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. ¹ 

Exodus 22:11

22:11 then there will be an oath to the Lord ²  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 ³  from his neighbor, and it is hurt or dies when its owner was not with it, the man who borrowed it ⁴  will surely pay.

Exodus 21:29

21:29 But if the ox had the habit of goring, and its owner was warned, ⁵  and he did not take the necessary precautions, ⁶  and then it killed a man or a woman, the ox must be stoned and the man must be put to death.

Exodus 21:36

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 ⁷  ox for ox, and the dead animal will become his. ⁸ 

[22:15]  ¹ 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.

[22:11]  ² 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]  ³ 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]  ⁴ tn Heb “he”; the referent (the man who borrowed the animal) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[21:29]  ⁴ tn The Hophal perfect has the idea of “attested, testified against.”

[21:29]  ⁵ tn Heb “he was not keeping it” or perhaps guarding or watching it (referring to the ox).

[21:36]  ⁵ tn The construction now uses the same Piel imperfect (v. 34) but adds the infinitive absolute to it for emphasis.

[21:36]  ⁶ 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.