I was on my way to and back from the sea shore and a few thoughts occurred to me. there are to laws in the Rambam. One about an unmarried woman who had sex with someone. She and he say the child is from him. Even so, this is doubtful; because just like she had sex with him she might have had sex with others. But when a woman had sex with a kohen we say the child is from him and she can eat truma. [Even a Israeli woman who has a male child from a kohen can eat truma.] In this second case, she says nothing. But we assume the child is from the kohen because people are saying so. I think this goes along with Rav Shmuel Rozovski that the court goes by a majority. In the first case she might have had sex with others, and that is considered to mean anyone in the general area. That is a majority. Therefore, we go by the majority, and say the father is unknown. But in the second case, most people say the kohen is the father, and so we go by that, and we say it is certain that he is the father. In both cases, the Rambam does not appear to pay any attention to what she says. In the first case she says the child is from a particular person, and we ignore that claim. In the second case, she says nothing, and we say anyway the child is from the kohen. [But it is possible the Rambam would pay attention to her claim if there was not a majority against it.] I do not recall the exact language of the Rambam here, but I am sure that he mentions about a status quo in both cases. I think that it might be understood from the Rambam that if there would be a status quo to support her claim, we would go by that like Tosphot in Ketuboth page 26. It also might be that we would go by her claim if there would be no status quo to support or deny it. ----------------------------I was on my way to and back from the sea shore and a few thoughts occurred to me. there are to laws in the רמב''ם . One about an unmarried woman who had sex with someone. She and he say the child is from him. Even so, this is doubtful; because just like she had sex with him, she might have had sex with others. But when a woman had sex with a כהן we say the child is from him, and she can eat תרומה. [Even a Israeli woman who has a male child from a כהן can eatתרומה .] In this second case, she says nothing. But we assume the child is from the כהן because people are saying so. I think this goes along with ר' שמואל רוזובסקי that the court goes by a רוב. In the first case she might have had sex with others, and that is considered to mean anyone in the general area. That is a רוב. Therefore, we go by the רוב, and say the father is unknown. But in the second case, most people say the כהן is the father, and so we go by that, and we say it is certain that he is the father. In both cases, the רמב’’ם does not appear to pay any attention to what she says. In the first case she says the child is from a particular person, and we ignore that claim. In the second case, she says nothing, and we say anyway the child is from the כהן. [But it is possible the רמב’’ם would pay attention to her claim if there was not a רוב against it.] I do not recall the exact language of the רמב’’ם here, but I am sure that he mentions about a חזקה in both cases. I think that it might be understood from the רמב’’ם that if there would be a חזקה to support her claim, we would go by that like תוספות in כתובות page 26. It also might be that we would go by her claim if there would be no חזקה to support or deny it.