I might add here that the Rambam makes a distinction between a case where most people in a city are pasul (but no one says anything) to a case where people are saying she (an unmarried woman) had sex with someone in particular or with others. In this last case, if people say she had sex with others besides the kohen we know about, then she cannot eat truma, but the fact that most people in the city are passul (invalid) would not harm her status of being abele to eat truma. That is to say this: Even when she says nothing, but we know she had sex with a kohen, and has given birth to a male child, she can eat truma. We do not care about the majority of people in the city unless people are claiming she had sex with others besides the kohen. But in the case of a betrothed woman, what she says matters. If she says nothing, the child is probably a bastard. But if she says she had sex with her betrothed husband, then she and the child are kosher. ,If the betrothed husband disagrees with her that is a case of one witness that is disagreed with by another, and the testimony of both is null and void and the child is definitely a bastard, but she is still considered kosher. See Laws of Truma 8, law 14, and Laws of Forbidden Relations chapter 15, laws 11 and 12-------------------------------I might add here that the רמב''ם makes a distinction between a case where most people in a city are פסול (but no one says anything) to a case where people are saying she (an unmarried woman) had sex with someone in particular or with others. In this last case, if people say she had sex with others besides the כהן we know about, then she cannot eat תרומה, but the fact that most people in the city are invalid would not harm her status of being able to eatתרומה . That is to say this: Even when she says nothing but we know she had sex with a כהן and has given birth to a male child, she can eat תרומה. we do not care about the majority of people in the city unless people are claiming she had sex with others besides the כהן. But in the case of a betrothed woman, what she says matters. if she says nothing the child is probably a bastard. But if she says she had sex with her betrothed husband she and the child are כשר. If the betrothed husband disagrees with her that is a case of one witness that is disagreed with by another and the testimony of both is null and void and the child is definitely a bastard, but she is still considered כשר. see הלכות of תרומה 8 הלכה 14 and הלכות of איסורי ביאה chapter 15 הלכות 11 and 12. The I think, but I am not sure, that some commentators consider people speaking to be the same category of people most people in the city are invalid. And I think רב שך considers people speaking to be identical with the phrase in the גמרא ofדיימא דעלמא ----------------In two places the Rambam deals with the question of an unmarried woman who had sex with someone. One place is in laws of truma. There the Rambam says nothing about if she says anything. Rather the case is we the court knows she had sex with a kohen. The other case is in laws on forbidden relations chapter 12, and there she is found pregnant and she says the father is kosher i.e., fit to marry a Jewess. There the Rambam does mention that most of the city is not valid. Still, she is believed. The above essay is based on the idea that we believe her in both cases unless people say otherwise. The fact of the majority of the city I think does not matter in either case.In two places the רמב''ם deals with the question of an פנויה who had sex with someone. One place is in laws of תרומה. There the רמב''ם says nothing about if she says anything. Rather the case is we the court knows she had sex with a כהן. The other case is in הלכות on איסורי ביאה chapter 12, and there she is found pregnant and she says the father is כשר i.e., fit to marry a Jewess. There the רמב''ם does mention that most of the city is not valid. Still, she is believed. The above essay is based on the idea that we believe her in both cases unless people say otherwise. The fact of the majority of the city פסוליםI think does not matter in either case.

אז בהתבסס על מה שאני רואה ברמב"ם, אני חושב שההיררכיה הולכת כך. קודם כל מה שאנשים אומרים. זה גובר על כל השאר. אחר כך מגיע מה שהאישה אומרת. ואז אחר זה בא חזקה. איך אתה רואה את זה? לפי חוק תרומה. אפילו כשרוב האנשים בעיר הם פסולים אצלה כגון ממזרים נתינים עמוניים, אבל אף אחד לא אומר כלום, והיא טוענת שקיימה יחסי מין רק עם כהן והיא יולדת בן זכר, היא יכולה לאכול תרומה. אבל אם אנשים אומרים שקיימה יחסי מין עם אחרים, אז לא. כך קורה במקרה של אישה מאורסת (ארוסה). היא בהריון, וטוענת שהילד הוא מבעלה המאורס. מאמינים לה לגבי עצמה ולילדה אלא אם כן בעלה המאורס מכחיש שקיים יחסי מין איתה

