אֶלָּא עוּלָּא תַּחַת תַּחַת גָּמַר כְּתִיב הָכָא תַּחַת אֲשֶׁר עִנָּהּ וּכְתִיב הָתָם עַיִן תַּחַת עַיִן מָה הָתָם מָמוֹנָא מְשַׁלֵּם מִילְקָא לָא לָקֵי אַף כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּאִיכָּא מָמוֹנָא וּמַלְקוֹת מָמוֹנָא מְשַׁלֵּם מִילְקָא לָא לָקֵי Rather, Ulla derives the fact that one pays and is not flogged by means of a verbal analogy between the terms for and for. The verse states with regard to rape: “And the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and to him she shall be as a wife, because [taḥat] he tormented her” (Deuteronomy 22:29), and it states there, with regard to injury: “An eye for [taḥat] an eye” (Exodus 21:24). Just as there, with regard to injury, one pays money and is not flogged, so too, in any case where there is liability to both pay money and receive lashes, one pays money but is not flogged.
רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא אֲחוֹתוֹ נַעֲרָה כָּאן שֶׁהִתְרוּ בּוֹ כָּאן שֶׁלֹּא הִתְרוּ בּוֹ § In proposing a different resolution to the apparent contradiction between the mishna here that rules that one pays a fine for raping his sister and the mishna in Makkot that rules that one is flogged in that case, Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Even if you say that both mishnayot are referring to his sister who is a young woman, there it is referring to a case where the witnesses forewarned him, and therefore the rapist is flogged; here, it is referring to a case where the witnesses did not forewarn him. Since no lashes are administered without forewarning, the rapist pays the fine.
אַלְמָא קָסָבַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן כׇּל הֵיכָא דְּאִיכָּא מָמוֹן וּמַלְקוֹת וְאַתְרוֹ בֵּיהּ מִילְקָא לָקֵי מָמוֹנָא לָא מְשַׁלֵּם מְנָא לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הָא אָמַר קְרָא כְּדֵי רִשְׁעָתוֹ מִשּׁוּם רִשְׁעָה אַחַת אַתָּה מְחַיְּיבוֹ וְאִי אַתָּה מְחַיְּיבוֹ מִשּׁוּם שְׁתֵּי רִשְׁעָיוֹת וּסְמִיךְ לֵיהּ אַרְבָּעִים יַכֶּנּוּ The Gemara observes: Apparently, Rabbi Yoḥanan maintains that in any case where there is liability to both pay money and receive lashes, and the witnesses forewarned him, he is flogged but does not pay money. The Gemara asks: From where does Rabbi Yoḥanan derive this principle? The Gemara explains that he derives it from that which the verse states with regard to one sentenced to lashes in the court: “The judge shall cause him to lie down, and to be beaten before him, according to the measure of his wickedness” (Deuteronomy 25:2), from which it is inferred: For one act of wickedness, i.e., punishment, you can render him liable, but you cannot render him liable for two acts of wickedness. And juxtaposed to this it states: “Forty he shall strike him” (Deuteronomy 25:3), indicating that the punishment that is administered when one is liable to receive two punishments is lashes and not payment.
וַהֲרֵי חוֹבֵל בַּחֲבֵירוֹ דְּאִיכָּא מָמוֹן וּמַלְקוֹת מָמוֹנָא מְשַׁלֵּם מִילְקָא לָא לָקֵי וְכִי תֵּימָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּלָא אַתְרוֹ בֵּיהּ אֲבָל אַתְרוֹ בֵּיהּ מִילְקָא לָקֵי מָמוֹנָא לָא מְשַׁלֵּם וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הִכָּהוּ הַכָּאָה שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה לוֹקֶה הֵיכִי דָמֵי אִי דְּלָא אַתְרוֹ בֵּיהּ אַמַּאי לוֹקֶה אֶלָּא פְּשִׁיטָא דְּאַתְרוֹ בֵּיהּ וְטַעְמָא דְּלֵית בֵּהּ שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה הָא אִית בֵּהּ שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה מָמוֹנָא מְשַׁלֵּם מִילְקָא לָא לָקֵי The Gemara asks: And what of the case of one who injures another where there is liability to both pay money and receive lashes, in which case one pays money but is not flogged? And lest you say that this applies only when the witnesses did not forewarn him, but if they forewarned him before he struck his friend he is flogged but does not pay money, didn’t Rabbi Ami say that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: If one struck another with a blow that does not cause damage that amounts to the value of a peruta, he is flogged? The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of that case? If it is a case where the witnesses did not forewarn him, why is he flogged? No lashes are administered without forewarning. Rather, obviously it is a case where they forewarned him, and the reason he is flogged is that there is not damage that amounts to the value of a peruta. The damages are not quantifiable. The Gemara infers: However, if there is damage that amounts to the value of a peruta, he pays money and is not flogged, even though he was forewarned.
