GEMARA.

<<Granted

<<according to the Rabbis:

<<‘according to

<<his wickedness’

<<is written —

<<for

<<wickedness

<<one

<<you

<<make him liable,

<<but not

<<do you

<<make him liable

<<for

<<two

<<wickednesses.

<<But

<<Rabbi Meir —

<<what is

<<his reason?

Said

<<Ulla:

<<he derives it

<<from the defamer.

<<Just as

<<the defamer

<<is flogged

<<and pays,

<<so too

<<in every case

<<one is flogged

<<and pays.

<<What of

<<the defamer,

<<where it is

<<a fine!

<<He holds

<<it

<<like Rabbi Akiva,

<<who said:

<<conspiring witnesses —

<<a fine

<<it is.

There are

<<who teach

<<this

<<of Ulla

<<on this,

<<as it was taught:

<<‘Do not

<<leave over

<<of it

<<until

<<morning,

<<and that which is left

<<of it

<<until

<<morning

<<etc.’ —

<<comes

<<the verse

<<to place

<<a positive command

<<after

<<a prohibition,

<<to say

<<that one is not

<<flogged

<<for it —

<<the words of

<<Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Akiva

<<says:

<<not

<<from

<<that reason

<<is

<<this,

<<but

<<because

<<it is

<<a prohibition

<<that has no

<<in it

<<action,

<<and any

<<prohibition

<<that has no

<<in it

<<action —

<<one is not

<<flogged

<<for it.

<<It follows

<<that Rabbi Yehuda

<<holds

<<a prohibition

<<that has no

<<in it

<<action —

<<one is flogged

<<for it.

<<From where

<<does he derive it?

Said

<<Ulla:

<<he derives it

<<from the defamer.

<<Just as

<<the defamer —

<<a prohibition

<<that has no

<<in it

<<action —

<<one is flogged

<<for it,

<<so too

<<any

<<prohibition

<<that has no

<<in it

<<action —

<<one is flogged

<<for it.

<<What of

<<the defamer,

<<where he

<<is flogged

<<and pays!

Rather,

<<said

<<Reish Lakish:

<<he derives it

<<from conspiring witnesses.

<<Just as

<<conspiring witnesses —

<<a prohibition

<<that has no

<<in it

<<action —

<<one is flogged

<<for it,

<<so too

<<any

<<prohibition

<<that has no

<<in it

<<action —

<<one is flogged

<<for it.

<<What of

<<conspiring witnesses,

<<where they

<<do not

<<require

<<forewarning!

The defamer

<<will prove [it].

<<And the derivation

<<returns:

<<not

<<the aspect of

<<this

<<is like the aspect of

<<that,

<<and not

<<the aspect of

<<this

<<is like the aspect of

<<that.

<<The side

<<common

<<to them:

<<a prohibition

<<that has no

<<in it

<<action

<<and one is flogged

<<for it,

<<so too

<<any

<<prohibition

<<that has no

<<in it

<<action —

<<one is flogged

<<for it.

What of

<<the side

<<common

<<to them,

<<where it is

<<a fine!

<<This

<<is not

<<difficult:

<<Rabbi Yehuda

<<does not

<<hold

<<it

<<like Rabbi Akiva.

Rather:

<<what of

<<the side

<<common

<<to them,

<<where

<<there is

<<in them

<<a stringent aspect!

<<And Rabbi Yehuda?

<<A stringent aspect

<<is not

<<a refutation [for him].

And the Rabbis —

<<this

<<‘Do not

<<bear

<<against your fellow

<<witness

<<false’ —

<<what

<<do they expound

<<from it?

That

<<is needed

<<for him

<<as the prohibition

<<for conspiring witnesses.

<<And Rabbi Meir —

<<the prohibition

<<for conspiring witnesses,

<<from where

<<does he derive it?

<<Said

<<Rabbi Yirmiya:

<<he derives

<<it

<<from ‘and those who remain

<<shall hear

<<and fear,

<<and shall not

<<do again

<<any more.’

And the Rabbis?

<<That

<<is needed

<<for him…