and therefore we elevated him back to the priesthood, as one witness is sufficient to negate the rumor. And then two witnesses came and said: He is the son of a divorced woman or the son of a ḥalutza, and then we downgraded him from the priesthood, as two witnesses negated the testimony of one witness. Then one witness came and said: I know that he is a priest of unflawed lineage. And everyone agrees that the two single witnesses join together and constitute two witnesses for the purpose of testimony that he is a priest of unflawed lineage, and fundamentally his presumptive status of priesthood should be restored.

And here it is with regard to concern that it will lead to contempt for the court that they disagree. The first tanna, Rabbi Eliezer, holds: Once we downgraded him from the priesthood, we do not then elevate him. We are concerned that it will lead to contempt for the court, as the reversal in the court decisions create the impression that the court does not know what it is doing. And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds: We downgrade him from the priesthood and we then elevate him, and as for the possibility that it will lead to contempt for the court, we are not concerned about it. The primary concern is that the matter be determined based on the relevant testimonies.

Rav Ashi strongly objects: If so, if they disagree with regard to contempt for the court, why is it necessary to establish the dispute in a case where the witnesses who testified that he is a priest of unflawed lineage came individually? If so, then even if two witnesses testify together that he is unfit for the priesthood, and the court downgraded him, and two witnesses testify together that he is fit for the priesthood, and the court elevated him, the tanna’im would also disagree, as the same concern for contempt of court applies.

Rather, Rav Ashi said: It is with regard to whether two single witnesses join together and constitute two witnesses for the purpose of testimony that they disagree, and it is in the dispute between these tanna’im that they disagree, as it is taught in a baraita: The testimony of individual witnesses merges into the testimony of two witnesses only if the two of them saw the incident transpire together, as one. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa says: Their testimony merges even in a case where this witness saw the incident after that witness; however, the testimony of witnesses is validated in court only if the two of them testify together as one.

Rabbi Natan says: They need not even testify together, but even if the court hears the statement of this witness today, and when his fellow witness comes tomorrow the court hears his statement, their testimonies merge. Rabbi Eliezer holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa, and therefore the testimony of the second witness cannot be merged with the testimony of the first witness and the person remains a ḥalal. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that the testimony of the two witnesses that he is a priest of unflawed lineage is merged, and his presumptive status of priesthood is restored, as it was already established that his father is a priest.

MISHNA: In the case of a woman who was imprisoned by gentiles due to a monetary offense committed by her husband, once she is released after he pays his debt, she is permitted to her husband, even if he is a priest. There is no concern that they violated her because their objective is to coerce the husband to pay his debt in exchange for her release. Were they to abuse her, it is possible that he would be unwilling to pay. However, if a woman was imprisoned due to a capital offense and sentenced to death, once she is released she is forbidden to her husband even if he is not a priest due to the concern that perhaps her captors violated her, and she acquiesced to one of them.

GEMARA: Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak said that Rav said: They taught this mishna only in a case where the authority of the Jewish people is dominant over the nations of the world, and the gentiles are law-abiding citizens. However, when the authority of the nations of the world is dominant over themselves, a euphemism for dominance over the Jewish people, even a woman who was imprisoned due to a monetary offense is forbidden to her husband, as there is nothing preventing her jailers from violating her.

Rava raised an objection from a mishna (Eduyyot 8:2): Rabbi Yosei the priest and Rabbi Zekharya ben HaKatzav testified about a Jewish woman about whom witnesses testified that she was taken as collateral for a debt in Ashkelon. And the members of her family, who suspected that she engaged in intercourse there, distanced themselves from her, but her witnesses testified about her that she neither entered into seclusion nor was violated. And the Sages said to the members of the family: If you deem the witnesses credible to testify that she was taken as collateral, deem the witnesses credible to testify that she neither entered into seclusion nor was violated. And if you do not deem the witnesses credible to testify that she neither entered into seclusion nor was violated, do not deem the witnesses credible to testify that she was taken as collateral at all. In either case, she is permitted to her husband.

Rava asks: But this took place in Ashkelon, which is a place where the authority of the nations of the world is dominant over themselves, as it was a city of gentiles, and it is taught: