Exodus 22:1–15

Here are the laws, I. Concerning theft, which are these: - 1. If a man steal any cattle (in which the wealth of those times chiefly consisted), and they be found in his custody, he must restore double, Exo 22:4. Thus he must both satisfy for the wrong and suffer for the crime. But it was afterwards provided that if the thief were touched in conscience, and voluntarily confessed it, before it was discovered or enquired into by any other, then he should only make restitution of what he had stolen, and add to it a fifth part, Lev 6:4, Lev 6:5. 2. If he had killed or sold the sheep or ox he had stolen, and thereby persisted in his crime, he must restore five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep (Exo 22:1), more for an ox than for a sheep because the owner, besides all the other profit, lost the daily labour of his ox. This law teaches us that fraud and injustice, so far from enriching men, will impoverish them: if we unjustly get and keep that which is another's, it will not only waste itself, but it will consume that which is our own. 3. If he was not able to make restitution, he must be sold for a slave, Exo 22:3. The court of judgment was to do it, and it is probable that the person robbed had the money. Thus with us, in some cases, felons are transported into plantations where alone Englishmen know what slavery is. 4. If a thief broke a house in the night, and was killed in the doing of it, his blood was upon his own head, and should not be required at the hand of him that shed it, Exo 22:2. As he that does an unlawful act bears the blame of the mischief that follows to others, so likewise of that which follows to himself. A man's house is his castle, and God's law, as well as man's, sets a guard upon it; he that assaults it does so at his peril. Yet, if it was in the day-time that the thief was killed, he that killed him must be accountable for it (Exo 22:3), unless it was in the necessary defence of his own life. Note, We ought to be tender of the lives even of bad men; the magistrate must afford us redress, and we must not avenge ourselves. II. Concerning trespass, Exo 22:5. He that wilfully put his cattle into his neighbour's field must make restitution of the best of his own. Our law makes a much greater difference between this and other thefts than the law of Moses did. The Jews hence observed it as a general rule that restitution must always be made of the best, and that no man should keep any cattle that were likely to trespass upon his neighbours or do them any damage. We should be more careful not to do wrong than not to suffer wrong, because to suffer wrong is only an affliction, but to do wrong is a sin, and sin is always worse than affliction. III. Concerning damage done by fire, Exo 22:6. He that designed only the burning of thorns might become accessory to the burning of corn, and should not be held guiltless. Men of hot and eager spirits should take heed, lest, while they pretend only to pluck up the tares, they root out the wheat also. If the fire did mischief, he that kindled it must answer for it, though it could not be proved that he designed the mischief. Men must suffer for their carelessness, as well as for their malice. We must take heed of beginning strife; for, though it seem but little, we know not how great a matter it may kindle, the blame of which we must bear, if, with the madman, we cast fire-brands, arrows, and death, and pretend we mean no harm. It will make us very careful of ourselves, if we consider that we are accountable, not only for the hurt we do, but for the hurt we occasion through inadvertency.

