DOES ONE PAY OR SUFFER LASHES? (cont.)
Answer #1 (Ula): In our Mishnah his sister is a Na'arah, so he pays. In Mishnah #1 she is a Bogeres, so he is lashed.
Objection: Also for a Bogeres one pays for embarrassment and blemish!
Answer: The case is, she is insane (so these payments do not apply).
Objection: There is payment for pain!
Answer: The Mishnah discusses (only) a seducer.
This suggests another answer to the contradiction.
Answer #2: Mishnah #1 discusses even a Na'arah. She is an orphan who was seduced, so she forgives all payments!
Inference: Ula holds that if one is liable to pay and be lashed for one act, he pays and is not lashed.
Question: What is Ula's source?
Answer #1: He learns from one who strikes someone. (Even though one is lashed for this when the damage was less than a Perutah, when the damage is a Perutah) he only pays. We learn to all such cases.
Rejection #1: (If paying is a harsher punishment than lashes) perhaps only one who strikes someone pays, since the Torah is stringent about this and obligates five payments!
Rejection #2: If paying is a lighter punishment than lashes, perhaps we are lenient about one who strikes someone, since Beis Din is permitted to strike people (so we cannot learn to other cases).
Answer #2: Rather, he learns from Edim Zomemim (witnesses who testified about something that they could not have seen. Even though there are lashes for this, when they must pay) they only pay.
Rejection #1: The Torah is stringent about Edim Zomemim. They are lashed without warning. We cannot learn to other cases!
Rejection #2: If paying is the lighter punishment, perhaps we are lenient about Edim Zomemim, since they did no action!
Answer #3: He learns a Tzad ha'Shavah (what is common) to both of these. They should pay and be lashed, but they only pay. We learn to all such cases.
Rejection #1: We cannot learn from these two, for each has a special severity!
Rejection #2: If paying is the lighter punishment, we cannot learn from them, for each has a special leniency!
Answer #4: Ula learns from a Gezeirah Shavah.
It says "Tachas" regarding one who strikes someone, and also regarding a rapist. Just like the former pays money and is not lashed, so too all other cases. (Tosfos - he learns only to a rapist.)
R. YOCHANAN'S ANSWER [line 5]
Answer #3 (to contradiction 4:b, 31b - R. Yochanan): One is lashed even for a Na'arah if he was warned. If there was no warning, he pays.
R. Yochanan holds that if one is liable to pay and be lashed for one act, he is lashed and does not pay.
Question: What is his source?
Answer: "According to his evil" - he is punished for one evil, not for two. Adjacent to this it says "he will lash him 40 times."
Question: One who strikes his friend pays and is not lashed!
Suggestion: Perhaps he pays only when there was no warning.
Rejection: R. Yochanan taught that if one inflicted a wound for which the compensation is less than a Perutah, he is lashed;
We must say that he was warned, for otherwise he would not be lashed!
Inference: If the compensation was a Perutah, he would pay!
Answer: The Torah explicitly said that wounding is punishable by money, like R. Ila'a said regarding Edim Zomemim:
(Mishnah - R. Meir): If witnesses testified that Ploni owes 200 Zuz and they were found to be Zomemim, they are lashed and pay, since these punishments come from different verses;
Chachamim say, since they pay they are not lashed.
Question: Why don't we say they are lashed and do not pay?
Answer (R. Ila'a): The Torah explicitly said that Edim Zomemim pay.
Question: Where did the Torah say this?
Answer: "You will do to him like he plotted to do to his brother. Yad b'Yad" refers to something that given from hand to hand, i.e. money.
Similarly, regarding wounding it says "Like he did, will be done to him." "So he will give" is extra to teach that this means something that is given, i.e. money.