Siman 3

It has already been explained in siman 2 that all families stand in a presumption of fitness, and it was explained there in section 12 that according to many of the poskim, this is only regarding the disqualifications for the congregation and not for the priesthood; therefore, a kohen who marries a woman must investigate her family, see there. However, this is according to all the poskim: that the presumption of priesthood is not similar to the presumption of an Israelite. For regarding the fitness of an Israelite—there is a presumption for everyone, but for the priesthood—there is no presumption by default unless he is established with a certain presumption. And thus our sages, of blessed memory, said: Israelites recognize the mamzerim among them but do not recognize the challalim among them; for a mamzer is forbidden to enter the congregation and everyone flees from intermarrying with him—therefore he is well-known. But the challal is fit for the congregation and his disqualification is only for the priesthood, and there is nothing by which his disqualification would become known since he is a fit Israelite like all the House of Israel. Furthermore, the primary service of the priesthood was in the Temple, and the Sanhedrin would always investigate the lineages of the kohanim, and any kohen in whom a trace of disqualification was found, they would distance him from the service. Therefore, in the time of the Temple, the absolute presumption for priesthood was whoever served in the Beit HaMikdash. And thus our sages, of blessed memory, said [Kiddushin 76]: One does not investigate from the Altar and upward, nor from the platform in the Temple and upward, nor from the Sanhedrin and upward; for they only appoint to all of these kohanim of established lineage for the Altar, and Levites of established lineage for the platform, and Israelites of established lineage for the Sanhedrin.

Who is a priest of established lineage? Anyone for whom two witnesses testified that he is a priest, the son of so-and-so the priest, and this father was the son of so-and-so the priest, up to a man who does not require investigation, and he is the priest who served upon the altar [the Rambam]. Therefore, when they ascended from the exile, they demanded from all the priests their book of lineage, and those who did not find it were distanced from the priesthood, as it is written in Ezra [2]: "And of the children of the priests: the children of Habaiah, the children of Hakkoz, the children of Barzillai... these sought their register among those that were reckoned by genealogy, but they were not found; therefore were they deemed polluted and put from the priesthood." And likewise, one for whom two witnesses testified that they saw him eating terumah from the Torah—behold, he is of established lineage, for we maintain that we elevate from terumah from the Torah to lineage, but from rabbinic terumah—we do not elevate. And likewise, we do not elevate from the raising of the hands to lineage, nor from reading first in the Torah, nor from the distribution of terumah at the threshing floors [ibid.]. And specifically from the eating of terumah from the Torah, which is a sin of death for a non-priest who eats it, for if he were not a priest of established lineage he would not have eaten; but the raising of the hands, which is only a violation of a positive commandment for a non-priest who ascends—we do not elevate from this to lineage. [And therefore we do not elevate from the distribution of terumah, even though they do not distribute to a slave without his master, as the Rambam wrote in chapter 12 of Terumot].

And now in this time, when we have neither the Temple service due to our sins, nor Torah-mandated terumah—therefore, in the future to come, the Holy One, Blessed be He, will refine the kohanim, as it is written, "And He shall sit as a refiner," etc., as is written there. Nevertheless, all kohanim in this time are in the status of kohanim regarding all prohibitions of the priesthood, and that they should ascend first for the Torah, and that they should ascend to the duchan for the priestly blessing, and to eat rabbinic terumah in a place where they still practice the separation of rabbinic terumot and ma'asrot, such as in the Land of Israel. But in the entire Diaspora in this time, we do not even have rabbinic terumah.