Exodus 22:1-4 1. If a man shall steal an ox, or a sheep, and kill it, or sell it; he shall restore five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep. 1. Quum furatus fuerit quis bovem aut pecudem, et jugulaverit, aut vendiderit, quinque boves reddet pro illo bove, et quatuor pecudes pro pecude illa: 2. If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him. 2. (Si in effossione inventus fuerit fur, et percussus fuerit, et inde mortuus, non erit ei in sanguinem. 3. If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him; for he should make full restitution: if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. 3. Si ortus fuerit sol super eum, erit ei in sanguinem:) reddendo reddet: si non sit ei, vendetar propter furtum suum. 4. If the theft be certainly found in his hand alive, whether it be ox, or ass, or sheep, he shall restore double. 4. Si deprehendatur in manu ejus furtum a bove usque ad asinum, usque ad pecudem: viva duo reddet. Thus far God has proclaimed Himself the avenger of iniquities, and, citing thieves before His tribunal, has threatened them with eternal death. Now follow the civil laws, the principle of which is not so exact and perfect; since in their enactment God has relaxed His just severity in consideration of the people's hardness of heart. What God formerly delivered to His people the heathen legislators afterwards borrowed. Draco, indeed, was more severe, but his extreme rigor became obsolete by the silent consent of the people of Athens; and the Decemvirs borrowed from Solon part of their law, which they published in the ten tables, although there were some variations in the distinction of the double or quadruple restitution, and in process of time other alterations were afterwards made. But if all things be duly considered, it will be found that both Solon and the Decemvirs have made a change for the worse, wherever they have varied from the law of God. First of all, no distinction [132] is here made, such as the Roman laws decree, between manifest thieves and those that are not manifest; for by them the thief not manifest is condemned to a double amend, and the manifest to quadruple; and he is called a manifest thief who is caught before he has carried what he has stolen to the place of its destination. I suppose that the awarders of the punishment had this point in view, that the wickedness of that person was the more egregious who was so greedily and anxiously set on his prey as not to be afraid of disgrace; and undoubtedly he who has no fear of shame is more audacious ill sin. But, on the contrary, God condemns to a double amend those upon whom the stolen goods were found; and to quadruple, those who had killed or sold it; and deservedly so, because greater obstinacy in crime betrays itself where the theft is turned to profit, nor is there any hope of repentance; and thus by this further process the crime of dishonesty is doubled. It might be that, immediately after the offense, the thief should be alarmed; but he who had dared to kill the stolen animal or to sell it, is altogether hardened in his sin. Besides, the more difficult its investigation is, the greater is the punishment which a misdemeanor deserves. Meanwhile, it is to be remembered, that the pecuniary fine imposed upon thieves did not free them from guilt; for, as Marcellus says, [133] not even the president of a province can bring it to pass, that infamy should not pursue a man condemned of theft; and there was no need of establishing by law that in which all by nature are agreed. Thus, when God punished thieves by a fine, He left them still marked by infamy. I know not whether they [134] assign the true cause why he who had stolen an ox is fined to a larger amount than he who had stolen a goat, or sheep, or other cattle, who say that the loss of the owner is taken into account to whom the labor of the ox is especially useful in agriculture; for what is said as to an ox I extend to cows and the whole herd. Those seem to come nearer to the truth who say the audacity of the thief is punished who, when he stole the larger animal, did not fear being observed by witnesses; yet it seems to me more likely that the different sentence depended on the price of the article; for assuredly it is more reasonable that he who has done the most harm should be exposed to the greater punishment. 2. If a thief be found breaking up. This clause is to be taken separately, and is inserted by way of parenthesis; for, after having decreed the punishment, God adds in connection, "he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he should be sold for his theft;" and this exception as to the thief in the night is introduced parenthetically. But although the details are not expressed with sufficient distinctness, still the intention of God is by no means ambiguous, viz., that if a thief should be killed in the dark, his slayer should be unpunished; for he can then hardly be distinguished from a robber, especially when he proceeds with violence; because he cannot enter another man's house by night without either digging through a wall or breaking down a door. The Twelve Tables [135] differ slightly from this; for they permit the killing of a thief by night, and also by day if he should defend himself with a weapon. But, since God had sufficiently repressed by other laws murders and violent assaults, He is silent here respecting robbers who use the sword in their attempts at plunder. He therefore justly condemns to death those who have avenged by murder a theft in open day. 3. He should make full restitution. These words, as I have said, are connected with the first verse, since here the execution of the punishment is only enjoined; as if God forbade thieves to be spared, but that they should pay either twofold or quadruple, or even quintuple, according to the measure of their crime. But, if they were unable to pay, He commands them to be sold as slaves, which also was the custom at Rome. Whence the saying of Cato, [136] "that private thieves lived in bonds and fetters, but public ones in gold and purple." And since this condition was a harsh one, a caution is expressly given, that they were not to be absolved on the score of their poverty. If any one should ask whether it was lawful for the owner of the thing stolen to recover double or quadruple its value, I answer, that what God awards, a man has the best of rights to; meanwhile, in equity men were bound to take care that they did not grow rich at the expense of others, but rather were they to apply whatever they gained to pious and holy uses. Footnotes: [132] The negative added from Fr. See A. Gell. 11:18. [133] "Il est dit en la loy;" it is said in the law. -- Fr. [134] This first opinion is "that (says Corn. a Lapide) of S. Thomas, 1:2. q. 105, art. 2. ad 9., after Strabo; God commands that a thief should restore five oxen for one, because the ox has five utilities; first, it is killed in sacrifice; secondly, its flesh is eaten; thirdly, it ploughs; fourthly, it gives milk; fifthly, it supplies leather; -- whilst a sheep only has four advantages; for, first, it is slain in sacrifice; secondly, its flesh is eaten; thirdly, it gives milk; fourthly, it gives wool." The second opinion is attributed to Junius by Willet, "oportet hunc furem audacem, et versutum esse." [135] This provision of the Twelve Tables is thus given by A. Gell. 11. ult., "Si nox furtum faxit, sim (si eum) quis occisit, jure caesus esto: si luci furtum faxit, sim aliquis endo (in) ipso furto capsit, verberator, illique, cui furtum factum escit (erit) addicitor, sed non nisi is, qui interemturus erat, quiritaret," i.e., shall have called out for assistance. [136] "Sed enim M. Cato in oratione quam de praeda militibus dividenda scripsit, vehementibus et illustribus verbis de impunitate peculatus atque licentia conqueritus. Ea verba, quoniam nobis impense placuerunt, adscripsimus: Fures (inquit) privatorum furtorum in nervo atque in compedibus aetatem agunt: fures autem publici in auto atque in purpura." -- A. Gell. 11 ult.

These laws are, I. Concerning trusts, Exo 22:7-13. If a man deliver goods, suppose to a carrier to be conveyed, or to a warehouse-keeper to be preserved, or cattle to a farmer to be fed, upon a valuable consideration, and if a special confidence be reposed in the person they are lodged with, in case these goods be stolen or lost, perish or be damaged, if it appear that it was not by any fault of the trustee, the owner must stand to the loss, otherwise he that has been false to this trust must be compelled to make satisfaction. The trustee must aver his innocence upon oath before the judges, if the case was such as afforded no other proof, and they were to determine the matter according as it appeared. This teaches us, 1. That we ought to be very careful of every thing we are entrusted with, as careful of it, though it be another's, as if it were our own. It is unjust and base, and that which all the world cries shame on, to betray a trust. 2. That there is such a general failing of truth and justice upon earth as gives too much occasion to suspect men's honesty whenever it is their interest to be dishonest. 3. That an oath for confirmation is an end of strife, Heb 6:16. It is called an oath for the Lord (Exo 22:11), because to him the appeal is made, not only as to a witness of truth, but as to an avenger of wrong and falsehood. Those that had offered injury to their neighbour by doing any unjust thing, yet, it might be hoped, had not so far debauched their consciences as to profane an oath of the Lord, and call the God of truth to be witness to a lie: perjury is a sin which natural conscience startles at as much as any other. The religion of an oath is very ancient, and a plain indication of the universal belief of a God, and a providence, and a judgment to come. 4. That magistracy is an ordinance of God, designed, among other intentions, to assist men both in discovering rights disputed and recovering rights denied; and great respect ought to be paid to the determination of the judges. 5. That there is no reason why a man should suffer for that which he could not help: masters should consider this, in dealing with their servants, and not rebuke that as a fault which was a mischance, and which they themselves, had they been in their servants' places, could not have prevented. II. Concerning loans, Exo 22:14, Exo 22:15. If a man (suppose) lent his team to his neighbour, if the owner was with it, or was to receive profit for the loan of it, whatever harm befel the cattle the owner must stand to the loss of: but if the owner was so kind to the borrower as to lend it to him gratis, and put such a confidence in him as to trust it from under his own eye, then, if any harm happened, the borrower must make it good. Let us learn hence to be very careful not to abuse any thing that is lent us; it is not only unjust, but base and disingenuous, inasmuch as it is rendering evil for good; we should much rather choose to lose ourselves than that any should sustain loss by their kindness to us. Alas, master! for it was borrowed, Kg2 6:5.