so based on what I am seeing in the Rambam I think the hierarchy goes like this. First what people say. That overrides everything else. Then comes what the woman says. And then status quo. How do you see this? By the law of Truma. Even when most people in the city are pasul, but no one is saying anything, and she claims she had sex only with kohen and she gives birth to a male child, she can eat truma. But if people say she had sex with others, then no. The comes the case of a betrothed woman. She is pregnant and claims the child is from her betrothed husband. She is believed about herself and her child unless the betrothed husband denies that he had sex with her.0-----------------------So based on what I am seeing in the רמב''ם I think the hierarchy goes like this. First what people say. That overrides everything else. Then comes what the woman says. And then חזקה. How do you see this? By the law of תרומה. Even when most people in the city areפסול , but no one is saying anything, and she claims she had sex only with כהן and she gives birth to a male child, she can eat תרומה. But if people say she had sex with others, then no. The comes the case of a betrothed womanארוסה . She is pregnant ,and claims the child is from her betrothed husband ארוס . She is believed about herself and her child unless the betrothed husband denies that he had sex with her-----

רמב''ם בהלכות איסורי ביאה פרק ט''ו הלכות י''א וי''ב כתובות י''ד

ישנה גם סתירה נוספת לרעיון שאנחנו הולכים עם רוב האנשים בעיר ורק אז אנחנו שמים לב למה שהאישה אומרת. זה בהלכות איסורי ביאה פרק ט''ו הלכות י''א וי''ב. שם נמצאה אישה לא נשואה בהריון, והיא אומרת שהאב כשר, מאמינים לה גם אם רוב האנשים בעיר פסולים. זה סותר את ההלכות ייבום פרק ג' הלכה ד' `אישה נמצאה בהריון והיא והוא אומרים שהילד ממנו, אנחנו עדיין אומרים שהאב בספק. אז הנה אנחנו הולכים לפי האזור הכללי ולא שמים לב למה שהיא אומרת....ובהלכות תרומה פרק ח' הלכה י''ד אנחנו הולכים רק לפי מה שאומרים אנשים בעיר. כלומר, אנחנו הולכים לפי הרכילות של רינון. אם רוב האנשים אומרים שהילד מכהן, אז בסדר. אם רוב האנשים אומרים שלא, אז זה הסוף. ושם, היא לא אומרת כלום. אנחנו רק יודעים שיחסי מין היו עם כהן, והספק הוא שאולי היא גם קיימה יחסי מין עם אחרים---------------------------לאחר כתיבת הפסקה הנ"ל, הבנתי שאין בעיה. במקרה של אישה לא נשואה, אנשים לא אומרים כלום, ולכן אנו מאמינים לה אפילו למרות העובדה שרוב האנשים בעיר הם פסולים. במקרה של אישה מאורסת עם בעלה המאורס, אנשים כן אומרים משהו, ולכן איננו מאמינים לה. השאלה עולה במקרה של אשת כהן או שהיא הייתה מאורסת לפני גיל שלוש. שם, אנו מאמינים לה בגלל חזקה או מיגו, ולא שמים לב לאנשים בעיר. שם כולם בבירור פסולים מכיוון שהיא הייתה מאורסת, אך עדיין, אנו מאמינים לה מבחינת הכתובה. אם היא עצמה נאמנת מבחינת היתר לכהן, זה ויכוח. אז למה לא אכפת לנו מה אנשים אומרים? הם יכולים לומר שהמין לא היה כפוי, ולכן היא תהיה אסורה

