מִי שֶׁקִּנֵּא לְאִשְׁתּוֹ וְנִסְתְּרָה, אֲפִלּוּ שָׁמַע מֵעוֹף הַפּוֹרֵחַ, יוֹצִיא וְיִתֵּן כְּתֻבָּה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר, עַד שֶׁיִּשְׂאוּ וְיִתְּנוּ בָהּ מוֹזְרוֹת בַּלְּבָנָה:
Someone who warned his wife [against being secluded with a certain man] and then she secluded herself [with him], even if he [her husband] heard from a fluttering bird, he divorces her and gives her the Ketubah [monetary settlement payable to a married woman upon divorce or the death of her husband]. These are the words of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Yehoshua says, only when the women who twist yarn by the moon talk of her.
אָמַר עֵד אֶחָד, אֲנִי רְאִיתִיהָ שֶׁנִּטְמֵאת, לֹא הָיְתָה שׁוֹתָה. וְלֹא עוֹד אֶלָּא אֲפִלּוּ עֶבֶד, אֲפִלּוּ שִׁפְחָה, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ נֶאֱמָנִין אַף לְפָסְלָהּ מִכְּתֻבָּתָהּ. חֲמוֹתָהּ וּבַת חֲמוֹתָהּ וְצָרָתָהּ וִיבִמְתָּהּ וּבַת בַּעְלָהּ, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ נֶאֱמָנוֹת, וְלֹא לְפָסְלָהּ מִכְּתֻבָּתָהּ, אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא תִשְׁתֶּה:
[If] one witness said "I saw her as she became impure," she would not drink [the bitter waters]. That is not all -- even a slave or a maidservant are believed to disqualify her from her Ketubah. [If] her mother-in-law, daughter-in-law, co-wife, Yevama [dead husband's brother's wife], or her husband's daughter [testifies about her committing adultery], they are believed, but not in order to disqualify her from her Ketubah, only from drinking [the bitter waters].
שֶׁהָיָה בְדִין, וּמָה אִם עֵדוּת רִאשׁוֹנָה שֶׁאֵין אוֹסַרְתָּהּ אִסּוּר עוֹלָם, אֵינָהּ מִתְקַיֶּמֶת בְּפָחוֹת מִשְּׁנַיִם, עֵדוּת אַחֲרוֹנָה שֶׁאוֹסַרְתָּהּ אִסּוּר עוֹלָם, אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁלֹּא תִתְקַיֵּם בְּפָחוֹת מִשְּׁנָיִם, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וְעֵד אֵין בָּהּ, כָּל עֵדוּת שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ. קַל וָחֹמֶר לָעֵדוּת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה מֵעַתָּה, וּמָה אִם עֵדוּת אַחֲרוֹנָה שֶׁאוֹסַרְתָּהּ אִסּוּר עוֹלָם, הֲרֵי הִיא מִתְקַיֶּמֶת בְּעֵד אֶחָד, עֵדוּת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה שֶׁאֵין אוֹסַרְתָּהּ אִסּוּר עוֹלָם, אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁתִּתְקַיֵּם בְּעֵד אֶחָד, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר (דברים כד) כִּי מָצָא בָהּ עֶרְוַת דָּבָר, וּלְהַלָּן הוּא אוֹמֵר (שם יט), עַל פִּי שְׁנֵי עֵדִים יָקוּם דָּבָר, מַה לְּהַלָּן עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם עֵדִים, אַף כָּאן עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם עֵדִים:
This is how it would be according to logic: Just like the first testimony [of warning], that doesn't make her prohibited forever [from being married to him], is only valid through two [witnesses], so too the last testimony [of seclusion], that does forbid her forever -- is it not logical that it should only be valid with two [witnesses]? So the verse comes to teach:"and there was no witness against her" (Numbers 5:13) -- any testimony that there is against her. There is a kal vachomer [logical induction from minor to major] from this! Just like the last testimony prohibits her [from her husband] forever and is valid through one witness, the first testimony that doesn't prohibit her forever -- is it not logical that it should be valid with one witness? So the verse comes to teach: (Deuteronomy 24:1) "When he finds in her an unseemly thing," (Deuteronomy 24:1) and earlier it says: "through two witnesses the thing will be upheld" (Deuteronomy 19:15) . Just like earlier it [the testimony] is through two witnesses, so too here it is through two witnesses.
עֵד אוֹמֵר נִטְמֵאת וְעֵד אוֹמֵר לֹא נִטְמֵאת, אִשָּׁה אוֹמֶרֶת נִטְמֵאת וְאִשָּׁה אוֹמֶרֶת לֹא נִטְמֵאת, הָיְתָה שׁוֹתָה. אֶחָד אוֹמֵר נִטְמֵאת וּשְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים לֹא נִטְמֵאת, הָיְתָה שׁוֹתָה. שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים נִטְמֵאת וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר לֹא נִטְמֵאת, לֹא הָיְתָה שׁוֹתָה:
[If] one witness says "she became impure" and [another] witness says "she did not become impure;" or a woman says "she became impure" and [another] woman says "she did not become impure," she would drink [the bitter waters]. [If] one [witness] says "she became impure" and two [witnesses] say "she did not become impure," she would drink [the bitter waters]. [If] two [witnesses] say "she became impure" and one [witness] says "she did not become impure," she would not drink [the bitter waters].