And since the presumption of priesthood is more stringent than the presumption of being an Israelite, therefore, one who comes in this time and says "I am a kohen" – he is not believed, for a person is not believed to testify about himself and we do not elevate him to the priesthood, and he shall not be called to the Torah first, and he shall not lift his hands [in the priestly blessing], and we do not feed him terumah of rabbinic origin. But regarding the prohibitions of the priesthood – he is believed, for to be stringent upon himself he is believed, and therefore he is forbidden to a divorcee, a zonah, and a chalalah. And he is forbidden to contract tumah from the dead, and if he married or contracted tumah we lash him when they have warned him. And this is not a doubtful warning, even if we were to say that a doubtful warning is not considered a warning, for this is a certain warning as they warn him based on his own word when he says he is a kohen [Beit Shmuel]. Furthermore, the Rambam ruled [Chapter 15 of Sanhedrin] that a doubtful warning is considered a warning, and she who has intercourse with him from those disqualified to the priesthood is a doubtful chalalah and is forbidden to a kohen.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that there are those who say he is trusted to read first in the Torah and to lift his hands in this time when we do not have terumah from the Torah, such that we would be concerned lest they elevate him to terumah; and so we practice nowadays in every place where they do not practice terumah in this time, and there is nothing to be concerned about. Thus far his words. And they questioned him: for behold, nesiat kapayim is a Torah prohibition, as it is written, "So shall you bless"—you and not strangers, and a negative commandment derived from a positive commandment is a positive commandment. And it appears to me that according to Torah law every person is trusted regarding his own status even in a matter where there is a presumption of prohibition, as is written in Yoreh Deah siman 127, and he should have been trusted even regarding terumah from the Torah; however, because from terumah they elevate to lineage, and regarding the lineage of the priesthood they established many stringencies, therefore they did not trust him—neither regarding terumah from the Torah, nor even regarding terumah by rabbinic decree due to the status of the priesthood. Therefore, in the time of the Shas when there was still terumah by rabbinic decree, they did not trust him in any matter, which is not the case now when we have no type of terumah and by law he is trusted; therefore they were not concerned about this. Furthermore, regarding terumah they did not trust him because he has monetary benefit from others who give him the terumah, which is not the case in our time [see Beit Shmuel], and there is no stumbling block regarding lineage in his holding himself out as a kohen, and in the future to come the truth will be revealed, and if so, there is no concern in this.

And if he is speaking in passing—he is believed even regarding rabbinic terumah. They brought in the Gemara [Ketubot 26] an incident concerning one who was speaking in passing and said, "I remember when I was a child and was riding on my father's shoulder, and they took me out of school and stripped me of my tunic, and they immersed me so that I could eat terumah in the evening, and my friends would separate from me so that they would not make me tamei, and they used to call me Yochanan the eater of challot," and our teacher the Holy One elevated him to the priesthood based on his own word—and specifically for rabbinic terumah and likewise for nesiat kapayim for the reason we explained, but not for Torah terumah, so as not to elevate him to lineage, for regarding lineage they established many stringencies as I have written. And the fact that this kohen elaborated in his words is not a requirement; rather, he recounted the matters as they were, and so it is explained from the Tur, see there [Beit Yosef]. And some say that he was compelled to say that they took him out of school, for if not so, we would be concerned that perhaps he is the slave of a kohen [Tosafot]. And even though we are not concerned about slaves, as I wrote in siman 2 that all families stand in a presumption of fitness, nevertheless, it is possible that here it was known that there were slaves among the kohanim in this city [Nimukei Yosef, see Beit Shmuel and study it]. And so it must be said according to this opinion regarding what he said, "and my friends would separate from me," and that they used to call him Yochanan the eater of challot—it was all to remove him from the presumption of slaves who were in that city among the kohanim [and as mentioned above regarding the intent of the Rambam, and there is no need to say that he holds that we are concerned about a slave, see Beit Shmuel].

If there was one witness testifying about him that he is a kohen – he is believed to feed him terumah of rabbinic origin, and to read first in the Torah, and to recite the priestly blessing. And according to the law, he should be believed even for terumah of Torah origin, for behold, one witness is believed regarding prohibitions, whether to be lenient or to be stringent, in a case where neither a prohibition nor a permission has been established, as is written in Yoreh Deah siman 127; rather, it is because from terumah of Torah origin one may elevate to genealogy, and regarding genealogy they established many stringencies, as has been explained.

