meshalshin bmakos. Can it be that the haveh amina of the gemara is: Why don't we split the makos between the edim zomemin?
It sounds non-sensical, but that seems to be what abayei is coming to answer.(r)(r)
Next and last question: Mamon Mitztaref u'Malkos Lo Mitztaref
With these few words Chazal are saying that there are two separate sections of punishment, corporal or financial, and they have completely different dinim. For financial punishmnet, all we care about is restitution, even if it makes it easier for the edim zomemim, but for corporal punishment, we have to make sure that each witness feels the full brunt of what he wanted to inflict. This is a strikingly vast difference. Shouldnt more hesber go into this han just 5 words? i.e. Mamon Mitztaref u'Malkos Lo Mitztaref??
robert daykin
beitar ilit, Israel
Hi Robert,
I can try to make the Gemara a bit more sensical. I don't think the idea of the Gemara is to differ between financial and corporal punishment. That really doesn't make too much sense.
I think the idea the Gemara is saying, is that in a sum of money, there is something to add up. Money is countable and adds up to a sum that can stand equivalent to what the witnesses wanted to lose from this person. Malkos Lo Mitztaref means that there is nothing connecting the lashes one got to the lashes the other one got, so it cannot sum up to 40 Malkos. The difference is in the term 'Mitztaref'. There on nothing more than the five words the Gemara says. This is Rava's Sevara.
Abaye has a different idea. When you pay money, the sum is not an essential part of the punishment. Any penny you take from the witness is a punishment in itself, while by Malkos, the punishment is the sum of 39. There is no Malkos le'Chatzain means that 20 Malkos is like zero Malkos.
I hope this helps,
Aharon Steiner