21:33-34 The pit represents a typical case of damage caused by an inanimate object or natural phenomenon. These specific cases doubtless served as precedents for other similar cases.
21:35-36 The law concerning a cattle fight is the same as one in the Laws of Esnunna, a twentieth century B.C. Akkadian law code.381However the Torah differentiated between an ox that gored habitually and one that did not in the case of one ox goring another. Thus the Torah showed higher regard for the rights and responsibilities of individuals.
22:1-4 According to the Code of Hammurabi a thief should die if he could not repay what he had stolen382or if he stole by breaking in.383The Torah modified this law by annulling the death penalty and substituting the penalty of being sold into slavery in the first case. In the second case it annulled the death penalty and protected the life of the victim. Verses 1 and 4 of chapter 22 go together and deal with theft generally. The reason for the fivefold and fourfold penalties appears to be that the thief was taking the means of another person's livelihood.384Verses 2 and 3, which deal with breaking and entering, address a special type of theft. Perhaps the law assumed that the thief's intent was murder as well as theft if he broke in at night but only theft if he broke in in daylight. If so, we might assume that if his intentions turned out to have been otherwise, the law would deal with him accordingly. The text gives only the typical case. Perhaps the logic was that at night the victim's life was in greater danger so the law allowed him to use more force in resisting his assailant than in the daytime.
22:5-6 The fourth case involves damage due to grazing or burning. In the first case (v. 5) the Torah required restitution from "the best"of the offender whereas the Code of Hammurabi required only restitution.385These two cases further illustrate God's respect for the rights of others.
22:7-15 Next we have four cases involving property held in custody. In the Hammurabi Code the penalty for losing or allowing a thief to steal what someone else had committed to one's trust was death386as was falsely accusing someone of this crime.387The Torah required only twofold payment in both situations (v. 9).
Second, if what someone entrusted to his neighbor for safe keeping perished by accident (vv. 10-13) the neighbor was not responsible to make restitution. This was the law under the Code of Hammurabi too.388
Third, if someone borrowed something and it then suffered damage or it died (v. 14-15a) the borrower was responsible to make restitution. This was the case unless the owner (lender) was present when the damage or death took place. In that case the lender was responsible for his own property.
Fourth, if someone rented something and then damaged it or it died (v. 15b) the borrower was not responsible to make restitution since the fee he had paid covered his liability. The Code of Hammurabi specified no liability in either of these last two cases.389