And not only this, but even Reuven, who is established as a kohen, is believed to say regarding Shimon that he is his son and is a kohen, and he is like one witness. And even though a relative is disqualified for all testimony, nevertheless he is believed with a migo, for if he wanted, he could have said that he is not a relative and he would be one witness [Ramban]. And according to this, when it is known that he is his father, he is not believed [Maggid Mishneh chapter 19], for we fear perhaps he is a chalalah, and even though he has a migo that he could have fed him from his terumah, nevertheless to call him up to the Torah and for nesiat kapayim, behold he has no migo [it appears to me]. And according to the opinion of the Rambam, even when it is known that he is his father, he is believed by reason of the migo [ibid.]. And even though the migo is only for terumah, nevertheless since he is believed for terumah, he is believed also for all matters of kehunah in this time like one witness, for according to the essential law there is no concern in this, for behold presumably he also says so himself, and every person is believed regarding himself as I wrote in section 5, and therefore even a relative is believed. Furthermore, regarding his calling up to the Torah and for nesiat kapayim, he is believed even now regarding himself as I wrote in section 5 in the name of our teacher, the Rema. [It appears to me; and what the Chelkat Mechokek wrote in subsection 7 to be concerned for a mamzer follows his reasoning in siman 2 subsection 3, that the poskim rule like the Ramah, and we have already explained there what appears to me regarding this].

One may elevate from documents to the priesthood in this current time, and even to feed him terumah of rabbinic origin. How so? If it was written in a document, "I, so-and-so the kohen, borrowed a maneh from so-and-so," and witnesses are signed upon it—behold, he is established as a kohen of the kohanim of the time. And some say that even if there are no witnesses signed upon it—it is no worse than one who speaks offhandedly, who is believed regarding priesthood even to eat terumah of rabbinic origin [see Chelkat Mechokek], and even though when he says "I am a kohen" we do not consider him as one who speaks offhandedly and he is not believed for terumah of rabbinic origin, nevertheless when he signed himself we consider him as one who speaks offhandedly, because the signature was not for the matter of priesthood [see Beit Shmuel subsection 9].

And if the entire document is in the language of the witnesses, who wrote "We, witnesses, testify that Ploni the Kohen borrowed a maneh from Ploni"—according to the opinion of the Rashba, of blessed memory, it is effective even for Torah-level terumah and for lineage, for this is like two witnesses testifying about him that he is a Kohen. And why do we not accept their testimony when it is written "I, Ploni the Kohen, borrowed a maneh from Ploni" and witnesses are signed upon it, except for the priesthood of this present time? Because it can be said that the witnesses only testified regarding the essence of the loan and not regarding the priesthood. And according to the opinion of the Rambam, of blessed memory, even when the document is in the language of the witnesses—this is not like complete testimony, and it is only effective for the priesthood of this present time, because it can be said that they only came to testify that he is presumed to be a Kohen from the kohanim of this present time, and they did not come to testify regarding lineage [Beit Shmuel], for they did not come to testify regarding his priesthood, but rather to know who the borrower is, and therefore when he is from the kohanim of this present time it is a distinct sign to know who he is. And therefore even if there were two Yosef ben Shimon in one city, and they wrote as a sign that one of them is a Kohen, for in this case some say that since they must be precise and distinguish between one and the other—it is complete testimony even for lineage [Tosafot], nevertheless according to the Rambam their testimony is only effective for the priesthood of this present time [Beit Shmuel], for as a sign it is a distinct sign. And therefore it is not similar to what is written in Choshen Mishpat siman 49, regarding two Yosef ben Shimon where they wrote regarding one "shlita" that he is the borrower—it is a distinct sign that he is the borrower, and here it is not a distinct sign for lineage, for here too it is a distinct sign except that we say that even regarding the priesthood of this present time it is a distinct sign [ibid.]. And according to what is written there in Choshen Mishpat section 8 according to the decision of the great Acharonim—the primary ruling is like the Rambam, see there.

