The Talmud raises an objection from a baraita (Tosefta 1:2): And the Rabbis say: If he took her to court and claimed money, the case is to be adjudicated by 3 judges. But if he took her to court and claimed that she was liable to receive the death penalty, the case must be judged by 23 judges. Granted, according to Rava, the baraita can be read as referring to the terms of the beginning of the trial: If he claimed money at the outset, the case must be judged by 3 judges. Since the case concerns a financial claim, 3 are sufficient. But if he initially claimed she should be subject to the death penalty, even if the case becomes transformed into a financial case, it must be judged by 23 judges out of concern for their honor. But according to Ulla, who says the requirement for 23 judges is based on concern about rumors, it is difficult.
אמר רבא: אני וארי שבחבורה תרגימנה. ומנו? רב חייא בר אבין. הכא במאי עסקינן? שהביא הבעל עדים שזינתה, והביא האב עדים והזימום לעדי הבעל. בא לגבות ממון מבעל – בשלשה, ובמקום נפשות – בעשרים ושלשה.
Rava said: I and the lion of the group both explained this. The Talmud asks: And who is the lion of the group? It is Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin. He and Rava explained: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where the husband brought witnesses to testify that the wife committed adultery, and the wife’s father brought witnesses, and through their testimony that they were with the first witnesses in some other place at the time of the alleged transgression, they classified the husband’s witnesses as conspiring witnesses. In that case, if the father comes to collect monetary restitution from the husband for defamation, the case may be adjudicated by 3 judges. And in a case of capital punishment, such as the trial of the husband’s witnesses, the case must be judged by 23 judges. In this way, Ulla’s interpretation may be reconciled with the Tosefta.