Exodus 22:12

22:12 But if it was stolen ¹  from him, ²  he will pay its owner.

Exodus 21:34

21:34 the owner of the pit must repay ³  the loss. He must give money ⁴  to its owner, and the dead animal ⁵  will become his.

Exodus 22:13

22:13 If it is torn in pieces, then he will bring it for evidence, ⁶  and he will not have to pay for what was torn.

Exodus 22:15

22:15 If its owner was with it, he will not have to pay; if it was hired, what was paid for the hire covers it. ⁷ 

Exodus 22:3-4

22:3 If the sun has risen on him, then there is blood guilt for him. A thief ⁸  must surely make full restitution; if he has nothing, then he will be sold for his theft. 22:4 If the stolen item should in fact be found ⁹  alive in his possession, ¹⁰  whether it be an ox or a donkey or a sheep, he must pay back double. ¹¹ 

Exodus 22:6-7

22:6 “If a fire breaks out and spreads ¹²  to thorn bushes, ¹³  so that stacked grain or standing grain or the whole field is consumed, the one who started ¹⁴  the fire must surely make restitution.

22:7 “If a man gives his neighbor money or articles ¹⁵  for safekeeping, ¹⁶  and it is stolen from the man’s house, if the thief is caught, ¹⁷  he must repay double.

Exodus 22:11

22:11 then there will be an oath to the Lord ¹⁸  between the two of them, that he has not laid his hand on his neighbor’s goods, and its owner will accept this, and he will not have to pay.

Exodus 22:14

22:14 “If a man borrows an animal ¹⁹  from his neighbor, and it is hurt or dies when its owner was not with it, the man who borrowed it ²⁰  will surely pay.

Exodus 21:36--22:1

21:36 Or if it is known that the ox had the habit of goring, and its owner did not take the necessary precautions, he must surely pay ²¹  ox for ox, and the dead animal will become his. ²² 

Laws about Property

22:1 ²³ (21:37) ²⁴  “If a man steals an ox or a sheep and kills it or sells it, he must pay back ²⁵  five head of cattle for the ox, and four sheep for the one sheep. ²⁶ 

Exodus 22:5

22:5 “If a man grazes ²⁷  his livestock ²⁸  in a field or a vineyard, and he lets the livestock loose and they graze in the field of another man, he must make restitution from the best of his own field and the best of his own vineyard.

Exodus 22:9

22:9 In all cases of illegal possessions, ²⁹  whether for an ox, a donkey, a sheep, a garment, or any kind of lost item, about which someone says ‘This belongs to me,’ ³⁰  the matter of the two of them will come before the judges, ³¹  and the one whom ³²  the judges declare guilty ³³  must repay double to his neighbor.

[22:12]  ¹ tn Both with this verb “stolen” and in the next clauses with “torn in pieces,” the text uses the infinitive absolute construction with less than normal emphasis; as Gesenius says, in conditional clauses, an infinitive absolute stresses the importance of the condition on which some consequence depends (GKC 342-43 §113.o).

[22:12]  ² sn The point is that the man should have taken better care of the animal.

[21:34]  ³ tn The verb is a Piel imperfect from שָׁלַם (shalam); it has the idea of making payment in full, making recompense, repaying. These imperfects could be given a future tense translation as imperfects of instruction, but in the property cases an obligatory imperfect fits better – this is what he is bound or obliged to do – what he must do.

[21:34]  ⁴ tn Heb “silver.”

[21:34]  ⁵ tn Here the term “animal” has been supplied.

[22:13]  ⁵ tn The word עֵד (’ed) actually means “witness,” but the dead animal that is returned is a silent witness, i.e., evidence. The word is an adverbial accusative.

[22:15]  ⁷ tn Literally “it came with/for its hire,” this expression implies that the owner who hired it out and was present was prepared to take the risk, so there would be no compensation.

[22:3]  ⁹ tn The words “a thief” have been added for clarification. S. R. Driver (Exodus, 224) thinks that these lines are out of order, since some of them deal with killing the thief and then others with the thief making restitution, but rearranging the clauses is not a necessary way to bring clarity to the paragraph. The idea here would be that any thief caught alive would pay restitution.

[22:4]  ¹¹ tn The construction uses a Niphal infinitive absolute and a Niphal imperfect: if it should indeed be found. Gesenius says that in such conditional clauses the infinitive absolute has less emphasis, but instead emphasizes the condition on which some consequence depends (see GKC 342-43 §113.o).

