cellio | daf bit: Gittin 52

The mishna teaches: one who renders unfit another's foodstuffs, or mixes terumah (a portion set aside for the priests) with them (thus making them unavailable to a layman), or makes a libation with another's wine -- if he did so inadvertently he is not liable, but if he did so intentionally he must pay compensation for the loss. (Terumah could be eaten only by priests; unfit terumah could only be fed to their animals; and wine from which a libation has been made cannot be drunk. Thus there is a loss to the owner of the food or wine.)

The g'mara discusses the case of the libation -- what exactly does this mean? They understand it to mean that he prepares to do so or mixes the other's wine with non-Jewish wine, and not that we're actually talking about pouring out a libation to a heathen god. Why do we conclude this? Because pouring a libation to a heathen god is idolatry, which is punished by death, and when there is a greater penalty halacha does not tack on a lesser penalty. That he is liable for a fine is evidence that he is not liable for death, meaning he didn't commit idolatry, so he must have done something else to make the wine unfit. (52b)

This is different from the American legal system, where somebody might be judged guilty of capital murder -- and also assorted weapons charges for which he's given another ten years in jail.

(Today's daf is 53, where the g'mara continues to discuss all this.)