One may elevate from the raising of the palms to the status of kehunah in this current time, and likewise from reading first in the Torah. Therefore, one who sees another raising his palms or that they called him first to the Torah may testify about him that he is a kohen, and we may feed him terumah d'rabbanan. And even according to what I wrote in section 5, that for raising his palms and ascending first to the Torah he is believed regarding himself, nevertheless, in a place where there is terumah d'rabbanan, he is not believed, as I wrote there. And regarding reading first in the Torah—specifically when he knows that he read first by law of kehunah, for if not so, there is a concern that there was no kohen in the beit knesset and they called him in place of a kohen, as is written in Orach Chaim siman 135.

The Rambam, of blessed memory, wrote: One who comes in this era and says, "I am a kohen," and one witness testifies for him, "I know that this person's father was a kohen" – we do not elevate him to the priesthood based on this testimony, lest he be a chalal, until he testifies that this person himself is a kohen. But if his father was established as a kohen, or if two came and testified that this person's father was a kohen – he stands in the status of his father. Thus far his words. The explanation of his words: For the stringency they made regarding the priesthood, that he is not trusted regarding himself, but with one witness he is trusted – this is when the witness testified about the person himself, but not when he testified about his father; for they made a stringency in lineage to be concerned, with the testimony of one witness regarding the father, that perhaps he married a chalalah. But if two testified about his father, or it was established for us that his father was a kohen – they did not make this stringency, for if not so, we would require every man from a family of kohanim to bring proof that he was not born from those disqualified from the priesthood, and this matter is entirely impossible. Furthermore, for even regarding prohibitions of stoning and burning we follow the presumptive status, as when a man and woman dwell together as husband and wife and children are trailing after her – we presume the children to be their children, and if the father cohabits with his presumed daughter he is liable for burning, and if the son cohabits with his presumed mother he is liable for stoning [Kiddushin 80.], and all the more so regarding lineage that we rely on the presumptive status. And they only made the stringency regarding one witness, for one witness in testimony is nothing in the entire Torah, except for an oath, a sotah, and the eglah arufah. And there are some of our teachers who disagree on this, and hold that this fact that they trusted one witness is like the trustworthiness of two witnesses, and even if he testified about his father – he is established as a kohen, unless a rumor emerged about him that he is a chalal [see Maggid Mishneh Halacha 12]. And our teacher, the Beit Yosef, ruled in section 6 like the Rambam and did not bring another opinion at all. [see Chelkat Mechokek subsection 7].

One whose father was established as a kohen – one witness is not believed to disqualify him, for one witness is not believed to remove a person from his status of presumption. And if a rumor emerged about him from many people that his father married a divorcee or a chalutzah and fathered him, even though they do not testify in the manner of testimony but only as a mere rumor, since they are many – we are concerned for the rumor and we remove him from the privileges of priesthood, but not from the prohibitions of priesthood – and if he becomes impure to a corpse, we lash him as before, for they were concerned for the rumor to be stringent and not to be lenient. And if afterwards one witness came and testified that his mother is fit for the priesthood – we raise him to the priesthood based on his word, for in a place of a rumor, one witness is believed. And if afterwards two witnesses came and testified in the manner of testimony that he is a challal – we remove him from his priesthood, and he is even permitted to become impure to corpses and to marry a divorcee, for "by the word of two witnesses shall a matter be established." However, if afterwards another witness came and testified like the first witness that he is fit – the man returns to the prohibitions of the priesthood and to the privileges of the priesthood, because there are here two witnesses testifying to his fitness, as this last witness joins with the first, and two testify to his disqualification, and in the entire Torah we hold that we place two against two and establish the matter upon its presumption, and here too we establish this kohen upon the presumption of his ancestors and automatically all the witnesses are set aside since they contradict one another, and the rumor is also set aside, for there is no difference between a hundred witnesses and two witnesses, and he remains in his presumption. And some say that only for rabbinic terumah do we raise him and not for Torah terumah, because in a case of two against two we do not say "establish it upon its presumption" in a Torah matter; even though according to the Torah it is certainly so, nevertheless, the sages were stringent in this and his law is like a rabbinic doubt. And some disagree in this, for since the stringency is only rabbinic, they were only stringent regarding the prohibition of a married woman or for the service of the Beit HaMikdash, but not regarding the matter of terumah. And that which will be explained in siman 46, that we do not nullify a rumor – that is regarding a rumor of divorce so that she shall not marry a kohen, for she has no loss and may marry an Israelite, but to remove a person from his status of presumption – certainly we nullify a rumor.

