Ketubot

— But 'Ulla derives it from the two words 'for'.  It is written here for he hath humbled her  and it is written there: 'Eye for eye'. As there  he pays money and does not receive lashes, so wherever there are the payment of money and the punishment of lashes, he pays money and does not receive the lashes. R. Johanan said: You can even say that it  speaks of his sister who was a maiden. Only there  it speaks of a case where they warned him,  and here  it speaks of a case where they did not warn him.  Consequently R. Johanan holds the view that wherever there are the payment of money and the punishment of lashes and they warned him, he receives the lashes and does not pay the money. Whence does R. Johanan derive this? — The verse says: According to his guilt;  [from this I infer that] you punish him because of one guilt but not because of two guilts, and immediately follow  the words: Forty stripes he may give him.  But behold when one person injures another person, in which case there are the payment of money and the punishment of lashes, he pays money and does not receive the lashes? And if you will say that this is only when they did not warn him, but when they warned him, he receives the lashes and does not pay — did not R. Ammi say in the name of R. Johanan that, if one person struck another person a blow, for which no perutah  can be claimed as damages,  he receives the lashes? How shall we imagine this case? If they did not warn him, why does he receive the lashes? Hence it is clear that they warned him, and the reason [why he receives the lashes and does not pay] is because the damages do not amount to a perutah, but if they amount to a perutah he pays the money but does not receive the lashes!  — [It is] as R. Elai said: The Torah has expressly stated  that the Zomemim witnesses have to pay money; so [here] also the Torah has expressly stated that the person who injures another person has to pay money. With regard to what has that [teaching] of R. Elai been said? — With regard to the following:  'We testify that So-and-so owes his fellow two hundred zuz' and they were found to be Zomemim, they receive the lashes and pay,  for it is not the verse that imposes upon them  the lashes  which imposes upon them  the payment  [of money]. This is the view of R. Meir; and the Sages say: He who pays does not receive lashes.  [And] let us say: he who receives lashes does not pay?  [Upon that] R. Elai said: The Torah has expressly stated that the Zomemim witnesses have to pay more money. Where has the Torah stated this? — Consider; it is written: 'Then shall ye do unto him as he had thought to do onto his brother'; why [is it written further,] 'hand for hand'?  [This means] a thing that is given from hand to hand, and that is money. [And] the same applies to the case of  one person who injures another person. Consider; it is written: 'As he hath done, so shall it be done to him';  why [is it written further] 'so shall it be rendered unto him'?  [This means] a thing that can be rendered,  and that is money. Why does R. Johanan not say as 'Ulla?  — If so  you would abolish [the prohibitory law]: The nakedness of thy sister thou shalt not uncover.