Ketubot

[But could not one say] also [in the case of] one person who injures another person: If so  you would abolish [the prohibitory law], 'he shall not exceed, lest, if he should exceed.'  [And in case of] the Zomemim witnesses too, [one could say]: If so you would abolish [the law]: 'then it shall be, if the guilty man deserve to be beaten.'  But [you must say that in the case of] the Zomemim witnesses it is possible to fulfil it  when [the witnesses testified falsely about someone  that he was] the son of a divorced woman or the son of a haluzah.  [Similarly in the case of] a person who injured another person, it also is possible to fulfil it  when he struck him a blow for which no perutah can be claimed as damages.  [And so you can say] also [with regard to] his sister [that] it is possible to fulfil it  in the case of his sister who was a mature girl!  — R. Johanan can answer you: [The verse] for he hath humbled her  is required for [the same teaching] as of Abaye, for Abaye said: The verse says, 'for he hath humbled her'. This  [he shall pay] for he has humbled her, [from which we infer], by implication, that there are also [to be paid damages for] shame and deterioration.  And 'Ulla?'  — He derives it from a teaching of Raba, for Raba said: The verse says: Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the father of the maiden it fifty shekel of silver;  [this means that] for the enjoyment of lying [with the maiden he has to pay] fifty [shekel of silver], [and we infer], by implication, that there are also [to be paid damages for] shame and deterioration. R. Eleazar  says: The Zomemim witnesses pay money and do not receive lashes, because they cannot be warned.  Raba said: You may know it [from the following]:  When shall we warn them? Shall we warn them at first?  They will [then] say: We have forgotten.  Shall we warn them during the deed?  They would [then] withdraw and not give any evidence.  Shall we warn them at the end?  [Then] what has been has been.  Abaye demurred to this: Let us warn them immediately after they have given their evidence?  R. Aha, the son of R. Ika demurred: Let us warn them at first  and gesticulate to them [afterwards].  Later  Abaye said: What I said  was nothing. For if one were to say  that Zomemim witnesses require a warning, [it would follow that], if we have not warned them, we would not kill them.  [But then] is it possible  that who they wished to kill without a warning,  that they should require a warning? Surely, it is necessary  [that the words be fulfilled,] 'then shall ye do unto him as he has thought to do onto his brother',  and this would not be [the case here]? To this R. Samma the son of R. Jeremiah demurred. But now [according to your argument], [if the witnesses testified falsely about someone  that he was] the son of a divorced woman or the son of a haluzah,  since this case is not included in 'as he had thought etc.' a warning should be required!  — The verse says: 'Ye shall have one manner of law';  [this means] a law that is equal for you all. R. Shisha, the son of R. Idi, said: That a person who injures another person pays money and does not receive the lashes is derived from this:  [It is written:] And if men strive together and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart.  [Upon this] R. Eleazar said: The verse speaks of a striving with intent to kill, for it is written, But if any harm follow, then thou shalt give life for life.  How shall we imagine this case? If they did not warn him, why should he be killed? Hence it is obvious that he was warned, [and it is held], when one is warned regarding a severe matter  one also is warned for a light matter,  and [yet] the Torah says: And yet no harm follow, he shall be surely fined.  To this R. Ashi demurred: Whence [do we know] that when one is warned regarding a severe matter one also stands warned for a light matter? Perhaps it is not so!  And even if we will say that it is so, whence [do we know] that [the penalty of] death is severer?