Assertion (Ri): We do not ask against the Mishnah there, why he is lashed. Obviously, lashes without a fine apply to a Bogeres [so there is no fine, and he need not pay Boshes and Pegam,] in a case that she was seduced, or was a Be'ulah;

Rather, he questions our Mishnah. Why does he pay a fine? There are lashes!

Even if they did not warn him [so he is not lashed], we can say that the Makshan thought that Chayavei Malkiyos Shogegim (if there are lashes for an Aveirah, even one who transgressed b'Shogeg) is exempt from payment!

Ula answered that our Mishnah is even if they warned him. He pays money, and he is not lashed.

R. Yochanan answered that our Mishnah is when they did not warn him. This is like he taught elsewhere, that [even] if there are lashes for an Aveirah, one who transgressed b'Shogeg must pay.

Question: In Makos (4b), it connotes that regarding a fine, one is lashed and pays!

Regarding the argument of R. Meir and Rabanan, about "we testify that Ploni owes his friend 200 Zuz", it says 'granted, Rabanan hold [that he pays and is not lashed] like they taught elsewhere. We obligate "Rish'ah Achas" (only one punishment for an Aveirah)...'

Citation (4b): However, what is R. Meir's reason [that he pays and is lashed]? He learns from Motzi Shem Ra (who pays and is lashed).

Citation (cont.) Question: How can he learn from Motzi Shem Ra? It is a fine!

Citation (cont.) Answer: He holds that also Edim Zomemim is a fine!

Inference: Rabanan do not learn from Motzi Shem Ra, because they hold that Edim Zomemim is not a fine. However, we properly learn fines from Motzi Shem Ra, that one pays and is lashed!

Summation of question: Ula himself, who here struggled to answer "here we discuss [one who had Bi'ah with] his sister when she is a Na'arah" (for a Bogeres, one is lashed), concludes like this there!

Suggestion: We ask due to Boshes and Pegam, which are Mamon (not fines).

Rejection: Since he answered "here (the Mishnah in Makos) discusses when his sister is a Bogeres (who has no fine), this connotes that the question was not from Boshes and Pegam, for if so, he did not answer it at all! (One pays them also for a Bogeres.)

Answer #1: Since Rabanan of R. Meir hold that Edim Zomemim is not a fine, so we do not learn it from Motzi Shem Ra, rather, we do not say that he is lashed and pays, due to "Kedei Rish'aso"...

We should learn everywhere from Edim Zomemim, and not from Motzi Shem Ra, for all lashes are learned from Edim Zomemim, which is written adjacent to the Lav of muzzling;

"Arba'im Yakenu" is written regarding Edim Zomemim. Since lashes are written explicitly regarding [Edim Zomemim], we learn that all Lavim [for which one is lashed] must be like the Lav of muzzling, which is next to it;

Just like for Edim Zomemim, we never find that one is lashed and pays, whether regarding Mamon or Kenas, for the Torah wrote [Stam] about every case "Kedei Rish'aso" - we obligate only one punishment for an Aveirah;

This is even if they were obligated a fine, e.g. at the time they testified, they (the witnesses) themselves slaughtered or sold a stolen ox, or others [slaughtered or sold it] for them. The same applies to all [Lavim of] lashes.

Answer #2 (Ritzva): Also Rabanan can hold that Edim Zomemim is a fine. Even so, we do not learn from Motzi Shem Ra, because "Kedei Rish'aso" connotes Mamon and lashes;

However, according to R. Meir, due to the Binyan Av (precedent) of Motzi Shem Ra, he establishes "Kedei Rish'aso" to Misah and lashes, and takes it out from its simple meaning.

Answer #3: Or, Rabanan's reason is like the Yerushalmi explains, that Motzi Shem Ra is a Chidush. He is liable for mere speech. (We cannot learn from a Chidush.)

Implied question: Also Edim Zomemim are liable for their speech! (R. Akiva Eiger - Tosfos does not ask that they should learn from Edim Zomemim from Motzi Shem Ra. We do not learn from a fine from Mamon! Rather, since also Edim Zomemim are liable for their speech, Motzi Shem Ra is not a Chidush.)

Answer: In any case, it is not such a big Chidush, for through their speech [the litigant] lost. However, no action occurs due to his speech, only through witnesses.

