Question: Why didn't R. Yochanan learn like Ula?

Answer #1: If so, we would not lash for the Lav of Bi'ah with one's sister. (We know that every Lav obligates lashes.)

Objection: If so, it is difficult why we do not lash for the Lav of wounding!

Also, regarding Edim Zomemim (who obligated someone to pay) we do not fulfill "if the Rasha deserves to be lashed"!

We must say that it suffices that we lash Edim Zomemim who testify that a Kohen is Pasul. Similarly, one who inflicts a wound worth less than a Perutah is lashed.

Likewise, it suffices that we lash for Bi'ah with a Bogeres sister!

Answer #2: R. Yochanan did not learn like Ula because he expounds "Tachas" like Abaye does:

(Abaye): "Tachas" (compensation for) that he afflicted her" implies that he pays (the 50 for enjoying Bi'ah with her, and) additional money for embarrassment and blemish.

Ula learns this law like Rava does:

(Rava): "The man who lies with her will give 50 to her father" - he pays 50 for the enjoyment of lying with her, implying that he also pays for embarrassment and blemish.

(R. Elazar): Edim Zomemim pay money and are not lashed because they cannot be warned.

Support #1 (Rava): There is no time they can be warned!

If we would warn them long before they testify, they could claim that they forgot the warning!

If we would warn them right before they testify, they (even truthful witnesses) would refuse to testify!

If we would warn them after they testify, this is too late!

Objection #1 (Abaye): We could warn them after they testify, within the time needed to greet someone. During this time they could still retract their testimony!

Objection #2 (Rav Acha brei d'Rav Ika): We could warn them long before they testify, and subtly remind them at they time they testify!

Support #2 (Abaye): We must say that they need not be warned!

Since they tried to kill someone without warning, it is improper to say that they cannot be killed without warning!

This would not fulfill "Like he plotted to do to his brother"!

Question (Rav Sama brei d'Rav Yirmiyah): According to this, we should require warning to lash Edim Zomemim for false testimony when the lashes are not due to "Like he plotted", e.g. if they testified that Ploni is a Pasul Kohen!

Answer: "There will be one law for you" - the same law applies to everyone.

(Rav Shisha brei d'Rav Idi): Also one who hits someone pays money but is not lashed.

Source #1: "If men will fight and one strikes a pregnant woman, aborting the fetus (he will pay her husband)".

(R. Elazar): The verse discusses men trying to kill each other - "If she will die, you will give a life for a life";

We must say that there was warning, for otherwise he could not be killed!

Warning for a severe punishment (death, for murder) is valid warning for a lighter punishment (lashes, for hitting), and it says that he pays money!

Objection #1 (Rav Ashi): Perhaps warning for a severe punishment is not valid warning for a light one!

Objection #2 (Rav Ashi): Even if it is considered warning, perhaps lashes is harsher than death!

(Rav): Chananyah, Misha'el and Azaryah (chose to jump into the furnace and not bow to Nevuchadnetzar's image.) Had they been lashed, they would have bowed to the image!

Question (Rav Sama brei d'Rav Asi, against Rav Ashi): Beis Din gives a limited number of lashes. Rav taught that they would not have endured unlimited lashes!

Objection #3 (Rav Yakov): Granted, this could be the source for Chachamim, who explain "a life for a life" literally;

However, Rebbi says that it refers to a monetary payment. (He need not say that warning was given.) How will he learn that one who wounds pays money?

Source #2 (Rav Yakov) Question: "If he will get up... he will be acquitted" - would we think that Reuven is killed even if Levi (the one he struck) recovers?!

Answer: Rather, this teaches that we lock up Reuven. If Levi dies, Reuven is killed. If Levi recovers "He pays his unemployment and medical expenses".

If there was no warning, he would not be killed!

Rather, we must say he was warned. Warning for a severe punishment is valid warning for a lighter one, yet he pays money!

Objection #1 (Rav Ashi): Perhaps warning for a severe punishment is not warning for a light one!

Objection #2 (Rav Ashi): Even if it is warning, perhaps lashes is harsher than death!

(Rav): Had Chananyah, Misha'el and Azaryah been lashed, they would have bowed to the image.

Question (Rav Sama brei d'Rav Asi): We distinguish between a limited and an unlimited number of lashes!

Objection #3 (Rav Mari): We need not say that Reuven intended to kill and the verse acquits him from execution. Perhaps he struck him accidentally, and he is acquitted from exile!

This is left difficult.

Answer #4 (to contradiction 4:b, 31b - Reish Lakish): Our Tana is R. Meir, who says that a person can be lashed and pay for one act.

Question: If the Tana is R. Meir, he should pay even for his daughter!

Answer #1: R. Meir holds that one can be lashed and pay, but one who is killed does not pay.

Objection (Beraisa - R. Meir): If one stole an animal and slaughtered it on Shabbos or slaughtered it to serve idolatry, or stole and slaughtered an animal sentenced to die, he pays four or five times its value;

Chachamim exempt (from paying four or five).

Answer (R. Yochanan): The case is, the thief appointed a Shali'ach (agent) to slaughter for him.

Question: If the thief punished for someone else's sin?!

Answer: Yes!

Source #1 (Rava): "He slaughtered or sold it" - just like selling it involves another person, so slaughtering may involve another person.

Source #2 (Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael): "Or" comes to include a Shali'ach.

Source #3 (Tana d'Vei Chizkiyah): "Tachas" includes a Shali'ach.

Objection (Mar Zutra): Do we ever find that a person is exempt for doing something, and he is liable if his Shali'ach does it?!

Answer: Also when he himself slaughters he should pay, just he is exempt due to Kam Lei bid'Rabah Minei (one who is Chayav Misah does not pay).