed that all of this was during the time of the sages of the Shas when the beit din would attend to one who insulted his fellow and would punish him appropriately; therefore, silence was like an admission. But now, one who remains silent during a quarrel—behold, he is praiseworthy, unless they call him so not during a time of quarrel. Therefore, in our times, on the contrary, one who remains silent toward one who insults him regarding his lineage—it is a sign that he is an honored man of distinguished lineage, and one who hears his insult regarding other matters and remains silent—it is a sign that he is of distinguished lineage, and the lineage of the Babylonians is silence [Gemara]. Therefore, the Rif and the Rosh omitted the entire matter of silence.

A family in which a doubtful challal has become intermingled, any fit woman who married one of that family and was widowed—she is forbidden to a kohen ab initio, but if she married, she shall not leave, because there are two doubts: perhaps she is the widow of that challal, perhaps she is not his widow; and if we say she is his widow, perhaps he is not a challal. And why ab initio shall she not marry, for is a double doubt not a complete permission? For in truth, they only made a stringency regarding lineage, just as we require two majorities in the case of a woman who committed harlotry, as was written in siman 6, even though elsewhere one majority is sufficient [Tosafot Ketubot 14b], and they were only stringent ab initio, but post facto they established it upon the Torah law. And even if the woman herself does not claim "I am certain that my husband was not that challal," nevertheless she is permitted by power of a double doubt, for a double doubt does not require a claim of certainty post facto [as is evident in the Gemara there]. And if she claims "I am certain," it appears that she is permitted to a kohen ab initio, just as with two majorities there when she claims certainty. However, there is no proof, for a double doubt is not as strong as two majorities, as there is one who says that even a single majority is preferable to a double doubt, and even according to the one who holds that a double doubt is preferable to a majority, nevertheless it is obvious that it is not as strong as two majorities [see Beit Shmuel]. And nevertheless, from the sugya of the Shas [there] it is explained that it is not dealing with one who says "certain," and it can be said that in a case of certainty they did not make this stringency. And there is one who says that it is dealing even with one who is not silent, but in a case of silence when they say to her "your husband was a challal," even if she married—she shall leave [Beit Shmuel]. And it appears to me that here silence is not like an admission, for it is well in the silence mentioned in section 16 when they speak to the head of the family himself, for he presumably heard from the members of the family and knows about their disqualification—it is correctly silence like an admission. But this woman who married one of the family, from where would she know their disqualification? And her silence is not considered like an admission, for in all the prohibitions we do not say silence is like an admission except in a place where she should have known, as was written in Yoreh Deah siman 127, see there.

Many have asked: Why do we consider a case of a doubtful challal who became intermingled as a double doubt, for behold, we rule there in siman 110 that every double doubt requires that both doubts be either both regarding the essence of the prohibition or both regarding a mixture, but when one doubt is in the essence and one doubt is in a mixture, a double doubt is not effective, and here the first doubt is in the essence of the prohibition—whether the doubtful person is a challal or not—and the second doubt is because he became intermingled with the entire family? However, this is not a question at all, for it is not similar to every double doubt, since even without a double doubt she is permitted by the letter of the law as we follow the majority of the family, and "whatever separates, separates from the majority," for anyone who takes a wife goes and brings a wife to his home. And one need not fear lest he remained in his place and she came to him—which would be a case of fixed status and considered like half and half—for we only fear this regarding an act of harlotry and not regarding marriage, for it is the way of a man to seek out a woman, and since even without the double doubt she is permitted—we are no longer particular about this. And according to this, since there is also the permission of the majority here, it is obvious that when she claims with certainty, she is permitted to marry a kohen even ab initio.

And some say that this is not a case of one doubt regarding the body and one doubt regarding a mixture, for we are not judging here regarding the mixture at all, but rather regarding this widow, whether the chalal was her husband; and if you say he was—perhaps he is not a chalal. This is similar to two chickens in a house, one kosher and the second a doubtfully treifah, and an egg was found there, which is permitted by reason of a sefeik sefeika: perhaps the kosher one laid the egg, and if you say the doubtful one laid it—perhaps it is kosher. It was explained there that this is a sefeik sefeika, and here too it is the same. And some have rejected this, for it is not similar to the egg, as there we judge regarding the egg from where it came, but here we only have to judge regarding the widow if it were not known who from the family was her husband. However, when her husband is known, we must judge regarding the husband, for when he is forbidden, she also becomes forbidden through his cohabitation; and when we judge regarding him, behold, the first doubt is in his body, whether he is a chalal or not, and the second doubt is because he was mixed within the entire family. And it appears to me that the primary view is like the first opinion, for certainly if the husband were alive and we were judging regarding him, she would be forbidden because of him. But when the husband is dead and there is no need to judge regarding him—we then judge only regarding the widow, and also regarding chazakot we judge regarding the thing upon which the doubt was cast and not regarding the cause that brought about the matter. Furthermore, in the essence of the matter, it is not similar to one doubt in the body and one doubt in a mixture, for behold, some say there that the reason a doubt in the body and a doubt in a mixture is not effective is because initially, when the doubt was in the body and it was clearly forbidden—the mixture would no longer be effective, just as with a certain prohibition. This is not the case if the two doubts came as one, for then it is like any sefeik sefeika, and here, even regarding her husband, the two doubts came as one. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, agreed with this reasoning in the Tur, Yoreh Deah, siman 57 regarding a doubt of derusah; see there. And even according to the one who holds there that even if the two doubts came as one, since they are not equal it is not a sefeik sefeika—it is also not similar, for behold, if we judge regarding the widow, the two doubts are equal: a doubt if the chalal was her husband, and if you say he was—perhaps he is not a chalal. And why should we begin the doubt with the husband since we are not judging regarding him, as I have written.