Support: It connotes like this below (38b), that even if Edim Zomemim is a fine, one is not Lokeh u'Meshalem Kenas, for it says "according to Rabah, who says that according to R. Meir, a fine is a Chidush [and even one who is killed pays it], how does he establish [our Mishnah, which exempts ]?

Question: Why doesn't he establish it like R. Akiva, who holds in Bava Kama (5a) that Edim Zomemim is a fine? We have no source that he holds that one is killed and pays!

Answer: The Gemara connotes that no Tana holds that Lokeh u'Meshalem, except for R. Meir.

Question: What is the Gemara's source for this? Perhaps normally he holds that he is lashed and does not pay;

Only here he pays money, for the Torah revealed so, like we said above (29b) "Na'arah, Na'arah, ha'Na'arah"!

Answer #1 (R. Tam): If normally he held that he is lashed and does not pay, he should have established the Mishnah in Makos (13a) also to discuss his sister a Na'arah, when he was warned, and our Mishnah when he was not warned;

Rather, surely also in general he holds that he pays money, and he is not lashed. Therefore, he could not establish the Mishnah in Makos to discuss his sister a Na'arah.

Rejection: One may not infer this! We can say that Ula holds like Reish Lakish, who did not want to answer that here [in Makos] he was warned, and here [in our Mishnah] he was not warned, like we say below;

He holds that there is no distinction. He holds that Chayavei Malkiyos Shogegim are exempt from payment, whether or not they warned him;

If a verse includes that he pays a fine when he was not warned, the same applies when he was warned.

Answer #2 (Ri): You are forced to say that he holds that he pays money, and he is not lashed, since we include from one verse Chayavei Lavin and from one verse Chayavei Kerisos;

If in general he is lashed, perhaps one verse is for Chayavei Aseh, and one is for Chayavei Lavin, even though normally he is lashed and does not pay;

However, Chayavei Kerisos do not pay, for we require a woman he could be Mekadesh (and there is not a third verse to teach that even so, they pay). This is like Rabanan, who say that Kidushin Tofsin in Chayavei Lavin.

Answer #3 (R. Tam): We infer that he pays money, since we asked "for a Bogeres, he pays Boshes and Pegam!", and [Ula] answered that we discuss a lunatic. He did not answer that he is lashed and does not pay;

Rather, surely he holds in general that he pays money, and he is not lashed.

Question #1: It seems that Ula himself did not say so. The Gemara said so [on behalf of him]!

Question #2: We conclude that Ula learns from a Gezeirah Shavah "Tachas-Tachas". This implies that a fine itself needs a verse that he pays money. (I.e. we answered for Ula regarding the fine, and not regarding Boshes and Pegam.)

Why doesn't he learn from "Na'ar, Na'arah, ha'Na'arah"?

Note: Tosfos Yeshanim connotes like R. Chananel, who expounds the Hei in Na'arah, for the Torah could have written it like Na'ar, without a Hei. Tosfos (29b DH Na'arah) rejected this.

Question #3: What was the question "what is Ula's source?" We should say that he learns Boshes and Pegam from the fine, for the verse includes [that he pays a fine]!

Suggestion: Perhaps we cannot learn [Boshes and Pegam, which are Mamon] from a fine.

Rejection: He should learn from the fine, Chovel (one who wounds someone), and Edim Zomemim!

Question #4: Since we discuss [Ula's source for] Boshes and Pegam, why does it say below that we cannot learn from Chovel, since he is liable four [additional] payments? Boshes is [a payment due to] Chovel!

[Do not say that we cannot learn a single payment from five payments, for] there are many kinds of Chovel for which one is not liable all five payments, like it says in Bava Kama (85b)!

Answer (to Question #4 - Rivam): The Gemara asks below that we cannot learn from Chovel, for sometimes it includes all five payments, to the Lav of Ervas Achoscha Lo Segaleh", which never has all five payments.

Conclusion: The Ri's Perush is primary.

Question: Does he profit [for transgressing an Aveirah with two punishments], that he receives the lighter punishment?!

The Gemara asks like this in Sanhedrin (81a) regarding one who was obligated two [different] Misos.

Answer: Here is different, for the Torah was concerned for the victim's money (he should receive compensation).

Question: If so, we should never learn from a Tzad ha'Shavah. We can always ask that both of the sources have a stringency or leniency!

Answer #1 (Ri): Here we ask that each has an unusual stringency.