There is also another contradiction to the idea that we go with the majority of people in the city and only then we pay attention to what the woman says. That is in laws of forbidden relations chapter 15 laws 11 and 12. There a unmarried woman is found to be pregnant, and she says the father is kosher, she is believed even if most of the people in the city are pasul invalid. This contradicts the law in Yibum chapter 3 law 4 where a woman is found to be pregnant and she and he say the child is from him, we still say the father is in doubt. So there we go by the general area and pay no attention to what she says.-- And in laws of truma 8 law 14 we go only by what people in the city say. That is, we go by the rinun gossip. If most say the child is from a kohen, then Ok. If most say not, then that is the end of that. And there, she says nothing. We just know the sex was with a kohen, and the doubt is perhaps she also had sex with others. ------------------------------There is also another contradiction to the idea that we go with the majority of people in the city and only then we pay attention to what the woman says. That is in הלכות איסורי ביאה פרק ט''ו הלכות י''א וי''ב. There a unmarried woman is found to be pregnant, and she says the father is כשר, she is believed even if most of the people in the city are פסול invalid. This contradicts the הלכות ייבום פרק ג' הלכה ד' ` a woman is found to be pregnant and she and he say the child is from him, we still say the father is in doubt. So there we go by the general area and pay no attention to what she says. And in הלכות תרומה פרק ח' הלכה י''ד we go only by what people in the city say. That is, we go by the רינון gossip. If most say the child is from a כהן, then Ok. If most say not, then that is the end of that. And there, she says nothing. We just know the sex was with a כהן, and the doubt is perhaps she also had sex with others. -----------------------------------After writing the above paragraph, it occurred to me that there is no problem. The case of an unmarried woman is where people do not say anything, and so we believe her even against the fact that the majority of people in the city are pasul. The case of the betrothed woman with her betrothed husband is where people do say something, and therefore, we do not believe her. The question comes up in the cases of a wife of a kohen or she was betrothed before three. There, we believe her because of a status quo or migo, and pay no attention to people in the city. There everyone is clearly pasul since she was betrothed but still, we believe her in terms of the ketuba. If she herself is believed in terms of being permitted to a kohen is an argument. So, why do we not care what people say? They could say the sex was not forced, and therefore she would be forbidden. ---------------------------After writing the above paragraph, it occurred to me that there is no problem. The case of an unmarried woman is where people do not say anything, and so we believe her even against the fact that the majority of people in the city are פסול. The case of the betrothed woman with her betrothed husband is where people do say something, and therefore, we do not believe her. The question comes up in the cases of a wife of a כהן or she was betrothed before three. There, we believe her because of a חזקה or מיגו, and pay no attention to people in the city. There everyone is clearly פסול since she was betrothed but still, we believe her in terms of the כתובה. If she herself is believed in terms of being permitted to a כהן is an argument. So, why do we not care what people say? They could say the sex was not forced, and therefore she would be forbidden. [[an Israeli wife who has had sex with anyone besides her husband is forbidden to her husband unless the sex was against her will. however, a kohen's wife who has had sex with anyone besides her husband even by rape is forbidden to her husband. also, a betrothed woman is legally married.

כתובות דף ט', דף י''ד, רמב''ם ה' אישות פרק י''א הלכה י''א ירושלמי כתובות פרק א הלכה א' והלכה ו'

עלה בדעתי שיש סתירה לרעיון הזה שהרמב"ם מתעלם מטענת האישה כשזה כנגד רוב כמו במקרה של ייבום ותרומה, (משום שרוב האנשים בעיר אומרים שהיא קיימה יחסי מין רק עם זה שאנחנו יודעים עליו, או שהרוב אומרים אחרת). הסתירה לרעיון הזה היא האישה המאורסת, היא ארוסה. כאשר היא נמצאת בהריון, אנו מניחים שהילד הוא ממזר, משום שברור שרוב האנשים בעיר סביבה היו יכולים לגרום שהילד יהיה ממזר. איננו מניחים שהיא קיימה יחסי מין רק עם בעלה הארוס, משום שהיא רק ארוסה. עם זאת, ההפתעה היא שאם היא אומרת שהילד הוא מהארוס שלה, אנו מאמינים לה אפילו בניגוד לדברי הארוס שלה. אבל במקרה כזה, איננו שומעים על אנשים שמדברים רינון. אבל גם בלי שאנשים מדברים, אנו מניחים מיד שהילד הוא ממזר. כיצד כל זה יכול להיות הגיוני לפי מה שכבר ראינו ברמב"ם בהלכות תרומה וייבום? [אני יכול לציין שבמקרה בו נמצא שהיא אינה בתולה, וזה יהפוך אותה לאסורה לבעלה כהן, או אם היא הייתה מאורסת לפני גיל שלוש, שאם היא אומרת שהיחסים היו בכפייה, אז רבן גמליאל אומר שהיא נאמנת וזהו החוק. ובמקרה זה יש סטטוס קוו ומיגו לצידה. עם זאת, הרמב"ם קובע שם שהיא נאמנת רק לגבי הכתובה, אך היא עדיין אסורה לבעלה.] אני רוצה לציין שזה סותר את רוב הראשונים האחרים שקובעים שהיא מותרת, למשל, ר' יונה, הרמב"ן, הרשב"א וכו'. הם מביאים את הירושלמי כתובות פרק א' כהוכחה, הלכה א' והלכה ו'. אז שם הרמב''ם אכן מתעלם מטענתה מבחינת השאלה אם היא אסורה. הרמב''ם מבין בבירור את הירושלמי כהוכחה שהיא אסורה, ולמעשה זה נראה לי כהסבר הבסיסי והפשוט ביותר של הירושלמי.---------------------------------אני צריך להוסיף כאן שלראות ש"אנשים מדברים" הוא רוב [כלומר, בית המשפט צריך ללכת לפיו] זה מתיחה של דוחק. ולמעשה, כאשר הגמרא חושבת על רוב בעיר או על רוב אנשים, כמו כאשר ילדה הולכת לבאר מחוץ לעיר, זה לא המקרה של רינון, אנשים מדברים. עם זאת, דווקא הרעיון של "אנשים מדברים" שווה ל"רוב" הוא האופן שבו ר' שמואל רוזובסקי עונה על כמה בעיות ברמב"ם

