Rashi, at the beginning of Amud Aleph, makes a distinction between financial restitution and fines. He articulates that when the payment is a fixed amount rather than being contingent on repair or repayment, it is considered a fine.
This categorization and differentiation between restitution and fines are logically accepted by the Gemara, indicating that it is recognized, at least in the Oral tradition. This recognition is evident in legal distinctions, such as exemption from the fine if one admits to the offense prior to the testimony of witnesses (Bava Kama 74b). However, it's noteworthy that in the scriptural context, there isn't a linguistic differentiation between a "fine" and a "payment." Instead, the payment is referred to as a "punishment" at least once (see Deuteronomy 22:19). Thus, the concept of a fine exists in Biblical Hebrew as a subset of punishment, but doesn't have its own distinct term.
The Talmudic/Aramaic term "Kenas" originates from the Greek word "κῆνσος” or “Kensos," which means to count. When a word appears in the Gemara that is not available in Hebrew, it signals a different psychological perspective or system of meaning that was not contained in the culture of that language, in this case l’shon kodesh. Although it may be subtle, in the linguistic world of the Bible, a fine is considered a form of punishment, while in the Greek context, it may be closer to a tax. A society viewing the court as an agent of God's will would interpret a fine as punishment. Conversely, a society perceiving the courts as agents of the government or monarchy, with the potential for capricious and vengeful actions, might view fines as taxes.
Since the primary function of a "kenas" is not to compensate for damage or loss but to serve as a form of punishment, it should ideally function as an effective deterrent. If we were to argue that punishment serves as a means of seeking revenge, it would be a spiteful goal and not aligned with the principles of a just ruler or society, let alone God. What does research indicate about the effectiveness of punishments as deterrents? Common sense suggests that punishing people should deter them, but human nature and motivation often involve non-linear factors and influences. For example, once a fine is incurred, the issue can evolve into something akin to paying a tax or a toll. I have an entrepreneur friend who, despite receiving continuous traffic camera tickets, merely shrugs (typical of his ADD style) and says, "The cost of doing business." Similarly, a child who faces frequent punishments and restrictions may come to view the risk of punishment or even the punishment itself as an acceptable price for their actions, rather than internalizing the moral message conveyed by the punishment.
The linguistic nuances we have discussed highlight a crucial psychological distinction in how a fine should be experienced to be effective. Is it a punishment for a moral transgression or a tax? According to researchers Kurz, Thomas, and Fonseca (Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Volume 54, September 2014, Pages 170-177), if a fine is framed as compensatory, as payment for societal damage, it paradoxically increases the frequency of violations. This may be because it is internalized as the cost of doing business rather than a moral reprimand. Only when the fine is framed as a punishment does it effectively deter and serve as a catalyst for moral introspection and adjustment.
Translations Courtesy of Sefaria, except when, sometimes, I disagree with the translation 
Do you like what you see? Please subscribe and also forward any articles you enjoy to your friends, (enemies too, why not?)