Bastard supplier

Maimonides writes in his reply to the Hadith that this is its source, even though many later scholars have made it difficult for him to do so (why do we need a sermon if this is the general law?). And they have already insisted on this. If we are talking about a sermon, then the difficulty is also with Maimonides, of course. They explained that there is no sermon here, but rather a general understanding of concepts. When a concept is written, the intention is to be certain and not to doubt, and hence Maimonides derived the rule that doubt is a valid statement. Perhaps this is a sermon of some kind (and from Maimonides’ perspective, this is a source for the Sages to accept such a tradition and not a source from which the law itself emanates). For the Rashba, this is a good question. It is possible that even according to his view, this is not a sermon but rather an affirmation of a known law that was accepted in tradition. And perhaps the sermon is based on a different order in the verse and not on a waiver (for example, a bastard will not come instead of a bastard will not come, or something like that).