Support #1: This is like in Sanhedrin (66a) "you cannot learn from the Tzad ha'Shavah, for they are different", regarding the Isur to curse a judge, king or Cheresh (deafmute).

Here, the five payments, and that they need not be warned, are more stringent than [we find in] other matters.

Likewise, a lenient side is an excessive leniency. Chovel is totally permitted in Beis Din. It is permitted to hit a fellow man.

Similarly, Edim Zomemim did not do an action. This is an excessive leniency.

Implied question: There is an opinion that contorting the lips is an action!

Answer: We say in Sanhedrin (65b) that Edim Zomemim are different, because it is based on sight (what they claimed to see).

Implied question: Also in Sotah (29b), it asks regarding Tevul Yom and Kli Cheres (we wanted to learn from their Tzad ha'Shavah, that a Sheni l'Tum'ah disqualifies Terumah) "there is a Tzad Chamor to the Tzad ha'Shavah!"

Answer #1: It is called a Tzad Chamor, for it is unusual. A Kli Cheres receives Tum'ah from its airspace [even if the Tum'ah did not touch it];

Also a Tevul Yom, with difficulty we can say that it is called a Tzad Chamor that he can become an Av ha'Tum'ah through touching. One would have thought that no one becomes an Av ha'Tum'ah unless the Tum'ah came out of his body.

Answer #2: We can say that the Tzad Chamor there is because we can ask that there is an Av ha'Tum'ah in its kind;

Implied question: A Kli Cheres cannot be an Av ha'Tum'ah!

Answer: There is in its kind an Av ha'Tum'ah more than a loaf, for there is some Kli that is an Av ha'Tum'ah, e.g. a Klei Etz;

However, no food ever becomes an Av ha'Tum'ah in any case.

Question (against both answers - Rashba): We can say that a food that is a Rishon l'Tum'ah, Yochi'ach (proves that the law does not depend on the stringencies, and thereby restores the Tzad ha'Shavah);

There is no Av ha'Tum'ah in its kind, and it is Metamei Terumah. Likewise, I can say the same about a Sheni!

Suggestion: You cannot learn from a Rishon food, for it makes Chulin a Sheni (but a Sheni does not)!

Rejection: A Tevul Yom Yochi'ach (it does not make Chulin a Sheni).

Observation: You cannot ask that it (a Rishon) is unusual, for there is nothing unusual about it!

Answer: There, the "Tzad Chamor" is because they come due to an Av ha'Tum'ah. A Tevul Yom, Kli Cheres and Rishon all touched (or received Tum'ah from) an Av ha'Tum'ah, unlike a Sheni, which touched only a Rishon.

Answer #2 (to Question (a) - R. Tam): The "Tzad Chamor" of Edim Zomemim is because the same Tzad Chamor of Chovel can apply to Edim Zomemim;

If they testified that someone struck someone, and they were Huzam, they pay five payments, i.e. what they wanted to obligate him.

Answer #2 (cont.): We can explain Tzad Kal, that the Lav of Chovel and Edim Zomemim has no Kares. It is a mere Lav. We cannot learn Chayavei Kerisos from it.

Observation: In Makos (4b) we learn from Motzi Shem Ra and Edim Zomemim that one is lashed for Lav she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh. We ask that the Tzad ha'Shavah is that both have a stringency;

We can explain this like here, according to R. Tam and R. Yitzchak.

Implied question: In Pesachim (77a) regarding "b'Mo'ado" - even in Tum'ah, it says "had the Torah written this [only] regarding the Tamid, we would have said that it is because it is Kalil (entirely burned on the Mizbe'ach, but other Korbanos Tzibur may not be brought b'Tum'ah);

Citation (77a): Had the Torah written this [only] regarding Pesach, we would have said that it is because there is Kares (for not bringing it. Had the Torah written) both of these, (we would have said that it is) because they have a stringency.

Answer: There, there is some other challenge why we cannot learn from the Tzad ha'Shavah, and the Gemara was not concerned to explain it;

For a small reason, we depart [from the Tzad ha'Shavah,] and say that [all the verses] are needed.

Explanation: We can say that according to this conclusion, Ula says that he pays money and he is not lashed, only in these three cases about which the Torah revealed.

