Levítico 24:21 Referencias del Talmud: Jerusalem Talmud Terumot, Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot & Bava Kamma

Everybody agrees that there is no money payment in capital cases¹⁶In any case where capital punishment is a possibility, payment of money is excluded even if the elements necessary for conviction (two witnesses each for caution and the criminal act) are missing. The argument is quoted in the Babli (Ketubot 35a) in the name of the school of Ḥizqiah; it is not found in tannaïtic sources., as it is written (Lev. 24:21): “The slayer of a living¹⁷This word is missing in the Biblical text and in Ketubot. animal must pay for it¹⁸Slaying another person’s animal is always a civil case, never a criminal one. Therefore, the distinctions basic for criminal cases do not apply. but the slayer of a human shall be put to death.” Just as you did not make a difference between unintentional and intentional action of a slayer of an animal to force him to pay money, so you should not make a difference between unintentional and intentional action of a slayer of a human to free him [from paying]. Where do they differ? About money in a flogging case. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no money in a capital case but there is money in a flogging case¹⁹The fine is a punishment which automatically kicks in if the formal requirements for a sentence of flogging are missing (cf. Babli Ketubot 34b)., but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, just as there is no money in a capital case so there is no money in a flogging case²⁰Once the possibility of a sentence of flogging is there if one would find the necessary eye witnesses, there is no possibility for the imposition of a fine..

Everybody agrees that there is no money payment in capital cases, as it is written (Lev. 24:21): “The slayer of an animal must pay for it but the slayer of a human shall be put to death.” Just as you did not make a difference between unintentional and intentional action of a slayer of an animal to force him to pay money, so you should not make a difference between unintentional and intentional action of a slayer of a human to free him from paying money. Where do they differ? About money in a flogging case. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no money in a capital case but there is money in a flogging case, but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, just as there is no money in a capital case so there is no money in a flogging case.

Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: We understand that, since it said⁴⁴Ex. 21:22. The next verse reads: “But if it is a case of murder, you shall take life for life.” This excludes the imposition of a fine in a murder trial. “if there is no case of murder, a fine shall be imposed”, that if it is a case of murder, you shall take life for life? Why does the verse say, it is a case of murder? To add the case of premeditation and warning⁴⁸Which is a case where a person actually could face execution.. Rebbi Yose said, is that not a Mishnah, “for anybody committing a capital crime does not pay cash”, that it deals not only with cases of error. ⁴⁹Cf. fol. 27b, line 30; Terumot 7:1, Notes 16,18; Babli 35a.Ḥizqiah said, one states a baraita⁵⁰Lev. 24:21.: “The slayer of an animal must pay for it but the slayer of a human shall be put to death.” Just as you did not make a difference between unintentional and intentional action of a slayer of an animal to force him to pay money, so you should not make a difference between unintentional and intentional action of a slayer of a human to free him from paying money.