כִּדְאָמַר רַבִּי אִילְעָא בְּפֵירוּשׁ רִיבְּתָה תּוֹרָה עֵדִים זוֹמְמִין לְתַשְׁלוּמִין הָכָא נָמֵי בְּפֵירוּשׁ רִיבְּתָה תּוֹרָה חוֹבֵל בַּחֲבֵירוֹ לְתַשְׁלוּמִין וְהֵיכָא אִיתְּמַר דְּרַבִּי אִילְעָא אַהָא מְעִידִין אָנוּ אֶת אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי שֶׁחַיָּיב לַחֲבֵירוֹ מָאתַיִם זוּז וְנִמְצְאוּ זוֹמְמִין לוֹקִין וּמְשַׁלְּמִין שֶׁלֹּא הַשֵּׁם הַמְּבִיאָן לִידֵי מַכּוֹת מְבִיאָן לִידֵי תַּשְׁלוּמִין דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים כׇּל הַמְשַׁלֵּם אֵינוֹ לוֹקָה The Gemara answers that the fact that conspiring witnesses pay money can be explained in accordance with that which Rabbi Ile’a said in a different context: The Torah explicitly amplified the case of conspiring witnesses to include liability for payment. The Torah employed language indicating that conspiring witnesses who testified falsely in order to render one liable for payment must pay the sum and are not flogged. Here, too, with regard to injury, the Torah explicitly amplified the case of one who injures another to include liability for payment. The Gemara asks: And where is this statement of Rabbi Ile’a stated? The Gemara answers that it is stated concerning this mishna (Makkot 4a). If witnesses said: We testify that so-and-so owes another two hundred dinar, and these witnesses were discovered to be conspiring witnesses; they are flogged and pay, as the source [shem] that brings them to liability to receive lashes does not brings them to liability for payment. Each liability has an independent source; the source for lashes is: “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor,” while the source for payment is: “You shall do unto him as he conspired” (Deuteronomy 19:19). This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: Anyone who pays is not flogged.
וְנֵימָא כׇּל הַלּוֹקֶה אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם אָמַר רַבִּי אִילְעָא בְּפֵירוּשׁ רִיבְּתָה תּוֹרָה עֵדִים זוֹמְמִין לְתַשְׁלוּמִין הֵיכָן רִיבְּתָה תּוֹרָה מִכְּדֵי כְּתִיב וַעֲשִׂיתֶם לוֹ כַּאֲשֶׁר זָמַם לַעֲשׂוֹת לְאָחִיו יָד בְּיָד לְמָה לִי דָּבָר הַנִּיתָּן מִיָּד לְיָד וּמַאי נִיהוּ מָמוֹן And with regard to that mishna, the Gemara asks: Let us say, on the contrary, that anyone who is flogged does not pay. Rabbi Ile’a said: The Torah explicitly amplified the case of conspiring witnesses for payment, not lashes. The Gemara asks: Where did the Torah amplify the case of conspiring witnesses? The Gemara explains: Now, since it states with regard to conspiring witnesses: “And you shall do unto him as he conspired to do unto his brother” (Deuteronomy 19:19); why do I require the Torah to state in his punishment: “A hand for a hand” (Deuteronomy 19:21)? This indicates that the punishment that takes precedence is one in which there is an item that is given from hand to hand, and what is that item? It is money.
חוֹבֵל בַּחֲבֵירוֹ נָמֵי מִכְּדֵי כְּתִיב כַּאֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה כֵּן יֵעָשֶׂה לוֹ כֵּן יִנָּתֵן בּוֹ לְמָה לִי דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ נְתִינָה וּמַאי נִיהוּ מָמוֹן The same can be said with regard to one who injures another. Now, since it states: “And a man who places a blemish upon his counterpart, as he has done so shall be done to him” (Leviticus 24:19), why do I require the Torah to state: “As one who places a blemish upon a man, so shall be placed [yinnaten] upon him” (Leviticus 24:20)? This teaches that this is referring to an item that involves giving [netina], and what is that item? It is money.
וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמַר כְּעוּלָּא אִם כֵּן בִּטַּלְתָּ עֶרְוַת אֲחוֹתְךָ לֹא תְגַלֶּה The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yoḥanan, what is the reason that he did not say the same halakha as Ulla, that where there is liability to both pay money and receive lashes, one pays money but is not flogged? The Gemara answers: If so, if that were the case, you have rendered moot the prohibition “The nakedness of your sister…you shall not uncover” (Leviticus 18:9) in that contrary to the standard prohibitions, no lashes would be administered for its violation.