32b
Reb yochonon says that malkus comes before momon if you are chayav both. The gemoro asks from chovel, and the gemoro answers that it's a gezeras hakosuv that you pay cash from yinosen bo.
Why do we need the possuk of yinosen bo, to prove that a chovel pays momon not malkus, can't I see that, from the posuk of sheves, like rashi brings on 32a d"h chovel
Avrumi Hersh, London england
1) I initially thought this question should be asked the other way round. It is not a question on the Gemara 32b from Rashi 32a; it is a question on Rashi 32a from the Gemara 32b. The question is like this: Why does Rashi 32a (DH Chovel) quote the verse of "Shivto Yiten" to prove that when he strikes his friend he pays and does not get Malkus? Why does Rashi not quote the verse, "Yinasen Bo," which the Gemara quoted at the end of 32b to teach that he pays Chovel and does not get Malkus?
I think the answer might be that the Gemara 32a follows the view of Ula, while the verse cited (end of 32b) there is meant to answer for Rebbi Yochanan. Rashi 32a is explaining the Sugya that follows Ula, so he does not want to quote a verse which is used by Rebbi Yochanan for this Din. Rashi 32a quotes "Shivto" because the Gemara 33b quotes "Shivto" in the name of Rav Yakov mi'Nehar Pekod according to Rava, who says that even if he received Hasra'ah he still pays money and does not get Malkus. The Gemara 33b is not going specifically according to Rebbi Yochanan, so Rashi prefers to quote the verse brought there, rather than a verse cited by the Gemara 32b according to Rebbi Yochanan.
2) However, looking again at your question, I see that you indeed asked it the right way around, Avrumi. The question is: Why did the Gemara (end of 32b) quote the verse of "Yinasen Bo" and not the verse of "Shivto Yiten"? (When you mentioned Rashi 32b, that was just to note that Rashi also cites Sheves but your question was not from Rashi.)
I want to answer with the Minchas Chinuch (49:6, DH v'Gam) who writes that Malkus applies only if he hit him. If he locked him in his room and prevented him from going to work and earning money ("d'Hadkei b'Indrona," Bava Kama 85b), this is called Sheves and he must pay for the money he lost because he could not go to work, but he does not receive Malkus for this because he did not transgress "Pen Yosif l'Hakoso" (Devarim 25:3), "lest he hits him more," from where we learn that one receives Malkus for damages.
Therefore, the Gemara (end of 32b) does not cite the verse about Sheves because the Gemara there is discussing Malkus and one never gets Malkus for Sheves.
(I do not yet understand why the Gemara 33b quotes the verse about Sheves if this is not relevant to Malkus, or why Rashi 32a quotes this verse.)
3) Thinking about this again, I think the answer to the original question is very simple, and that all I wrote above is unnecessary.
The Gemara on 32b (three lines from the end) quotes Vayikra 24:19 that if someone inflicted a blemish on his friend, "Ka'asher Asah Ken Ye'aseh Lo" -- "whatever he did to his friend will be done to him." The Gemara asks that since a verse already teaches the punishment for striking his friend, why do we need the next verse (Vayikra 24:20), "Ken Yinasen Bo"? The Gemara answers that the second verse describes more clearly what type of punishment is given. It is a "Nesinah" type of punishment; it means he "gives" money.
It would not have made sense to quote a verse about Sheves from a totally different Parshah (Shemos 21:19) if we can quote the very next verse from Vayikra 24 to tell us what kind of punishment he receives.
My apologies that it took me such a long time to get to this.
Tizku l'Mitzvos,
Dovid Bloom