Some say that specifically the widow, if she married, shall not leave because she had a presumption of fitness before she married this man, but her daughter, if she married – shall leave, for behold she was born in doubt and has no presumption of fitness. And some say there is no distinction between her and her daughter, and such is the primary view, for since there is a double doubt and also a majority according to what I wrote in section 20, what need is there for the presumption? Furthermore, even the presumption of the mother was weakened from the day she married this man. And even though a presumption that was weakened is still a presumption, nevertheless, it is not a powerful presumption. Furthermore, the presumption of the mother is effective also for the daughter, as I wrote in siman 6 regarding one who commits harlotry; see there [see Beit Shmuel sub-section 14 and delve into it].

If a definite challal was mixed into the family—every woman from them is forbidden until he investigates, and if she married—she must leave, for there is only one doubt here: perhaps he was the challal, or perhaps he was not. And even according to what I wrote that there is a majority here for permission, nevertheless, in matters of lineage we do not permit based on a single majority and we require two majorities, as I wrote there. However, if she claims "I am certain that my husband was not the challal"—it appears that if she married she does not leave, for it is implied so in the Gemara that with a claim of certainty we validate in a case of doubt, and all the more so since there is also a majority here [and so it is implied from the Gra, subsection 31, see there].

If a definite mamzer or a doubtful mamzer became intermingled within the family, regarding a kohen—one who marries from this family, his law is the same as if a challal or a doubtful challal were intermingled within it, for the wife of a mamzer and the wife of a challal are one and the same prohibition for the priesthood [the Rambam]. Regarding an Israelite—the woman who married one of the members of the family is certainly permitted, for the wife of a mamzer is not prohibited to an Israelite. Regarding the daughters born from the members of this family—some say that when a doubtful mamzer is intermingled within it, an Israelite is permitted to marry them even ab initio by reason of a double doubt, for that which a kohen is prohibited from marrying—the kohanim applied a higher standard to their lineage as is stated in the Gemara there, and regarding an Israelite we do not find this higher standard [Yam Shel Shlomo, Taz, and Be'er Sheva], for the entire matter is only rabbinic, as from the Torah a doubtful mamzer is permitted to an Israelite woman as written in siman 4, and it is only prohibited rabbinically; therefore, in a case of double doubt it is permitted even ab initio, and so it is implied from the wording of the Rambam. However, some say that an Israelite's law is also like a kohen and he is prohibited from marrying ab initio, but if she was married—she shall not leave [the Beit Yosef], for since the kohanim applied this higher standard, it remains prohibited ab initio even regarding those disqualified from the congregation [the Gra], and so it is implied from the wording of the Tur at the end of siman 7 according to the version before us, see there. And the first opinion holds that there is a printing error in the Tur [Be'er Sheva], and so it appears from the fact that he concludes there that if he married, the offspring is a doubtful mamzer, and this is obvious that ex post facto even regarding a kohen there is no concern as has been written. [And if we say that it refers to the intermingling of a definite mamzer, it is obvious, what is it coming to teach us? And he already explained this in siman 4].

Some say that specifically when the disqualification that was intermingled was clarified by witnesses, but if there was only a mere rumor—even a kohen need not be concerned [ibid.]. However, when there are witnesses who called a trace of disqualification upon the family because of the rumor, it is possible that according to the opinion of Rashi that we explained in section 8, one must be concerned.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that all this is specifically for one who knows of the matter of the disqualification, but a family in which a disqualification was mixed and it is not known to the public, once it has been assimilated – it is assimilated. And one who knows its disqualification is not permitted to reveal it, but rather shall leave it in its presumption of fitness, for all families that were assimilated into Israel are fit for the future to come. Nevertheless, it is a proper thing to reveal it to the modest ones. And specifically a family that was assimilated and mixed, but as long as it has not been mixed – one reveals the disqualified ones and announces them so that the fit ones shall separate from them. And see in Hoshen Mishpat siman 35 regarding who is believed to testify about families. Thus far his words. And we have already explained this in section 11. And it appears to me that this is only regarding those disqualified from the congregation, but the kohanim must be concerned, for behold, them He will refine in the future to come, and it is possible that the Levites also must be concerned according to what I wrote there.