[22:4]  ¹² tn Heb “in his hand.”

[22:4]  ¹³ sn He must pay back one for what he took, and then one for the penalty – his loss as he was inflicting a loss on someone else.

[22:6]  ¹³ tn Heb “if a fire goes out and finds”; NLT “if a fire gets out of control.”

[22:6]  ¹⁴ sn Thorn bushes were used for hedges between fields, but thorn bushes also burned easily, making the fire spread rapidly.

[22:6]  ¹⁵ tn This is a Hiphil participle of the verb “to burn, kindle” used substantivally. This is the one who caused the fire, whether by accident or not.

[22:7]  ¹⁵ tn The word usually means “vessels” but can have the sense of household goods and articles. It could be anything from jewels and ornaments to weapons or pottery.

[22:7]  ¹⁶ tn Heb “to keep.” Here “safekeeping,” that is, to keep something secure on behalf of a third party, is intended.

[22:7]  ¹⁷ tn Heb “found.”

[22:11]  ¹⁷ tn The construct relationship שְׁבֻעַת יְהוָה (shÿvu’at yÿhvah, “the oath of Yahweh”) would require a genitive of indirect object, “an oath [to] Yahweh.” U. Cassuto suggests that it means “an oath by Yahweh” (Exodus, 287). The person to whom the animal was entrusted would take a solemn oath to Yahweh that he did not appropriate the animal for himself, and then his word would be accepted.

[22:14]  ¹⁹ tn Heb “if a man asks [an animal] from his neighbor” (see also Exod 12:36). The ruling here implies an animal is borrowed, and if harm comes to it when the owner is not with it, the borrower is liable. The word “animal” is supplied in the translation for clarity.

[22:14]  ²⁰ tn Heb “he”; the referent (the man who borrowed the animal) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[21:36]  ²¹ tn The construction now uses the same Piel imperfect (v. 34) but adds the infinitive absolute to it for emphasis.

[21:36]  ²² sn The point of this section (21:28-36) seems to be that one must ensure the safety of others by controlling one’s property and possessions. This section pertained to neglect with animals, but the message would have applied to similar situations. The people of God were to take heed to ensure the well-being of others, and if there was a problem, it had to be made right.

[22:1]  ²³ sn The next section of laws concerns property rights. These laws protected property from thieves and oppressors, but also set limits to retribution. The message could be: God’s laws demand that the guilty make restitution for their crimes against property and that the innocent be exonerated.

[22:1]  ²⁴ sn Beginning with 22:1, the verse numbers through 22:31 in the English Bible differ from the verse numbers in the Hebrew text (BHS), with 22:1 ET = 21:37 HT, 22:2 ET = 22:1 HT, etc., through 22:31 ET = 22:30 HT. Thus in the English Bible ch. 22 has 31 verses, while in the Hebrew Bible it has 30 verses, with the one extra verse attached to ch. 21 in the Hebrew Bible.

[22:1]  ²⁵ tn The imperfect tense here has the nuance of obligatory imperfect – he must pay back.

[22:1]  ²⁶ tn בָּקַר (baqar) and צֹאן (tso’n) are the categories to which the ox and the sheep belonged, so that the criminal had some latitude in paying back animals.

[22:5]  ²⁵ tn The verb בָּעַר (ba’ar, “graze”) as a denominative from the word “livestock” is not well attested. So some have suggested that with slight changes this verse could be read: “If a man cause a field or a vineyard to be burnt, and let the burning spread, and it burnt in another man’s field” (see S. R. Driver, Exodus, 225).

[22:5]  ²⁶ tn The phrase “his livestock” is supplied from the next clause.

[22:9]  ²⁷ tn Heb “concerning every kind [thing] of trespass.”

[22:9]  ²⁸ tn The text simply has “this is it” (הוּא זֶה, hu’ zeh).

[22:9]  ²⁹ tn Again, or “God.”

[22:9]  ³⁰ tn This kind of clause Gesenius calls an independent relative clause – it does not depend on a governing substantive but itself expresses a substantival idea (GKC 445-46 §138.e).

[22:9]  ³¹ tn The verb means “to be guilty” in Qal; in Hiphil it would have a declarative sense, because a causative sense would not possibly fit.