Exodus 22:5-15 5. If a man shall cause a field or vineyard to be eaten, and shall put in his beast, and shall feed in another man's field; of the best of his own field, and of the best of his own vineyard, shall he make restitution. 5. Si depasci fecerit quispiam agrum aut vitem, et immiserit jumentum suum ut depasceretur agrum alterius: bonum agri ejus et bonum vineae ejus restituet. 6. If fire break out, and catch in thorns, so that the stacks of corn, or the standing corn, or the field, be consumed therewith; he that kindled the fire shall surely make restitution. 6. Quum egressus fuerit ignis, et invenerit spinas: absumptusque fuerit acervus, vel seges, vel ager, reddendo redder qui ignem accendit, rem combustam. 7. If a man shall deliver unto his neighbor money or stuff to keep, and it be stolen out of the man's house; if the thief be found, let him pay double. 7. Quum dederit quispiam proximo suo argentum, vel vasa ad custodiendum, et furto ablatum fuerit e domo viri illius: si inventus fuerit fur, reddet duplum. 8. If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall be brought unto the judges, to see whether he have put his hand unto his neighbor's goods. 8. Si non inventus fuerit fur, tunc applicabitur dominus domus ad judices, annon miserit manum suam in substantiam proximi sui. 9. For all manner of trespass, whether it be for ox, for ass, for sheep, for raiment, or for any manner of lost thing, which another challengeth to be his, the cause of both parties shall come before the judges; and whom the judges shall condemn, he shall pay double unto his neighbor. 9. Super omni causa praevaricationis, super bove, super asino, super pecude, super vestimento, super omni re amissa: quum dixerit quispiam hoc esse, usque ad judices veniet causa utriusque: et quem damnaverint judices, is reddat duplum proximo suo. 10. If a man deliver unto his neighbor an ass, or an ox, or a sheep, or any beast, to keep, and it die, or be hurt, or driven away, no man seeing it: 10. Si dederit quispiam proximo suo asinum, vel bovem, vel pecudem, aut quodcunque animal ad custodiendum, et mortuum fuerit, aut contractum, aut ab hostibus captum nemine vidente. 11. Then shall an oath of the Lord be between them both, that he hath not put his hand unto his neighbor's goods; and the owner of it shall accept thereof, and he shall not make it good. 11. Juramentum Jehovae erit inter utrumque, annon miserit manum suam in substantiam proximi sui, et juramentum suscipiet dominus ejus, et non reddet. 12. And if it be stolen from him, he shall make restitution unto the owner thereof. 12. Quod si furto ablatum fuerit ei, reddet domino ejus. 13. If it be torn in pieces, then let him bring it for witness, and he shall not make good that which was torn. 13. Si vero rapiendo raptum fuerit, adducet ei testem: raptum non reddet. 14. And if a man borrow ought of his neighbor, and it be hurt, or die, the owner thereof being not with it; he shall surely make it good. 14. Si commodato acceperit quispiam a proximo suo, et confractum fuerit aut mortuum domino ejus absente, reddendo reddet. 15. But if the owner thereof be with it, he shall not make it good: if it be an hired thing, it came for his hire. 15. Si dominus ejus fuerit cum eo, non reddet: si conductum fuerit, veniens pro mercede sua. 9. For all manner of trespass. An action for theft is here permitted, but with a fine attached if any should rashly accuse his neighbor; for else it might be doubted when or for what reasons the restitution of double or quadruple was to be required. He therefore permits that if any one suspects another of theft, he should summon that person to plead his cause; and if he should prove his case, that he should recover double the thing lost; but if the judges should pronounce that he had brought his action groundlessly, that he, on the contrary, should pay the penalty of his false accusation. For such an action as this is not altogether a civil one, but carries with it the stain of infamy, and thus it would be unjust that a man should be injured by false suspicions whom the judges acquit of crime. The word used here for judges is 'lhym, elohim, which properly means gods, as being of the plural number; it is, however often used for God. [137] It is transferred to judges for the purpose of dignifying their office; because in it they represent the person of God, in whose hand alone is all dominion and power. Therefore Christ says they were called gods, because to them "the word of God came," (John 10:34,) i.e., that they should preside in His name, and be set over others, on which subject we treated under the Fifth Commandment. 5. If a man shall cause a field or vineyard to be eaten. This kind of fraud is justly ranked among thefts; viz., if any man shall have put in his beast to feed in another's field or vineyard. For if a person have made improper use of his servant to steal by him, he himself is deemed guilty of the offense, even although he may have touched nothing with his own hand; nor does he less do wrong who has given occasion of injury by means of a brute. Still, God restricts the punishment to a compensation of double the amount, because it cannot be certainly established that the master of the animal desired to effect the damage fraudulently and designedly; yet He requires the loss to be made up at the highest estimate of its value; [138] for thus I interpret "the goodness of his field and his vineyard," that the place having been examined, a liberal restitution shall be awarded to its owner, according to the utmost it would have probably produced in its greatest state of fertility. 