Suggestion: We should say that Ula learns to everywhere from "Tachas Nesinah Yeshalem Kesef" (one of these words is written regarding all 24 Avos Nezikim). From this Gezeirah Shavah we learn that all of them [when paid with land] are paid with Meitav (highest quality land)!

Rejection: The Gezeirah Shavah was received only regarding Meitav, which is the payment itself.

Proof: If you would not say so, this is difficult for R. Yochanan and Abaye, who argue with Ula. Surely, they agree to this Gezeirah Shavah regarding Meitav! (However, they do not learn Tachas Tachas like Ula does.)

Here, according to Ula, this "Tachas" is extra to exempt from lashes from a Gezeirah Shavah to Chovel. (Regarding Ones, it already says Nesinah and Kesef, so Tachas is extra);

Therefore, below we need to say that Ula learns Boshes and Pegam like Rava.

Question: Above, we asked what is Ula's source that he pays money, and he is not lashed, and here we ask oppositely (what is R. Yochanan's source that he is lashed and does not pay money)!

Answer: Here, due to the (answer for Ula, i.e. the) Gezeirah Shavah Tachas Tachas, we ask why R. Yochanan does not expound the Gezeirah Shavah for this;

All agree that this Gezeirah Shavah was received in Bechoros (12a) regarding a Bechor.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): It is because money and lashes come from two verses, lashes from Lo Sa'aneh, and money from "va'Asisem Lo Ka'asher Zamam."

Objection: All the more so, if they were written in one verse he should be lashed and pay!

Answer: Perhaps we can say according to Rashi that because money and lashes come from two verses, we should not totally annul one verse and fulfill the other;

However, if both come from "va'Asisem Lo "Ka'asher Zamam", e.g. they testified that one was Motzi Shem Ra on his wife. They come to obligate him money and lashes. Ein Lokin u'Meshalmim.

Objection (Ri): It is unreasonable that they are not obligated money and lashes in such a case, since they wanted to obligate the litigant both!

Explanation #2 (Ri): The name that obligates them lashes is not the same... i.e. payment is not written near lashes;

If it were written in the same verse 'Lo Sa'aneh, v'Im Anah va'Asisem Lo Ka'asher Zamam', surely I would have thought that it is a Lav ha'Nitak l'Aseh, and he is not lashed for it;

However, now that it is written far from this, it is not Nitak l'Aseh. It is not like the Lav of theft, which is considered Nitak l'Aseh in Makos (16a) and Chulin (141a).

Implied question: The Aseh of "v'Heshiv Es ha'Gezeilah" is not written near the Lav "Lo Sigzol"!

Answer: There, you are forced to say that it is Nitak l'Aseh, for he uproots the theft from his possession;

However, the verse "va'Asisem Lo Ka'asher Zamam" does not uproot the Lav of Lo Sa'aneh. Through doing to him like he plotted, this does not uproot his testimony, rather, through the Hazamah (testimony of those who said that he was not there to see it)!

Therefore, it is not considered Nitak l'Aseh since it is not written right after it.

Explanation #3 (R. Shlomo of Darvish): "The name that obligates them lashes", i.e. Lo Sa'aneh, is not what obligates them to pay, i.e. it does not come to be a warning to punish through payment;

This is like we say in Makos, that money does not require a warning.

Note: The Gemara does not say so explicitly. It seems that Tosfos infers this, for we ask (4b) how Chachamim use Lo Sa'aneh. We do not say that it is a warning for Ka'asher Zamam!

Also, R. Meir derives a warning for "Ka'asher Zamam" from "v'Chol Yisrael Yishme'u v'Yir'a'u v'Lo Yosifu", like we say in Makos (4b)

If he needed Lo Sa'aneh for a warning for money, one would not be lashed for it, for from one Lav we do not punish money and lashes.

Support: Makos 4a connotes like this. In the Mishnah "we testify that Ploni is liable 40 lashes, [R. Meir says that] they are lashed 80.' One [set] is for "va'Asisem Lo Ka'asher Zamam", and one [set] is for Lo Sa'aneh;

Citation (4a, 4b): Chachamim say that he receives only 40 lashes. For what do they use Lo Sa'aneh? They need it for a warning for Edim Zomemim;

Citation (cont.): R. Meir derives a warning from "v'Chol Yisrael..."

