A big Nafka Minah that emerges from our explanation is as follows: We find a novel explanation in the Tosfos Ri"d [Bava Metzia 91a] who writes the following according to the opinion that payment of money exempts from מלקות:
"אף על גב דאיכא ממונא ומלקות וממונא דחי למלקות לא להפקיע שם מלקות ממנו אלא עדיין שם מלקות עליו וממונא היא דלא שביק ליה דליחול, והיכא דלא יהיב לי' ממונא כגון שהוא עני ואין לו מה ליתן מלקינן לי', ולהכי תניא לוקה ומשלם לאו דדיינינן לי' בתרי אלא הודיעך התנא שבשני אלה נתחייב והיכא דיהב ממונא בודאי פקע מיני' מלקות אבל אי לא יהיב לי' ממונא מלקינן לי'".
Even though there a punishment of both money and מלקות and the money overrides the מלקות, it doesn't remove or erase the status of requiring מלקות but rather the מלקות is still extant and the payment prevents the מלקות from being administered. And where money is not paid, for example when he is poor and has no money to pay, he instead receives lashes. That is why it says in the Braisa [there in Bava Metzia regarding someone who muzzles a cow and threshes with it] "לוקה ומשלם". Not to say that we he actually is flogged and also pays but that he is liable to both in theory and where he pays there is an exemption from מלקות. But where he doesn't pay, he instead receives מלקות.
According to his opinion it emerges that the same applies to R' Yochanan who holds regarding חובל בחבירו that the Torah explicitly amplified an obligation to pay - בפירוש ריבתה תורה תשלומין - but that would be only if there was actual payment rendered. If not, he receives מלקות.
The Acharonim discuss if מלקות are administered when someone was חובל בחבירו and the harmed party forgave payment and suggest that maybe מלקות are administered. We can add a proof from the words of the Yerushalmi [כתובות פ"ג וריש פ"ז דתרומות] that asked from the Mishna in Makkos that says "אלו הן הלוקין" on our Mishna that says that there is a קנס [and why don't we say that there can't be both מלקות and ממון, as our Gemara asked]. The Yerushalmi answers that the Mishna in Makkos is talking about a בוגרת who doesn't have to pay a קנס. Then the Yerushalmi asks "doesn't the rapist have to pay בושת ופגם?" So why is there מלקות, if there is payment? The Yerushalmi answers that it is talking about a case where he seduced her [מפותה] or she forgave the payment. It would appear that the Yerushalmi holds that even though בשעת מעשה there is a חיוב ממון, nevertheless, if afterward she forgives the debt there will be a חיוב מלקות.
But based on what we said according to the opinion of the Rambam it would seem that this all applies to החובל בחבירו but not עדים זוממין. This is because החובל בחבירו is essentially liable to both ממון and מלקות but since we can't apply both, we let him off the חיוב מלקות. So if the money is forgiven or the guilty party doesn't have the funds to pay, then we give the מלקות instead. But with respect to עדים זוממין where we said that the phrase ריבתה התורה לתשלומין means that there is no מלקות at all and only when the זממה doesn't involve מיתה ,מלקות or ממון we have the חידוש that they are flogged based on the pasuk of והצדיקו. If so, we don't care that in practice [במציאות] he doesn't pay, because bottom line we are talking about a זממה of ממון and such a case does not at all mandate מלקות.