6. If fire break out and catch in thorns. This injury is somewhat different from the foregoing, for he who kindles the fire is commanded to make good the damage done by him, although there may have been no willful intention to do harm. For the incendiary who had maliciously destroyed either a cornfield or a vineyard was to be far more severely punished; here, however, mere carelessness is punished. Although no mention is made either of house or barn, still the law includes all similar cases requiring compensation from him who had kindled a fire even in an open field. But it seems that such a person would be blameless, because he could not. foresee that the fire would ignite the thorns; yet, in order that every one should take as much care of the property of another as of his own, God commands him to suffer the penalty of his heedless or stupid negligence. 7. If a man shall deliver unto his neighbor money. It is here determined under what circumstances an action for theft would lie in case of a deposit, viz., if an inanimate thing, as a garment or furniture, be given ill charge, and the person with whom it is deposited should allege that it is stolen, God commands that, if the thief be discovered, he should pay double; but, if not, that an oath should be required of the man who declares that the thing has been stolen from him. But, if it be an animal that was given in charge, a somewhat different provision is made, viz., that if it have been violently carried away, or torn by beasts, the person with whom it was deposited should be free; but if it had been stolen, that he should make restitution. In order to understand the principle of this law, we must observe that depositaries are not to be compelled to do more than faith. fully preserve the thing entrusted to them; just as a prudent and careful father of a family is attentive to the preservation of his property. When they have acquitted themselves diligently in this respect, it would be unjust to require more, of them; otherwise, when they undertake the burden of this gratuitous office, their generosity would be an injury to themselves. But, since it is not so easy to steal an animal from the stall, or from the hands of the shepherd, the negligence of the shepherd betrays itself in the loss of the beast, [139] supposing no violence to have been used. Justice, then, is done in both cases, i e., that the depository shall not make good a vessel, or money, or a garment, because this would be in a manner to put him in the place of the thief; but that if the animal be stolen he shall pay its price, unless he can cleat' himself of carelessness. If any should think that too great indulgence is shown to the depositary, when God would have the dispute terminated by his oath; the reply is easy, that we do not entrust anything to be kept by another, unless we are persuaded of his honesty. Whoever, then, has chosen a guardian for his property, has borne witness to his own prejudice that he is a good and trustworthy man; and consequently, it would be absurd that he should soon afterwards be involved in all accusation of theft without proof. Wherefore it was reasonable that God would have the owner of the lost goods acquiesce in the oath of him. whom he has considered to be his faithful friend. Besides, a man is altogether acquitted who clears himself by calling God to witness his innocence, unless any sinister suspicion is alleged against him, and provided he excuses himself on probable evidence. 10. If a man deliver unto his neighbor an ass. Since in the passage from whence I have taken these four verses, mention is made of a deposit, and Moses is professedly providing against frauds, and robberies, and thefts, I have thought it well to place them under this head. It has indeed some relation to the Third Commandment, because it shows the lawful use of an oath, viz., that in matters of concealment men should have recourse to the witness of God, and that, by the interposition of His sacred name, an end should be put to their strife. But, while the authority attributed to oaths depends on the reverence due to God, at the same time faith and piety are enforced in them, [140] so that all things should correspond. I have, however, considered the main point, i e., how controversies as to things concealed should be brought to an end for the advancement of peace and equity. He would therefore have the depositary acquitted, if he swears that the animal entrusted to him is lost (either by death or violence, [141] ) although lie should produce no witness of the matter, since it would be unjust that he should bear the blame, unless fraud, or some more palpable offense, have been committed by him. At the conclusion, then, it is said, "the owner of it shall accept" the oath, which is equivalent to saying, that lie shall be compelled to acquiesce, and shall give no more trouble about it. The expression, "an oath of the Lord shall be between them both," is a remarkable one, whereby the obligation and sanctity of an oath are enforced, whilst Moses reminds us that God is the author of this sacred mode of attestation, and presides over it as its judge and avenger. Moses now lays down the law as to a borrowed animal, if it die, or be mutilated, or injured. There is, however, a wide distinction between a thing borrowed and a thing deposited, for he who lends confers a favor; and therefore, when a man borrows a thing, he binds himself to restore it in safety, as far as in him lies. A distinction, however, is made, if the owner himself of the animal be an eye-witness of the death or fracture, he shall bear the loss; but if the animal should die or be injured in his absence, its value is awarded to him. His presence is tantamount to this, as if it were said, if he shall have seen with his own eyes that the injury did not occur by the fault of him to whom he lent it, then he shall give him no trouble about it. For instance, if you have lent me a horse, and take the journey with me, although anything untoward should happen -- supposing you are assured that it did not occur by my temerity, or negligence, or bad management, I am free, and exempt from loss. What is here laid down as to a borrowed animal must be applied also to all other things borrowed. Footnotes: [137] "Le Dieu vivant." -- Fr. [138] C.'s view of these word…

