Is testimony admissible if it was initially rejected due to a temporary impediment which later ceased to exist?

Primary text

When a master testifies for his freedman (*mukatab*), and the testimony is rejected, or when an heir testifies regarding the estate of the deceased, and the testimony is rejected due to slander (*jurh*) before it is healed, the testimony is accepted upon the removal of the impediment (the freeing of the *mukatab* or the healing of the slander). This view is held because the removal of the impediment is not an act of the witnesses themselves, similar to how a minor's testimony becomes valid upon reaching puberty. Furthermore, since the rejection was due to a defect that carries no imputation (like slander), there is no suspicion that they seek to re-establish the testimony to remove a fault, unlike rejection due to outright moral transgression (*fisq*). This opinion aligns more closely with correctness, as the default state is the acceptance of a just witness's testimony unless a barrier exists.