Reference for Yevamot 202:18
אמר רבא
while I am, in fact, a proselyte'. 'On the word<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'mouth'. ');"><sup>66</sup></span> [of a man] like R. Samuel b. Judah', Rab Judah said, 'I would withdraw money [from its possessor]'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though in such lawsuits the evidence of two witnesses is required. ');"><sup>67</sup></span> [You say] 'Withdraw'! Could this be imagined? Surely the All Merciful said, At the mouth of two witnesses!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XIX, 15. The evidence of one witness is not sufficient. Cf. supra note 9. The numeral 'two' which in cur. edd. and some MSS. is given in the absolute form, [H], appears in M.T. in the construct, [H]. Cf. ibid. XVII, 6, which, however, refers to evidence in capital cases. ');"><sup>68</sup></span> — Rather [it is this that he meant]. 'I would on his word<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'mouth'. ');"><sup>66</sup></span> impair the validity of a note of indebtedness.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Should he declare that the note was already redeemed the debtor would not be ordered to pay the debt, though the creditor also could not be compelled to destroy the note (cf. Rashi, Keth. 85a). According to some of the Tosafists the debt may not be collected unless the creditor takes the prescribed oath, as is the case wherever one witness declares a debt recorded on a note of indebtedness to have been paid, v. Keth. 8a. R. Samuel's superiority over the ordinary witness is limited to the following only: While the latter, if a relative, is not believed, to enforce an oath on the creditor, R. Samuel would always be believed (v. Tosaf. s.v. [H]). ');"><sup>69</sup></span> Raba stated: