Our Gemara on Amud Aleph discusses the famous principle of Kim Ley Bederabba Miney, that if one incurs a death penalty, he is no longer subject to financial penalties. That is understandable to a degree, as any judicial system needs to take into account with compassion how much punishment a person can absorb. What is more difficult to understand is Debey Chizkiya’s formulation that even in situations of error, when no actual death penalty will be imposed, the perpetrator is exempt from making financial restitution. This includes sins which incur heavenly penalties such as kares. Nonetheless, Tosafos (Kesuvos 30b, “Zar”) states that even according to this opinion, when it comes to violating hekdesh (sacred objects dedicated to the temple), even though the punishment for violation is heavenly death penalty, a financial penalty is still simultaneously imposed.
Using this idea, Parashas Derachim (Derush 26) gives more meaning to a verse from Yirmiyahu (2:3):
קֹ֤דֶשׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ לה׳ רֵאשִׁ֖ית תְּבוּאָתֹ֑ה כׇּל־אֹכְלָ֣יו יֶאְשָׁ֔מוּ רָעָ֛ה תָּבֹ֥א אֲלֵיהֶ֖ם נאום ה׳
Israel was holy to GOD, The first fruits of God’s harvest. All who ate of it were held guilty; Disaster befell them —declares GOD.
The verse describes the Jewish people as a holy sanctified object. The prophet assures that the nations who consume them, will pay for their actions. Parashas Derachim says, they will have to make financial restitution as well. They will not be exempted because of Kim Ley etc. since the Jewish people are considered as Hekdesh.
That explains the “what”, but not the “why“. We could say logically that since it is sacred matters, greater compensation is required, and therefore, both heavenly and financial punishments are imposed. However, we might also consider the opposite. We don’t want the person who committed the trespass to feel that by paying a penalty he has sufficiently “bought off” his guilt for his transgression. But not even allowing him to pay, the message is that his crime is great, and will not get off easy. He will have to sincerely repent, even for a lapse or in attention that led to trespassing out of ignorance. On the other hand, that would be a rationalization that someone would make by interpersonal actions and damages. Because people can think, after all, “I’m paying them back, so what other repentance is required? However, when trespassing on sacred matters, this severity will be naturally understood, and therefore there’s no need to withhold the opportunity to make financial restitution, especially as that could further facilitate forgiveness due to the inherent additional sacrifices made in order to repay financially.
If this second reading is correct, we see something remarkable. Though at first glance, matters belonging to hekdesh are treated with more severe and harsh punishment, in reality the Torah wants you to regard transgressions that are interpersonal in the same serious light as transgressions before God. This is precisely why one is not required to make financial restitution to forestall any rationalization that paying back money would be good enough. This sensibility is reflected in other Torah perspectives. For example, the rabbis were more strict when it comes to rabbinic rules in certain areas than biblical rules, precisely so that they should be taken more seriously out of fear of the tendency to minimize them (see for example, Kesuvos 83b.)
Whether it is l’shon hora via gossip, slander, insults or verbal abuse, we are likely to rationalize and view it as a matter between two people, instead of a matter between man and God. We don’t treat the sin the same as eating ham. Yet Torah ethics says for interpersonal matters we must ask forgiveness from Hashem AND humans (Mishna Yoma 8:9). And this way of treating people extends to the lowest rungs of society. In the ancient world one might assume that a Canaanite slave was hardly given respect, rights or attention. In contrast, here is what the Rambam says (Laws of Slaves 9:8):
“It is [technically] permissible to subject a Canaanite slave to excruciating labor. Although this is the law, the attribute of piety and the way of wisdom is for a person to be merciful and to pursue justice, not to make his slaves carry a heavy yoke, nor cause them distress.
He should allow them to partake of all the food and drink he serves. This was the practice of the early Sages who would give their slaves from every dish of which they themselves would partake…
Similarly, we should not embarrass a slave by our deeds or with words, for the Torah prescribed that they perform service, not that they be humiliated. Nor should one shout or vent anger upon them extensively. Instead, one should speak to them gently, and listen to their claims.”
Rambam requires not merely decent working conditions, but no verbal abuse and further, to listen to their complaints! I hope one day to be a decent enough human that I could reach the level of treating my family and loved ones to the standard that Rambam holds we should do in relation to slaves.
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?)