Commentary for Bava Batra 63:3
ואתו בי תרי ואמרי דבן גרושה וחלוצה הוא ואחתיניה ואתא עד אחד ואמר דכהן הוא ודכולי עלמא מצטרפין עדות
and we therefore deposed him, and then one witness came and testified that he was a genuine priest and we reinstated him, and then two came and testified that his mother was a divorced woman or a <i>haluzah</i> and we degraded him again, and then one more witness came and testified that he was a genuine priest. Now all authorities agree that the evidence [of the two witnesses who testify to his genuineness] is combined [although they did not testify in each other's presence], and the point at issue is whether or not we disregard any disrepute that may be brought upon the <i>Beth din</i> [for altering its decision]. R. Eliezer held that once we have deposed him we do not reinstate him, for fear of bringing disrepute on the <i>Beth din</i>, whereas Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says that just as we have deposed him so we can reinstate him, and we disregard any disrepute that may be brought thereby on the <i>Beth din</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And R. Nahman in his dictum was thus following R. Simeon b. Gamaliel. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>