Inference: If not for the other verse for a warning, he would not punish them two [sets of] lashes due to Lo Sa'aneh;

According to Rabanan, even though Lo Sa'aneh is not needed to warn for money, even so Eino Lokeh u'Meshalem, due to "Kedei Rish'aso";

According to Rabanan, they are lashed only when they testify that Ploni is a Ben Gerushah (a Pasul Kohen, or other cases), when we cannot fulfill "Ka'asher Zamam."

Implied question: Lo Sa'aneh is a Lav she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh! Also, it is the warning for Misas Beis Din (for Edim Zomemim who testified that a person is Chayav Misah. These are two reasons why one is not lashed for such a Lav.)

Answer: Here, the Torah revealed that one is lashed - "v'Hayah Im Bin Hakos ha'Rasha."

Suggestion: We ask why we need Yad b'Yad, because "va'Asisem Lo Ka'asher Zamam" explicitly connotes money. Just like [the witnesses] wanted to obligate him money, they will be obligated money to him.

Rejection: We could say that Ka'asher Zamam discusses Misah or lashes. However, if they wanted to obligate him money, they are lashed, and they do not pay!

Question #1: The words 'how is this? It is written "va'Asisem..." Why do we need Yad b'Yad?' connote that we learn from the extra words that are not needed for the simple meaning;

Even if "Yad b'Yad" were not extra, it properly connotes money!

Suggestion: Perhaps [if it were not extra, we would explain that] it literally means that we cut off the witnesses' hand!

Rejection: In Bava Kama (83b, 84a) we learn from Ayin Tachas Ayin (that it refers to money, for if it we literally removed his eye, sometimes he would die, and this is a life and an eye for an eye. Rather, it refers to money, and also Yad Tachas Yad. Since testimony never results in cutting off a hand, clearly we do not do so to the witnesses. (Maharam Shif).

Question #2: It says [below] regarding one who wounds 'what do we learn from "Ken Yinasen Bo"? This refers to something given from hand to hand, i.e. money;

We should say that this is only when they did not warn him! In Bava Kama, we learn from "Ken Yinasen Bo" the payment of Nezek (decreased slave value), and not from "Ka'asher Asah";

However, when they warned him, we should say that he is lashed!

Answer (Ri): This Sugya is like the opinion that derives that Ayin Tachas Ayin refers to money from "Yad b'Yad";

This is why it says 'how is this? It is written "va'Asisem Lo Ka'asher Zamam." If you would think that Ayin Tachas Ayin is literal, why do we need "Yad b'Yad" regarding Edim Zomemim? We would know from "Ka'asher Zamam"! (When their testimony would have caused the litigant to lose his eye or hand, we do so to them.)

Rather, Yad b'Yad is extra, to expound something given from hand to hand, i.e. money;

However, if it were not extra, we would say that it is literally a hand for a hand.

Explanation - Question: This connotes money, like we proved from the extra Yad b'Yad, like I explained. If so, why do we need "Ken Yinasen Bo"?

Note: Bach and Maharam Shif say that this is part of the previous Dibur.

Suggestion: It teaches about when they did not warn him.

Rejection: We learn this from Yad b'Yad! (Maharsha - since Edim Zomemim pay money, we must say that a Chovel pays money. If not, we do not fulfill Ka'asher Zamam.)

Answer: Rather, you are forced to say that it is needed only for when they warned him.

Implied question: Why didn't [the Makshan] ask why we need "Ka'asher Asah..."?

Answer: It was taught here for a need, like we say that any Parshah that was taught and repeated (it was repeated for a Chidush. We need not expound everything repeated);

However, why was Ken Yinasen Bo repeated twice? (I.e. this is just like Ken Ya'aseh Lo!) Rather, it teaches something given from hand to hand (money) in a case when they warned him.

Observation: We could have asked 'it is written "Yad b'Yad." Why do we need "Ken Yinasen Bo"?'

Question: Why didn't we say that he did not receive the Gezeirah Shavah Tachas-Tachas?

Answer: We learn this in Bechoros (12a) regarding Bechor, and in several [other] places.

Question: Every Lav she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh and Lav ha'Nitak l'Aseh, we are Mevatel the Lav, since one is not lashed for it!

Answer: Such a Lav is not proper for lashes. Here, it is proper to lash for the Lav;

(Therefore), we should not expound a Gezeirah Shavah to uproot lashes from it, since we could establish the Gezeirah Shavah for something else.