If fire break out, and catch in thorns--This refers to the common practice in the East of setting fire to the dry grass before the fall of the autumnal rains, which prevents the ravages of vermin, and is considered a good preparation of the ground for the next crop. The very parched state of the herbage and the long droughts of summer, make the kindling of a fire an operation often dangerous, and always requiring caution from its liability to spread rapidly. stacks--or as it is rendered "shocks" (Jdg 15:5; Job 5:26), means simply a bundle of loose sheaves.

If a man shall steal an ox or a sheep,.... In which the substance of men chiefly lay in those times, and particularly the people of Israel, who were now come out of Egypt, with their flocks and herds, and these lying near together, were the more liable to be stolen; and hence also the laws in the preceding chapter concerning oxen and damages done by them, and oxen and sheep are only mentioned; perhaps chiefly because used in sacrifice, as well as serviceable for other things; not but that stealing other cattle and other things were criminal and forbidden, and to be punished in proportion: and kill it, or sell it; either of which cases would plainly show that he took it away with an intention to deprive the owner of it, and to convert it to his own use: he shall restore five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep; the reason of this difference, five being obliged to be given for the one, and but four for the other, is, because the one was more valuable than the other, as well as more useful, and also more easily stolen, and therefore the greater mulct or fine was laid upon the theft of it, to deter from it: the Targum of Jonathan expresses the reason of the law thus; five for oxen, because the theft of them hindered from ploughing, or made to cease from it; and for sheep but four, because there was trouble in the theft of them, and there was no tillage or agriculture by them: and Saadiah Gaon observes, that the damage that comes to the owner of the ox is more than that by a lamb, because with it, the ox, he ploughs, which is a creature that was used in those countries to be employed in that service, as well as in treading out the corn: Maimonides (u) accounts for it thus,"the restitution of the theft of oxen is increased by one, because the theft of them is easy; sheep are fed in flocks, and are easily kept and watched, and can scarcely be taken away by theft but in the night; but oxen are fed scattered here and there, and therefore cannot be so easily kept by the herdsmen; hence also their theft used to be more common:''four fold restitution was in use with the ancient Persians, with whom it was a rule,"whoever took any substance of another, in retaliation they took fourfold from him, and if he restored it, he gave fourfold of the same (w).'' (u) Moreh Nevochim, par. 3. c. 41. (w) Lib. Shed-dar, apud Hyde Relig. Vet. Pers. p. 472.

If a thief be found breaking up,.... An house, in order to steal money, jewels, household goods, &c. or breaking through any fence, hedge, or wall of any enclosure, where oxen, or sheep, or any other creatures are, in order to take them away: the Targum of Jonathan is,"if in the hole of a wall (or window of it) a thief be found;''that is, in the night, as appears from the following verse, "if the sun", &c. to which this is opposed, as Aben Ezra observes; some render it, with a digging instrument (x); and it is a Jewish canon (y), that"if anyone enter with a digging instrument: he is condemned on account of his end;''his design, which is apparent by the instrument found upon him; for, as Maimonides (z) observes,"it is well known, that if anyone enters with a digging instrument, that he intends, if the master of the house opposes him to deliver his goods out of his power, that he will kill him, and therefore it is lawful to kill him; but it does not signify whether he enters with a digging instrument, either by the way of the court, or roof;" and be smitten that he die be knocked down with a club, by the master of the house, or any of his servants, or be run through with a sword, or be struck with any other weapon, to hinder him from entrance and carrying off any of the goods of the house, and the blow be mortal: there shall no blood be shed for him: as for a man that is murdered; for to kill a man when breaking into a house, and, by all appearance, with an intention to commit murder, if resisted, in defence of a man's self, his life and property, was not to be reckoned murder, and so not punishable with death: or, "no blood" shall be "unto him" (a); shall be imputed to him, the man that kills the thief shall not be chargeable with his blood, or suffer for shedding it; because his own life was risked, and it being at such a time, could call none to his assistance, nor easily discern the person, nor could know well where and whom he struck. (x) "cum perfossorio", Pagninus; "cum instrumento perfosserio", Tigurine version. (y) Misn. Sanhedrin, c. 8. sect. 6. (z) Comment. in ib. (a) "non ei sanguines", Montanus, Vatablus, Drusius.

If the sun be risen upon him,.... Either upon the thief, or upon the master of the house, or the person that finds the thief and smites him that he dies; it matters not which it is interpreted, it is true of both, for when it is risen on the one, it is on the other: there shall be blood shed for him; the person that kills him shall die for it: the Targum of Jonathan is,"if it is as clear as the sun (and so Jarchi), that not to kill any he entered, and he should kill him, there is guilt of shedding innocent blood:''because coming at broad daylight, and when the sun was up, it was a plain case he came not with a design to murder, but only to steal; besides, being at such a time, the master of the house could call for help and assistance, and take him; which is what is suggested he should do, and not take away his life, but oblige him, if he had got any of his goods, to restore them, as follows: for he should makes full restitution; by returning them and as much more, as the following verse shows: if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft, by the sanhedrim, or court, of judicature: as the Targum of Jonathan, before whom he should be brought, and the theft proved upon him, and unto the year of the remission or release, as the same Targum; nor were such to be sold to strangers, or to serve forever, for they were to be dismissed after six years, as Josephus (b) observes: and it is a canon with the Jews (c), that,"an Hebrew servant whom the sanhedrim sell, they do not sell him but to an Israelite, or to a proselyte of righteousness;''according to the Targum of Jonathan, it seems as if he was to be sold to the person from whom he stole, since it is,"he shall he sold to him;''but if not, however, the price he was sold at was to be given to him for a recompence of his loss; so says Maimonides (d),"if he have not goods, neither movable nor immovable the sanhedrim sell him, and give the price to him that is injured, as it is said: "if he have nothing", &c. and adds, a man is sold for his theft but not a woman (e):''from hence it appears that theft was not a capital crime by the law of Moses: Draco is said to be the first who made it so; but his law being thought by the Athenians to be too severe, was annulled by them (f): the law of the twelve tables, with the Romans greatly agrees with the Mosaic laws about theft; these permitted to kill a thief who should be taken in open theft, if either when he committed the theft it was night or if in the daytime, and he defended himself with weapons when about to be taken (g) or, as elsewhere expressed (h), an open thief was delivered to servitude to him who was robbed, but nocturnal thief it was lawful to kill by the law of the twelve tables. (b) Antiqu. l. 16. c. 1. sect. 1.((c) Maimon. Abadim. c. 1. sect. 3.((d) Hilchot Genubah, c. 3. sect. 11. (e) So Misn. Sotah, c. 3. sect, 8. (f) A. Gell Noct. Attic. l. 11. c. 18. (g) Ib. (h) Ib. l. 20. c. 1.

