Sanhedrin 86B

להלקותו באנו, והני אחריני כוליה דבר קא עבדי ליה.

It is in order to flog him, not to execute him, that we came to court. And these other witnesses, through their testimony, are the ones who did this to him, i.e., they are responsible for the entire matter of his execution, and are therefore liable to be executed for giving conspiring testimony.

מתקיף לה רב פפא: אי הכי, עידי מכירה נמי ליקטליה, מתוך שיכולין עידי גניבה לומר ״להלקותו באנו״! וכי תימא דקסבר חזקיה דלא לקי,

Rav Pappa objects to this: If so, and Ḥizkiyya concedes to R' Yoḥanan in the case of the final testimony of the stubborn and rebellious son, let them also execute the witnesses to the sale of one who was abducted, as the witnesses to the abduction could say: It is in order to flog the abductor, not to execute him, that we came to court. And if you would say that Ḥizkiyya holds that one who abducts another and does not sell him is not flogged, that is difficult.

והא איתמר: עידי גניבה בנפש שהוזמו, חזקיה ורבי יוחנן ⁠– חד אמר: לוקין, וחד אמר: אין לוקין. ואמרינן: תסתיים דחזקיה דאמר לוקין, מדאמר חזקיה: אין נהרגין.

But wasn’t it stated: With regard to witnesses to the abduction who were rendered conspiring witnesses prior to the testimony of the witnesses to the sale, Ḥizkiyya and R' Yoḥanan disagree. One says: They are flogged, and one says: They are not flogged. And we say: It may be concluded that it is Ḥizkiyya who said that they are flogged, from the fact that Ḥizkiyya said: They are not executed.

דאי רבי יוחנן, כיון דאמר נהרגין, הוה ליה לאו שניתן לאזהרת מיתת בית דין, וכל לאו שניתן לאזהרת מיתת בית דין אין לוקין עליו. איהו לא לקי, אינהו היכי לקו?

Since if one were to suggest that it is R' Yoḥanan who said that they are flogged, that cannot be. Since he says that conspiring witnesses are executed in this case, it is a prohibition that is given as a warning of liability for a court-imposed death penalty, and the principle is: With regard to any prohibition that is given as a warning of liability for a court-imposed death penalty, one is not flogged for its violation, even in a case where the transgressor is not executed. The abductor is not flogged. How then could the conspiring witnesses be flogged for testifying against them, as the punishment for conspiring witnesses is identical to the punishment of the one against whom they testified? Rather, it is certain that Ḥizkiyya holds that the conspiring witnesses to the abduction are flogged, and therefore everyone agrees that the conspiring witnesses to the sale are executed.