Bava Kamma 117A

אי דינא אי קנסא? אמר ליה: אי דינא ⁠– גמרינן מיניה, אי קנסא ⁠– לא גמרינן מיניה.

if it is the halakha or if it is a fine? Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya said to him: If it is the halakha, we learn from it and apply this ruling to other cases, but if it is a fine, we do not learn from it, as it is possible that Rav Naḥman had a specific reason to impose a fine in this case.

ומנא תימרא דמקנסא לא גמרינן? דתניא, בראשונה היו אומרים: המטמא והמנסך; חזרו לומר: אף המדמע.

The Talmud asks: And from where do you say that we do not learn from the imposition of a fine in one case and apply the ruling in other cases? The Talmud answers that the source is as it is taught in a baraita: Initially, the rabbis would say that one who renders another’s food ritually impure, thereby rendering it unfit for him to consume, and one who pours another’s wine as a libation for idol worship, thereby rendering it an item from which deriving benefit is prohibited, are liable to pay the owner for the financial loss they caused despite the fact that damage is not evident. Subsequently, they added to this list, to say that even one who intermingles teruma, the portion of the produce designated for the priest, with another’s non-sacred produce, thereby rendering the non-sacred food forbidden to non-priests, is liable to compensate the owner for the loss of value of the produce, as fewer people will be willing to buy it from him.

חזרו ⁠– אין, לא חזרו ⁠– לא; מאי טעמא? לאו משום דקנסא הוא, וקנסא לא גמרינן מיניה?

The Talmud comments: It may be inferred from the baraita that it is only because the rabbis subsequently added to the list that yes, one who intermingles teruma with another’s non-sacred produce must compensate him. But if they had not subsequently added to the list, he would not be liable. What is the reason that we do not learn that he is liable from the cases of one who renders another’s food impure or pours wine as a libation for idol worship, as this is also a case in which one causes damage that is not evident? Is it not due to the fact that his payment is a fine, and with regard to a fine, we do not learn from one case that it may be imposed in other circumstances?