If the theft be certainly found in his hand alive,.... Or, "in finding be found" (i), be plainly and evidently found upon him, before witnesses, as the Targum of Jonathan; so that there is no doubt of the theft; and it is a clear case that he had neither as yet killed nor sold the creature he had stolen, and to could be had again directly, and without any damage well as it would appear by this that he was not an old expert thief, and used to such practices, since he would soon have made away with this theft in some way or another: whether it be ox, or ass, or sheep, or any other creature; and even, as Jarchi thinks, anything else, as raiment, goods, &c. he shall restore double; two oxen for an ox, two asses for an ass, and two sheep for a sheep: and, as the same commentator observes, two living ones, and not dead ones, or the price of two living ones: so Solon made theft, by his law, punishable with death, but with a double restitution (k); and the reason why here only a double restitution and not fourfold is insisted on, as in Exodus 22:1 is, because there the theft is persisted in, here not; but either the thief being convicted in his own conscience of his evil, makes confession, or, however, the creatures are found with alive, and so more useful being restored, and, being had again sooner, the loss is not quite so great. (i) "inveniendo inventum fuerit", Pagninus, Montanus, Piscator. (k) A. Gell, l. 11. c. 18.

If a man shall cause a field or vineyard to be eaten,.... Which is not his own, by putting cattle into it to feed upon it, as it is explained in the next clause: and shall put in his beast, and shall feed in another man's field; do damage in one or both those two ways, either by his feet treading down the grass and fruits of the earth, which the Rabbins, as Jarchi says, think, is meant by putting in his beast; or with his beast eating up the same, which is intended by the latter phrase: of the best of his own field, and of the best of his own vineyard, shall he make restitution for what damage is done by his beast in his neighbour's field or vineyard; and this held good of any garden or orchard injured in like manner; and it is a general rule with the Jews, that when any damage is sustained, he that does the damage is obliged to pay with the best the earth produces (l), even though better than was the man's that suffered the loss, that for the future he might be more careful of doing injury to another (m). (l) Misc. Bava Kama, c. 1. sect. 1.((m) Bartenora in Misn. Gittin, c. 5. sect. 1.

If fire break out,.... Even though of itself, as Jarchi interprets it: and catch in thorns a thorn hedge or fence, with which cornfields might be en closed: so that the stacks of corn, or the standing corn, or the field, be consumed therewith; whether it be corn cut down, bound up in sheaves, and laid up in heaps or stacks, or whether it be yet growing, and not fully ripe, at least not cut down, or any other fruits of the field; if the fire that takes the thorns which are near them should reach to those, and kindle upon them and destroy them: he that kindleth the fire, shall surely make restitution: that is, though he kindles the fire upon his own ground, yet being careless of it, it breaks out without his intention and design, and catches hold on a thorn hedge between him and his neighbour's field, and so spreads itself to the corn there, whether standing or in stacks, or to other fruits either lying or growing there; now, though he did not kindle the fire in the corn, and among the stacks or heaps of fruit in his neighbours field, yet, for his carelessness in not looking after the fire he had kindled in his own field, he was to make good all the damages his neighbour sustained hereby: the Jewish canons relating to this affair are these;"if a man kindles a fire by the hands of a deaf man, or a fool, or a child, he is free by human judgment, but he is bound by the judgment of heaven (that is, to make restitution); if he kindles it by the hand of a knowing and understanding man, he is bound; one brings fire and another "afterwards" brings wood, he that brings the wood is bound; one brings wood and another "afterwards" brings fire, he that brings the fire is bound; "after that", another comes and blows the flame (or fire), he is bound; "but if" the wind blows it they are all free; he that kindles fire and it consumes wood or stones, or dust, he is bound, as it is said, Exodus 22:6 "if fire break out", &c. if the fire passes over a fence four cubits high, or a public road, or a river, he is free (n);''those two things last mentioned, feeding on another man's field and fire, with the ox and the pit, observed in the preceding chapter, are with the Misnic doctors (o), the four fathers' fountains, or sources of damages. (n) Bartenora in Misn. Gittin, c. 5. sect. 4. (o) Ib. c. 1. sect. 1.

If a man shall deliver unto his neighbour money or stock to keep,.... Without any reward for keeping it, as the Targum of Jonathan; and so other Jewish writers (p) understand this passage of such as keep a deposit freely, having nothing for it; whether it be money or goods, gold, silver, jewels, raiment, household stuff or any kind of vessels or instruments used in the house, or in trade; and also cattle, as appears from Exodus 22:9. and if it be stolen out of the man's house; into whose custody it was delivered: if the thief be found, let him pay double: the worth of what is stolen, agreeably to the law in Exodus 22:4 that is, if it was found in his hands; but if he had disposed of it, then he was to pay five fold or four fold, as in Exodus 22:1, and so runs the Jewish canon (q),"if anyone delivers to his neighbour a beast or vessels, and they are stolen or lost, he shall make restitution; but if he will not swear, for they say, one that keeps for nothing, may swear and be free; then if the thief should be found he shall pay double; if he has killed or sold, he shall pay four fold or five fold: to whom shall he pay? to him with whom the depositum is: if he swears, and will not pay, and the thief is found, he shall pay double; if he has killed or sold he shall pay four fold and five fold: to whom shall he pay? to the owner of the depositum.'' (p) Jarchi in ver. 10. Bartenora in Misn. Shebuot, c. 6. sect. 5. (q) Misn. Bava Metzia, c. 3. sect. 1.

