Reference for Shevuot 64:1
ומחלוקת בעדי סוטה בעדי סתירה מר סבר דבר הגורם לממון כממון דמי וחייב ומר סבר לאו כממון דמי ופטור
And they disagree in [the case of] the witnesses of the sotah' - the witnesses of the secret meeting; one holds that which causes [extraction of] money is counted as [if it had actually extracted] money, and they are liable; and the other holds it is not counted as [if it had actually extracted] money, and they are exempt.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the husband adjures the two witnesses of the secret meeting () to bear testimony for him, and they swear, denying knowledge of testimony, R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon (who regards the causing of pecuniary loss as the direct infliction of a money loss, as is proved by his view imposing liability on one witness who was adjured) will hold they are liable, for by withholding their testimony they cause a pecuniary loss to the husband (for, had they given testimony, the wife might have confessed rather than undergo the ordeal of the 'bitter waters', and the husband would have been exempt from paying the kethubah) ; but the Sages hold they are not liable, for their testimony would not have directly freed the husband from paying the kethubah.');"><sup>1</sup></span> 'All agree [in the case of the witness] where his adversary is suspected of swearing falsely'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If there is one witness for a debt, the debtor takes an oath denying liability; but if he is suspected of swearing falsely, the creditor takes an oath that the debt is due, and is paid (infra 44b) . If the witness is adjured by the creditor, and denies knowledge of testimony, he is thereby depriving the creditor of his debt, and therefore all agree that in such a case he is liable. [The order of the text in cur. edd. is somewhat disarranged. MS.M. preserves a better order and reading which avoid the needless repetitions in our text, v. D.S.].');"><sup>2</sup></span>