It is especially noteworthy that the explanation in Sifre of the "sotah" law corresponds with a view expressed by Rabbi Ishmael (and also with the prescribed "halakha"), that one witness being sufficient to convict, the ordeal of the bitter water is not necessary. The explanation given in the Sifre to Numbers thus contradicts the explanation in Soṭah 31a and in Sifre, Deut. 188. The view expressed in the Babylonian Talmud is curious, for it cites the explanation of the Sifre to Numbers, and adds thereto: , whereas the deduction should read to the contrary, . The Babylonian Talmud, which evidently does not know Rabbi Ishmael's view, tries to interpret the "baraita" in the sense of the prescribed "halakha". But the "baraita" must in fact be interpreted in the opposite sense, namely, as following the view of Rabbi Ishmael, who, because עד always implies "two," as appears from Jerusalem Talmud Soṭah 20d, demands also in the case of a woman charged with adultery two witnesses of the alleged crime.