Yerushalmi Sotah 9:7 ירושלמי סוטה ט׳:ז׳

MISHNAH: If one witness says, I saw the murderer¹⁵⁷He could identify the murderer if he was caught., and one witness says, I did not see him¹⁵⁸He saw the murder being committed but did not see the murderer and could not identify him in court. Then the murderer cannot be prosecuted under biblical law. (This means that when caught he could not be executed. It does not exclude that under the king’s police powers he could be punished.); or a woman¹⁵⁹Or any other witness who can testify to facts but not in law. (For example, the testimony of gamblers, criminals, women, or slaves cannot be used to impose the death penalty or to notarize documents.) said, I saw, but another woman said, I did not see, they did break the neck. If one witness said I saw, but two said, we did not see, they did break the neck. I two said, we saw, but one said to them, you did not see¹⁶⁰He was with them and testifies that from their position it was impossible to see the murderer. Since he is one against two, his testimony is disregarded., they did not break the neck.

HALAKHAH: ¹⁶²See the parallel texts Yebamot 15, Notes 135–138; Soṭah 6:4; Babli 47b. Gidul bar Benjamin in the name of Rav: Anywhere they accepted the testimony of a woman parallel to that of a man, a man can contradict a woman and a woman can contradict a man. One should state: “A witness says that he saw the murderer, and a woman says that she did not see; a woman said that he saw and a witness said that he did not see,” as it was stated in the name of Rebbi Neḥemiah: One follows the majority of the testimonies. How is that? Two women against one woman they considered as if there were two witnesses against one witness. What you say refers to a woman and women. But if there were a hundred women against one [male] witness, they are like one witness.