With regard to that which has been explained, that even a single witness is believed for the presumption of kehunah, they were lenient in this such that even if two came and each one testifies about his fellow that he is a kohen – they are believed, and we do not fear for "reciprocators," meaning: that they made an agreement between them, "you testify for me and I for you." And it appears to me that this is only for terumah d'rabbanan but not for terumah d'oraita, and perforce one must say so, for behold we hold that one elevates from terumah d'oraita to lineage, and a single witness is not believed for lineage. [And according to this, the answer of "if you wish, say" there 24b is well-settled: we should have ruled like Rabbi Yehuda, and according to what I wrote it is well-settled, and examine it closely].

And they likewise were lenient regarding a single witness, even when he testifies only to signs of kehunah, such as when he testifies about Reuven and says, "I remember when I was a child I saw that they immersed Reuven to feed him terumah, or that he immersed himself and ate terumah" – we elevate Reuven to kehunah like all the kohanim in this time, and they were so lenient that even if he testifies to the matter from the time of his childhood, we believe him. And all this is for the reason we explained in section 5, that according to the law there is no concern in this. And why did they not concern themselves that perhaps he is the slave of a kohen? Because we do not concern ourselves with those disqualified from the congregation, as I wrote in section 6 [see Chelkat Mechokek subsection 8 and the Gra subsection 22].

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 3: If one of the anusim testifies that one of them is presumed to be of the kehunah—we elevate him to read from the Torah, and we do not fear that perhaps his mother was a gentile. Thus far his words. The explanation of the matter: In the land of Spain at the time of the expulsion, Jews remained there who observed the Jewish religion in secret and openly showed themselves as non-Jews, and one of them testified about him that this one's father is a kohen—we do not fear to say that since they were mixed among the gentiles it is a near certainty that his mother was disqualified, because even there they guarded themselves from intermarriage with gentiles. And even though according to the opinion of the Rambam in section 12 even without this one witness is not believed, nevertheless, for those who disagree with him it is effective as is written there. And furthermore, even according to the Rambam it is possible that for reading from the Torah one witness is believed. And furthermore, that even if two were testifying about his father that he is a kohen—it would not have been effective because of the fear of the mixtures that we explained, were it not for the fact that we know that even there they were careful in their marriages.

A woman who did not wait three months after the death of her husband, and married another and gave birth at seven months, and it is not known whose child it is—whether she gave birth to it at nine months and he is the son of the first, or she gave birth to it at seven months and he is the son of the latter—and one of them was a kohen and the second was a Yisrael, behold this son is a safek kohen. And similarly, if the child of a kohen was mixed with the child of a Yisrael, each of them is a safek kohen, and we apply to them the stringencies of kohanim and the stringencies of Yisraelim. For when they grow up, they may only marry women who are fit for the priesthood, and they may not become tamei for the dead, and they do not eat even d'rabbanan terumah; and if they married women disqualified for the priesthood, they are removed with a get. And they are not lashed for them nor for the tumah of the dead, because they are kohanei safek and one is not lashed for a doubt. And if they ate terumah, they do not pay the principal and the added fifth like a zar. And the safek does not need to give his own terumah to a kohen; rather, he sells them and the money is his, for out of doubt we do not extract money. And he does not take a portion in the holy things of the Temple nor in the distribution of terumah at the threshing floors; even in the hides of the holy things he does not take a portion, because the men of the watch will say to him, "Bring proof that you are a kohen." However, regarding the sacrifice that he brought, he takes the hide for himself, for out of doubt we do not extract it from him. And similarly, regarding a firstborn son born to him, he does not need to give five sela'im to a kohen; and similarly, he is exempt from giving the firstborn of his animal, and for a firstborn donkey he redeems it with a lamb and the lamb is his own. And the firstborn of his animal shall graze until it develops a blemish and he eats it in its blemish. And he is exempt from the gifts of the foreleg, the cheeks, and the abomasum. And even a kohen and a Yisrael who were mixed together, they are not able to go to the threshing floor to take terumah on behalf of one of them who is certainly a kohen, for since they are not permitted to eat, we also do not give to them so that they should not come to eat. And when they ate terumah, even though they do not need to give the principal and the added fifth to a kohen, nevertheless, they must set aside the principal and the added fifth so that they shall have atonement; and the payments become terumah and are sold to a kohen, and when Eliyahu comes he will clarify who is the kohen and who is the Yisrael. And it appears to me that if this safek performed service in the Beit HaMikdash—according to the view of the Rambam that a doubt regarding a Torah law is fundamentally from the Torah lenient, the owner of the sacrifice does not need to bring another sacrifice; and if the sacrifice was a chatat or an asham, he is forbidden from bringing another sacrifice, for one does not bring a chatat or an asham as a gift out of doubt. But according to the view of the Rashba that from the Torah it is stringent, he is obligated to bring another sacrifice.

Two kohanim whose offspring were intermingled, or a woman who did not wait three months and married another and both are kohanim, and she gave birth to a child of uncertain status, possibly a seven-month child belonging to the latter or a nine-month child belonging to the former—they are certainly kohanim even though they do not know their clear lineage. However, regarding what pertains to the impurity of the dead, where the kohen contracts impurity for his relatives and not for others—the fathers do not contract impurity for them, and they also do not contract impurity for them, and they do not observe aninut or mourning for them, and their law is also thus. And they do not inherit from them, for the certain heirs push them aside due to the doubt, but when one of them dies—the fathers divide it between them, for regarding both of them it is money whose status is in doubt and they divide it, for there is no chazakah here against it. And they are exempt for hitting them or for cursing them, unless both of them hit or both of them cursed—for then they are liable in any case. And in the Mikdash—they serve in the two mishmarot, of this one and of that one, for they cannot be prevented from service. But they do not take a portion of the kodashim, for the members of the mishmar push them aside, and if both come as one—they take one portion in any case [it appears to me].

It is written: "And it shall be for him and his seed after him a covenant of an everlasting priesthood," and the sages, of blessed memory, relied on this verse that we require his seed to be attributed after him, that he should know who his father is. And since this is only a mere asmachta, they therefore did not decree regarding marriage—when a doubt is born whether he is a kohen son of this kohen, or the son of another kohen, like the law that was explained regarding two kohanim whose offspring were mixed, or when she did not wait three months as has been written. But regarding zenut they did decree; therefore, ten kohanim, where one of them separated and had relations and a son was born—even though he is certainly a kohen—nevertheless, we silence him from the law of priesthood, and he does not perform the service, and he does not eat terumah. And this is specifically to be stringent but not to be lenient; therefore, if he becomes impure for the dead or marries a divorcee—he is lashed forty. And even if the matter is composed of zenut and marriage, such as if she committed zenut with one kohen and within three months married another kohen—since there is an aspect of zenut, we silence him from the law of priesthood. And even though most acts of relations are after the husband—this is when she committed zenut while under her husband, but when she committed zenut before, it can be said that she was already pregnant [Beit Shmuel], and furthermore, they made a higher standard regarding the lineage of the priesthood [Chelkat Mechokek]. And such is the law when she committed zenut after the death of her husband within three months [ibid.]. And there are those who hesitate in this for the reason that was explained, that we attribute it to the husband [see Beit Shmuel].

