the author is indicating that the matter is not based on testimony. If it were based on testimony, two witnesses would be required.

His statement, “as an heir of the deceased, and he confirms it”: the one who confirms it is the person acknowledged. Thus, he says, “Yes, I am his brother.” But if he denies it, neither his lineage nor his right of inheritance is established. That his right of inheritance is not established is clear, for he is saying, “I have no right to this estate”; thus, he has acknowledged this against himself. As for his lineage not being established, lineage cannot be established by one person’s claim when the person claimed to be related denies it. Therefore, the person acknowledged must confirm it.

His statement, “or if he is a minor or insane”: this means that the minor and the insane person’s confirmation or denial carries no weight, because their statements have no legal effect. This is the first condition.

The second condition, he says, is:

“The person acknowledged is of unknown lineage.” It is stipulated that the person acknowledged be of unknown lineage, such that it is not known that he is so-and-so, the son of so-and-so. If his lineage is known, then the acknowledgment concerning him is not accepted, because acknowledging him would entail invalidating an established lineage. Were the door opened to this, anyone who saw an educated, intelligent, learned person could say, “This is my son,” and this cannot be allowed. Thus, if his lineage is known, no one may make a claim regarding his lineage.

The third condition is that the claim be plausibly true: namely, that it be possible for him to be among those whose lineage can be attributed to the claimant. If someone claims that this is his son, and the child is of unknown lineage, but the father is twenty years old while the child is fifteen years old, this claim is not accepted, because it is not possible for the age difference to be