אבן העזר ז׳Even HaEzer 7

Se’if 1א׳

שְׁבוּיָה שֶׁנִּשְׁבֵּית וְהִיא בַּת ג' שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד אוֹ יוֹתֵר, אֲסוּרָה לְכֹהֵן, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא סְפֵק זוֹנָה, שֶׁמָּא נִבְעֲלָה לְכּוּתִי. וְאִם יֵשׁ לָהּ עֵד שֶׁלֹּא נִתְיַחֵד כּוּתִי עִמָּהּ, הֲרֵי זוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה לִכְהֻנָּה. וַאֲפִלּוּ עֶבֶד אוֹ שִׁפְחָה אוֹ קָרוֹב נֶאֱמָן לְעֵדוּת זוֹ. הַגָּה: וַאֲפִלּוּ נָשִׁים שֶׁאֵינָן נֶאֱמָנוֹת בְּעֵדוּת אִשָּׁה, כְּגוֹן חֲמוֹתָהּ וְכוּ', נֶאֱמֶנֶת בִּשְׁבוּיָה (הַגָּהוֹת אַלְפָסִי פ"ב דִּכְתֻבּוֹת). וּשְׁתֵּי שְׁבוּיוֹת שֶׁהֵעִידָה כָּל אַחַת לַחֲבֶרְתָּהּ, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ נֶאֱמָנוֹת. וְכֵן קָטָן שֶׁהָיָה מֵסִיחַ לְפִי תֻּמּוֹ, נֶאֱמָן. וּמַעֲשֶׂה בְּאֶחָד שֶׁנִּשְׁבָּה הוּא וְאִמּוֹ, וּבְנָהּ מֵסִיחַ לְפִי תֻּמּוֹ וְאָמַר: נִשְׁבֵּינוּ לְבֵין הַכּוּתִים אֲנִי וְאִמִּי, יָצָאתִי לִשְׁאֹב מַיִם, דַּעְתִּי עַל אִמִּי. לִלְקֹט עֵצִים. וְדַעְתִּי עַל אִמִּי. וְהִשִּׂיאוּ אוֹתָהּ חֲכָמִים לְכֹהֵן עַל פִּיו. וְיֵשׁ שֶׁכָּתַב, שֶׁהַקָּטָן נֶאֱמָן אֲפִלּוּ בְּמִתְכַּוֵּן לְהָעִיד:

A girl who was taken captive and was three years and a day or older is prohibited to a Cohen, because she is suspected to have had illicit relations, that she was copulated with by a non-Jew. And if she has a witness that no non-Jew was secluded with her, she is allowed to a Cohen. Even a slave or maidservant or relative is trusted in this testimony. Rema: and even women who are not trusted in women's testimony, like her mother-in-law, etc. are trusted with a captive (Rif on Ketubot 2). Two captives that testify about each other are trusted. Also a minor who speaks in innocence [without knowing the implications of his testimony] is trusted. An event: a child was captured with his mother, the child spoke in his innocence and said: We were captured among the non-Jews, me and my mother, I went to draw water, and my mind was on my mother, to gather wood, and my mind was on my mother. The wise-ones married her to a Cohen according to his testimony. There is one who writes that a child is believed even if he means to testify.

Se’if 2ב׳

אֵין הַבַּעַל נֶאֱמָן לְהָעִיד בְּאִשְׁתּוֹ הַשְּׁבוּיָה שֶׁלֹּא נִטְמְאָה, שֶׁאֵין אָדָם מֵעִיד לְעַצְמוֹ. וְכֵן שִׁפְחָתָהּ לֹא תָּעִיד לָהּ. אֲבָל שִׁפְחַת בַּעְלָהּ מְעִידָה לָהּ. וְשִׁפְחָתָהּ שֶׁהָיְתָה מְסִיחָה לְפִי תֻּמָּהּ, נֶאֱמֶנֶת. הַגָּה: כּוּתִי פָּסוּל לְעֵדוּת שְׁבוּיָה, וַאֲפִלּוּ מֵסִיחַ לְפִי תֻּמּוֹ אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן (הָרֹא"שׁ כְּלָל ל"ב). וְיֵשׁ מְקִלִּין בְּמֵסִיחַ לְפִי תֻּמּוֹ (רִיאָ"ז). וְהוּא הַדִּין לְעֵד מִפִּי עֵד. וּמֵסִיחַ לְפִי תֻּמּוֹ, לֹא מְהַנֵּי רַק לְהָקֵל אֲבָל לֹא לְהַחֲמִיר (ר"ד כֹּהֵן בַּיִת ח'):

The husband is not trusted to testify for his captive wife, because a man does not testify for himself. And her handmaid does not testify for her. But the maid of her husband testifies for her. And a handmaid who speaks without knowing the implications of her statement, is believed. Rema: Kuti (non-Jews) are invalid to testify about captives, and even without knowing the implications of their statements, he is not trusted. (Rosh 32). There are those that are lenient in the case of "knowing the implications of their statements" (Ravid). And it is the same law in a case of a witness testifying he heard from another witness. And "knowing the implications of their statements" is only effective in case of being lenient, not when being strict (Rid Cohen 8).

Se’if 3ג׳

כֹּהֵן שֶׁהֵעִיד לִשְׁבוּיָה שֶׁהִיא טְהוֹרָה, הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יִשָּׂאֶנָּה, שֶׁמָּא עֵינָיו נָתַן בָּהּ. וְאִם פְּדָאָהּ וְהֵעִיד בָּהּ, הֲרֵי זֶה יִשָּׂאֶנָּה, שֶׁאִלּוּ לֹא יָדַע שֶׁהִיא טְהוֹרָה לֹא נָתַן בָּהּ מְעוֹתָיו:

A priest who testified about a woman that she is pure [was not violated] he may not marry her, lest he set his eyes on her. And if he redeemed her and testified about her, he may marry her, for had he not known that she was pure, he wouldn't have placed his money on her.