Why do we beleive ed echad for sotah that she was actually nitmes, is it because of raglayim ladavar or because of the drash "ed ein ba" ( raglayim ladavar is merely a taam for the drash)? ie in other situation of ed echad is he beleived if there are raglayim laavar? Can the drash of "ed ein ba" be generalized to non-sotah situations of ragalyim ladavar? It seems from the gemmarahs at the end of nazir, that ragalayim ladavar is sufficient even in the absence of a single witness
G Schreiber, Chicago, IL USA
The Yad ha'Melech on the Rambam (Hilchos Sotah 1:15) says that whether or not Raglayim l'Davar is the main source of the law is indeed an argument among the Rishonim. He says that some Rishonim hold like the implication of Tosfos in Eruvin (59a, DH "u'Techumin d'Rabanan") that this must be logic, while the Rambam (Hilchos Edus 5:2) implies strongly that this is a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv. [See Yad ha'Melech at length. There is much more to write on the subject, but this is a good start.]
All the best,
Yaakov Montrose