If the thief be not found,.... And so no account can be given of the goods deposited, what is become of them, and it becomes a doubtful case whether they have been stolen or embezzled, and there is suspicion of the latter: then the master of the house shall be brought unto the judges: here called Elohim, gods, because they were God's vicegerents, and represented him, and acted under his power and authority; and who at this present were Moses, and those that judged the people under him, and afterwards the seventy elders, and all such who in succeeding times were judges in Israel, and bore the office of civil magistrates; before these the master of the house, or the person who had any goods committed to his care, and they were lost, was to be brought and put to his oath, and upon it examined, in order to find out what was become of the goods committed to him: to see whether he has put his hand to his neighbour's goods: took them to himself, made use of them, or disposed of them to his own advantage, and which was no other than a kind of theft.

For all manner of trespass,.... With respect to what is committed to a man's trust, and it is lost to the owner of it, there must be somewhere or other a trespass committed, either by the person into whose hands it was put, or by a thief that has stolen it from him: whether it be for ox, for ass, for sheep, for raiment, or for any manner of lost thing by which it appears that either of these, or any other cattle not named, as well as money and vessels, or household goods, or goods in trade, were sometimes, or might be lodged in the hands of another as a depositum for safety or convenience; and for which, or any other so deposited, and lost: which another challengeth to be his, or affirms that he put into the hands of his neighbour, to be kept by him for him; "or who shall say this is he", or "he is" the person into whose hands I put it, or this is "it" (r); such and such were the thing or things I delivered to him: the cause of both parties shall come before the judges; who were to hear what each party had to say, and to examine the witnesses each of them brought, and consider the nature of the evidence given, and to judge and determine: and whom the judges shall condemn; or "pronounce wicked" (s), as having done a wicked thing; either the one as having brought a false accusation against his neighbour, charging him with a depositum he never had, or the other as having converted it to his own use: he shall pay double unto his neighbour; either the depositor, who pretended to be so and was not, but brought a false charge against his neighbour, or a false witness, as Jarchi, such as one was to pay double to the person charged wrongfully; or, on the other hand, the person with whom the depositum was put, if it appeared that he had acted a fraudulent part, and abused his trust, then he was to pay double to the depositor. (r) "qui dixerit quod illud hoc", Montanus; "quum dixerit illud ipsum esse", Junius & Tremellius; "de qua dixerit aliquis illum ipsum esse", Piscator; so Ainsworth. (s) Vid. Ainsworth.

If a man deliver to his neighbour an ass, or an ox, or a sheep, or any beast to keep,.... And he keeps it without a reward, as the Targum of Jonathan; but Jarchi and Aben Ezra more rightly interpret this of one that keeps for hire, as herdsmen, shepherds, &c. The Jews say (t) there are"four sorts of keepers; he that keeps for nought (or freely), he that borrows, he that takes hire, and he that hires; he that keeps for nought swears in all cases (and is free), he that borrows pays for all (that is lost or stolen, &c.) he that takes hire, and he that hires, swear on account of that which is torn, or carried away, or dies, and they pay for that which is lost or stolen,''which are the cases after supposed: and it die; either of the above, or any other under the care of another; that is, dies of itself, not being killed by any, and its death sudden, and not easily accounted for: or be hurt; receive any damage in any part, though it die not; or "be broken" (u); have any of its limbs or bones broken; or be torn by a wild beast, as the Targum of Jonathan adds: or driven away; from the flock or herd by thieves or robbers, or rather carried captive by an enemy in an hostile way, see Exodus 22:12, no man seeing it; die, or be hurt, or carried off; and so, as the above Targum paraphrases it, there is no witness that sees and can bear witness, that is, to any of the said things which have happened to it. (t) Misn. Bava Metzia, c. 7. sect. 8. (u) "confractum", Pagninus, Montanus; "fractum", Junius & Tremelius, Piscator, Drusius; so Ainsworth.

Then shall an oath of the Lord be between them both,.... Either by the one, the keeper, for the satisfaction of the owner, or by them both; by the owner, that he delivered such and such cattle to the keeper; and by the keeper, that he was no ways concerned in the death, hurt, or carrying off of the same: and this is called "the oath of the Lord", not only because in this law required by him, but because sworn by him, or in his name, and made before him, in his presence, who is hereby appealed unto; and who is called upon to take vengeance on the person that takes the oath of perjury; and such an oath only is a lawful one, men are to swear only by the Lord. But this oath was not tendered to anyone:"if a man was suspected of an oath (i.e. of perjury) they might not give him his oath, neither the oath of the law, nor the oath from their words (the scribes), nor the oath of imposition (imposed by the wise wen); and even though he that brought the action would have it, they might not hearken unto him: if a man has swore falsely a rash oath, or an oath of testimony, or an oath concerning anything deposited, or a vain oath, lo, he is suspected of an oath, and so everyone that is rejected for witness on account of any transgression (w).''The oath to be taken by the keeper, and who indeed seems to be the only person that was to take one, was, "that he hath not put his hand unto his neighbour's goods"; so as either to kill or maim, or drive away, or suffer to be driven away, any of the cattle committed to his care, or that he had not disposed of them to his own use and profit: and the owner of it shall accept thereof; of the oath, as the Targum of Jonathan and Jarchi, and so be satisfied, and give no further trouble, such an oath being for the confirmation of the thing, and to put an end to strife; or he shall take the ass, ox, or sheep, as it was, and be content; but then, though he might take the dead or maimed one, he could not take that which was driven or carried away, wherefore the first sense, is best: and he shall not make it good; or pay for it to the owner what it was worth. (w) Maimon. Hilchot Toan Venitan, c. 2. sect. 1, 2.