Specifically regarding promiscuity where there is a doubt as to who the father is; however, a kohen who committed an act of zenut with an unmarried woman and a son was born, and he admits that he is his son – behold, the son is a kohen for all matters. We do not fear that perhaps she also made herself available to others, since he admits that the child is from him, and in siman 4 this will be further explained with the help of Heaven. And even though she certainly had relations during the days of her niddah, nevertheless, the son of a niddah is merely flawed but not disqualified, and it will be explained there. And it is not specifically when he admits that the child is from him, but even if he only admits that he had relations with her and she says that no other person had relations with her; but if he is not before us – even though the child is kosher as is written there – nevertheless, we silence him from the law of priesthood [Chelkat Mechokek].

It has already been explained that for the pedigree of a complete kehunah to perform service in the Beit HaMikdash and to eat Torah-mandated terumah—one requires two witnesses to testify that he is the son of a kohen of pedigree whose lineage was investigated; and similarly, when he marries a woman, he must investigate four mothers, as was written in siman 2, for they established great stringencies regarding the pedigree of kehunah. However, a complete chazakah is also effective—what is this chazakah? A kohen of pedigree who went to a province overseas with his investigated wife to another province, and afterwards he and his wife came here and small children are clinging to her—he does not need to bring witnesses, neither regarding the woman that they are her children since they are clinging to her, nor regarding the sons when he says they are his from this woman, and we do not fear that perhaps another man took her there and fathered them. And if she died and he came alone, or if the sons are grown and are not clinging to her—he brings witnesses that these are his sons from this investigated woman, or he brings proof that the sons are his from the woman who died there. And he does not need to bring proof that they are from the woman who went with him to the province overseas, for we do not fear that perhaps he took another there. And if he went by himself and came with a woman and children clinging to her—he brings proof that the woman is of pedigree and investigated from four mothers, and regarding the sons he does not need to bring proof. And if they are not clinging to her—he must bring proof regarding the sons that they are his from this woman. And if he came with two women and the sons are clinging to one, even though she was investigated—nevertheless, he must bring proof that they are her sons, for we fear perhaps they belong to the other and because they grew up together they clung to this one of pedigree. If he and his sons came and he said, "I married a woman and these are her sons"—he brings witnesses that she was of pedigree and these are her sons. And according to this law we judge regarding an Israelite of pedigree—concerning sitting in the Sanhedrin, and regarding a Levite of pedigree—concerning the platform in the Beit HaMikdash. And with such chazakot as clinging to her, we judge for lineage, for behold, we stone and burn based on chazakot, and as was written in section 12.

A kohen who married a divorcee and says that he is not a kohen—he is not believed, and we compel him with all types of compulsion to divorce her. And it is not only necessary to state this when his father is established as a kohen, that he is not believed to say that he was born from a challalah, but even if his father is not known to us but he established himself as a kohen—he is not believed to retract without evidence, for behold, we lash him based on the chazakah that he established for himself, as he has made it upon himself as a piece of forbidden fat. And even though there is one who says that regarding lashes we require that he be established for thirty days, nevertheless regarding the prohibition—he admits that he prohibits himself with his speech immediately. Furthermore, it appears that even for lashes we do not require thirty days, and so it is implied from what was explained in section 4, and such a chazakah is called so immediately when he establishes himself. And there are those who err and say that kohanim of this time are not complete kohanim because they do not have genealogies of priesthood until Aharon the kohen, and Heaven forbid to say so, for according to the law this is not necessary at all as we explained in this siman and in siman 2, and they only performed the investigation as a mere stringency, and since their family is established as kohanim—they are complete kohanim forever and ever.