Makkot 4B

גמ׳ בשלמא לרבנן. ״כדי רשעתו״ כתיב, משום רשעה אחת אתה מחייבו ואי אתה מחייבו משום שתי רשעיות. אלא רבי מאיר מאי טעמא?

Talmud: With regard to the initial dispute between R' Meir and the Rabbis in the Mishnah whether conspiring witnesses pay and are flogged, the Talmud asks: Granted, according to the Rabbis, the verse that states: “The judge should cause him to lie down, and to be beaten before him, according to the measure of his wickedness” (Deuteronomy 25:2), is written concerning one who was liable to receive lashes. From “according to the measure of his wickedness” it is inferred with regard to an individual who commits one transgression: For one evildoing you can render him liable, but you cannot render him liable for two evildoings, i.e., one cannot receive two punishments for the same act. But according to R' Meir, what is the reason that he is punished twice for committing a single transgression?

אמר עולא: גמר ממוציא שם רע. מה מוציא שם רע ⁠– לוקה ומשלם, אף כל ⁠– לוקה ומשלם. מה למוציא שם רע, שכן קנס! סבר לה כרבי עקיבא, דאמר: עדים זוממין ⁠– קנסא הוא.

Ulla said: R' Meir derived this halakha from the halakha concerning one who defames his wife, claiming that when he consummated the marriage he discovered that she was not a virgin: Just as the defamer is flogged and pays, as it is written: “And they should chastise him and fine him 100 silver coins” (Deuteronomy 22:18–19), so too, anyone who commits a transgression punishable with lashes and a monetary payment is flogged and pays. The Talmud questions this derivation: What is notable about the case of a defamer? It is notable in that the payment of the defamer is a fine, which is a fixed sum that the Torah deems him liable to pay. How can the halakha of conspiring witnesses, whose payment is monetary restitution, be derived from there? The Talmud answers: R' Meir holds in accordance with the opinion of R' Akiva, who says: The payment that conspiring witnesses are liable to pay is a fine.