And if it be stolen from him,.... Or "but if" (x) it was taken away by theft; and that "from with him" (y), as it may be literally rendered, from among his own cattle, and they not taken; and he being present, pretending to have an eye upon them and keep them, but was careless and negligent, at least, if he did not connive at the theft: he shall make restitution to the owner thereof; for in such a case there was ground for suspicion of fraud; however, there was apparent carelessness, and it was but just he should make restitution, since he had hire or wages for keeping it; which is the reason Aben Ezra gives for it, and is suggested by the Targum of Jonathan; which adds to the former clause, by way of explanation,"that which was with him to be kept for a reward.'' (x) "si autem", Drusius. (y) "e cum eo", Montanus.

If it be torn in pieces,.... By some wild beast, at least as pretended: then let him bring it for witness; part of that which is torn, that it may be witness for him that it was torn, as in Amos 3:12 as Aben Ezra observes; and so the Jerusalem Targurn,"let him bring of the members of it a witness,''which would make it a clear case that it had been so used; but it is possible that the whole carcass might be carried off, and nothing remain to be brought as a proof of it; wherefore the Targum of Jonathan is,"let him bring witnesses;''and so some versions render it (z); and to this agrees Jarchi, whose note is,"let him bring witnesses of its being torn by violence, and he is free,''such who saw it done; but it is before supposed, that such cattle may be hurt, broken, or maimed, no man seeing it, Exodus 22:10 and therefore in such a case no witnesses could be brought, wherefore the first sense seems best: and he shall not make good that which was torn; or shall not pay for it, pay the price of it, as much as it is worth. Here Jarchi distinguishes,"there is that which is torn, for which a man pays, and there is that which is torn, for which he does not pay; that which is torn by a cat, or a fox, or a marten (a kind of weasel), he pays for, but that which is torn by a wolf, a lion, or a bear, he does not pay for:''the reason of which is, because it is thought the keeper might have preserved and delivered from the former, and therefore was culpable, when it was not in his power to save from the latter; and the Misnic doctors observe, that one wolf is not violence, but two are; so that what is torn by one, the keeper is bound to pay for, but not what is torn by more. But two dogs are not violence, unless they come from two different quarters, and then they are: a single thief is violence, and so is a lion, a bear, a leopard, a basilisk, and a serpent, and this only when they come willingly, and of themselves; but if they (the cattle) are brought to places where there are troops of wild beasts, and thieves, it is no violence (a), and in such a case the keepers are liable to pay; and so unless he makes use of staves, and calls in other shepherds to his assistance, as Maimonides (b) observes, when it is in his power to do it; and so at least might make an attempt to save or rescue the cattle. (z) "adducet eum testem", Pagninus, Montanus; "adducat ille testem", Munster, Fagius. (a) Misn. Bava Metzia, c. 7. sect. 9. (b) Hilchot Shecirat, c. 3. sect. 6.

And if a man borrow ought of his neighbour,.... Any beast, as it should seem, as an ox to plough with, an ass, horse, or camel to ride on, though the Jewish writers carry it also to any kind of household stuff: and if he be hurt or die; if any damage comes to it, or it dies while it is in the borrower's hands, and when employed in that work for which he borrowed it; the Targum of Jonathan is,"and the vessel should be broke, or the beast die:''and the owner thereof being not with it; at the time of its being hurt, or of its death, and so could not be so well satisfied whether used well or not, nor how the damage and death came to it: he shall surely make it good; pay the full price for it it is worth; which, though it may seem hard, was necessary, in order to make men careful of things they borrowed, and that lenders may not be losers for their kindness.

But if the owner thereof be with it,.... When it is hurt or dies; for in some cases the owner might go along with his beast, being borrowed or hired to do work with it; or, however, being upon the spot, must be satisfied that it was not ill used; and it may be reasonably presumed he would do all he could to preserve it: and this being the case: he shall not make it good; that is, the borrower, but the loss would lie upon the lender; seeing this might have been the case if it had been at home, and not borrowed or lent. The Jewish writers understand all this in a different manner, that if the owner is not with it in the time of borrowing, though he is with it in the time of its being hurt, or of its death, the borrower must pay; but if he was with it in the time of borrowing, though not in the time of its receiving damage, or of its death, the borrower was free (c); for, as Jarchi says, whether it be in that work (for which he was borrowed), or in another work (it matters not), if he was with it at the time of borrowing, there was no necessity of his being with it at the time of its hurt or death. The reason of which, I must confess, I do not understand; unless the meaning is, that it was necessary that the owner, and the beast, should be both borrowed or hired together; and which indeed seems to be the sense of the Misnah, or tradition (d), which runs thus,"if a man borrows a cow, and borrows or hires its owner with it; or if he hires or borrows the owner, and after that borrows the cow, and it dies, he is free, as it is said, Exodus 22:15 but if he borrows the cow, and afterwards borrows or hires the owner, and it dies, he is bound to pay, as it is said, Exodus 22:13 if his owner is not with it, &c.''If it be an hired thing, it came for its hire; that is, if the beast which was come to some damage, or was dead, was hired, and not borrowed, then, whether the owner was with it or not at that time, he could demand no more than hire, and the person that hired it was obliged to pay that and no more; or if the owner himself was hired along with his beast, and so was present when it received its damage, or its death, nothing more could come to him than what he agreed for. (c) Misn. Bava Metzia, c. 8. sect. 1. Maimon. & Bartenora in ib. (d) Ibid.