It occurred to me that there is a contradiction to this idea that the Rambam ignores the plea of the woman as per the case of Yibum and Truma because the majority of people in the city say she had sex only with the one we know about or the majority say otherwise. The contradiction to this idea is the betrothed woman. When she is found pregnant, we assume the child is a bastard because clearly most people in the city around her would be cause for the child to be a bastard. We do not assume she had sex only with her husband since she is only betrothed .However, the surprize is that if she says the child is from her husband we believe her even against the word of her husband. But in that case, we do not hear of people talking. But even without people talking, we assume immediately that the child is a bastard. How can any of this make sense according to what we have already seen in the Rambam in laws of Truma and Yibum? [I might mention that in the case where she has been found to not be a virgin and that would make her forbidden to her husband that if she says the sex was by force then Raban Gamliel says she is believed and that is the law. And that case is where there is a status quo and a migo on her side. However, the Rambam holds there that she is believed only as far as the ketubah goes but she is still forbidden to her husband. I might note that that is against most other rishonim that hold she is permitted, e.g., R Yona, the Ramban, the Rashba, etc. They bring the Yerushalmi Ketuboth chapter one as proof, (law one and law six). So there the Rambam does ignore her plea in terms of the question of if she is forbidden.] But the Rambam clearly learns that Yerushalmi as proof that she is forbidden, and in fact that looks to me to be the most basic and simple explanation of the Yerushalmi.------------------------------It occurred to me that there us a contradiction to this idea that the רמב’’ם ignores the plea of the woman as per the case of ייבום and תרומה because the majority of people in the city say she had sex only with the one we know about or the majority say otherwise. The contradiction to this idea is the betrothed woman ארוסה . When she is found pregnant, we assume the child is a bastard because clearly most people in the city around her would be cause for the child to be a bastard. We do not assume she had sex only with her husband since she is only ארוסה . However, the surprize is that if she says the child is from her ארוס we believe her even against the word of her ארוס. But in that case, we do not hear of people talking רינון . But even without people talking, we assume immediately that the child is a bastard. How can any of this make sense according to what we have already seen in the רמב’’ם in laws of תרומה and ייבום? [I might mention that in the case where she has been found to not be a virgin, and that would make her forbidden to her כהןhusband or if she was betrothed before three, that if she says the sex was by force, then רבן גמליאל says she is believed and that is the law. And that case is where there is a status quo and a מיגו on her side. However, the רמב’’ם holds there that she is believed only as far as the כתובה goes but she is still forbidden to her husband. I might note that that is against most other ראשונים that hold she is permitted, e.g., ר' יונה, the רמב''ן, the רשב''א, etc.They bring the ירושלמי כתובות פרק א' as proof, הלכה א' והלכה ו'. So there the רמב''ם does ignore her plea in terms of the question of if she is forbidden. the רמב''ם clearly מבין that ירושלמי as proof that she is forbidden, and in fact that looks to me to be the most basic and simple explanation of the ירושלמי.- I might mention here that Rav Shach and Rav Shmuel Rozovski of Ponovitch deal with these questions ,but I am still in the middle of trying to understand their approaches. i was thinking about these problems all day yesterday. They do not ask this question that I am bringing up here, but they do deal with these issues.I should add here that to consider "people talking" is a majority [that is that the court has to go by it] is a stretch. And in fact, when the Gemara is thinking of a majority of a city or a majority of people like when a girl goes to a well outside town, it is not a case 0f people talking. However, it is this idea of people talking equals majority is how Rav Shmuel Rozovski answer some problems in the Rambam------------------------I should add here that to consider "people talking" is a majority [that is that the court has to go by it] is a "stretch דוחק". And in fact, when the גמרא is thinking of a majority of a city or a majority of people like when a girl goes to a well outside town, it is not a case 0f רינון people talking. However, it is this idea of "people talking" equals "majority" is how ר' שמואל רוזובסקי answer some problems in the רמב''ם