Why doesn’t the principle kam lay mederabah menay, קם ליה מדרבה מיניה, apply here? TB Baba Metzia 91

The halakhic principle kam lay mederabah menay, קם לימדרבה מיניה, dictates when a person is liable for two punishments for a single offense, he only receives the more severe of the two. A baraita on today’s daf TB Baba Metzia 91 presents a case when the above principle doesn’t apply. Each of the three amoraim give a different reason why the above rule doesn’t apply. First some background information is needed. The Torah commands that a person may not muzzle his animal on the threshing floor. The animal is allowed to eat while he is working. Secondly, the punishment for violating this negative commandment is lashes. Now the case:

“The Sages taught: One who muzzles a cow and threshes with it is flogged, and in addition he must pay the owner of the cow four kav for a cow, the usual amount it consumes while threshing, and three kav for a donkey.” The Gemara asks why doesn’t the rule kam lay mederabah menay, קם ליה מדרבה מיניה, apply here. “The Gemara asks: But isn’t there a principle that an offender is not flogged and also punished by death, and likewise he is not flogged and rendered liable to pay? One who transgresses a prohibition is liable to receive only one punishment for a single offense.” (Sefaria.org translation)

1.    “Abaye said: In accordance with whose opinion is this ruling? It is that of Rabbi Meir, who says in general that one can be flogged and be liable to pay.” (Sefaria.org translation) We shall learn in massekhet TB Makkot 4a Rabbi Meir doesn’t hold this this rule of kam lay mederabah menay at all.

2.    “Rava said that there is a difference between the transgression itself, which is between the offender and God, for which he is liable to be flogged, and the loss he caused the owner of the cow, for which he must pay restitution. The Torah prohibits one from bringing as an offering an animal given as the payment to a prostitute for services rendered (Deuteronomy 23:19); and this prohibition applies even if the man in question engaged in intercourse with his own mother, which is a capital offence. Although this man would certainly not be rendered liable to pay compensation by a court, as he is liable to receive court-imposed capital punishment, nevertheless, since he is technically liable to pay compensation, the money is subject to the prohibition as well. In this case too, despite the fact that the court cannot compel one to pay for the produce his cow ate, he does owe this sum. Furthermore, if the owner of the produce were to seize this sum from him, the court would not force him to return the money.” (Sefaria.org translation) In other words, the person is still liable for both penalties; however, the court can only impose one. It is up to the heavenly court to ensure all punishments are meted out.

3.    “Rav Pappa stated a different answer: From the time of his pulling of the cow to rent it for threshing he was rendered obligated to provide its sustenance when it threshes, but as for flogging, he is not liable to be flogged until the actual time of muzzling. In other words, he was liable to pay the monetary payment before he incurred liability to receive lashes, which means that they are two separate liabilities.” (Sefaria.org translation) For Rav Pappa to liabilities have to occur simultaneously for the rule kam lay mederabah menay to apply.