Ketubot

and it is established that one does not receive lashes and pay!  — 'Ulla said: There is no difficulty. Here  [it speaks] of his sister [who is] a maiden,  and there  [it speaks] of his sister [who is] a mature girl.  [But in the case of] his sister [who is] a mature girl, too, [there are damages to be paid for the] shame and deterioration?  — [It speaks of] an idiot.  But [there are still damages to be paid for] the pain?  [It speaks of] a girl who was seduced.  Now that you have come to this,  you can even say [that it speaks of] his sister [who was] a maiden [and namely when she was] an orphan  and [she was] seduced. Consequently, 'Ulla holds the view that wherever there is money [to be paid] and the punishment of lashes [to be inflicted], he pays the money and does not receive the lashes,  Whence does 'Ulla derive this? — He derives it from [the law with regard to] one person who injures another person. Just as when one person injures another person, in which case there is money to [be paid]  and the punishment of lashes,  he pays the money and does not receive the lashes,  so whenever there are payment of money and the punishment of lashes, he pays the money and does not receive the lashes. [But may it not be argued] it is different with [the case of] one person who injures another person because he is liable for five things?  And [if you will say] that [the payment of] money is lighter,  [one can say against this] that [here it has been excepted] from its rule [and] permitted to the Court!  But he derives it from the refuted false witnesses.  Just as in the case of refuted false witnesses, whose transgression involves the payment of money and the punishment with lashes,  they pay the money but do not receive the lashes,  so whenever there are payment of money and the punishment of lashes, he pays the money and does not receive the lashes. [But it may be argued] it is different with the case of refuted false witnesses, because they do not require a warning?  [And if you will say] that [the payment of] money is lighter, [one can say against this,] that they  have not done any deed!  — But he derives it from both.  The point common to both is that there are the payment of money and the punishment of lashes, and in either case he pays the money and does not receive the lashes. So whenever there are payment of money and the punishment of lashes, he pays the money and does not receive the lashes. But [it may be argued] the point common to both is [also] that they both have a strict side?  And if [you will say that the payment of] money is lighter, [one can say against this] that they have both a lighter side?