Regulations Concerning Farming Theft and Damage (Exodus 22:1-13).
Here we have five main paragraphs which begin with ‘if (ci) a man' or ‘if (ci) a fire' (English text (verses) Exodus 22:1; Exodus 22:5-7; Exodus 22:10), and a number of subparagraphs commencing with ‘if' ('im), but in all cases there is no introductory ‘and'. Our analysis, however, includes the subparagraph commencing at verse 2 separately because of its distinctive nature.
a If a man steals beasts and kills or sells them he must heavily compensate for his theft up to five times (Exodus 22:1).
b If a thief break in at night and be smitten and die there is no punishment. If a thief break in by day he must not be killed, rather double restitution may be demanded and if necessary he be sold to pay the debt (Exodus 22:2-4).
c If a man's beasts eat another's fields by accident he shall make restitution (Exodus 22:5).
c The commencer of an accidental fire shall compensate for corn burned (Exodus 22:6).
b If a man is keeping his neighbour's possessions and it is stolen the thief if found must pay double. If not found and there is suspicion of theft by the neighbour they may come before God for judgment and if found guilty he shall pay double (Exodus 22:7-9).
a If a man is keeping his neighbour's beasts and they be stolen from him he shall make restitution. If it just ‘disappears' the owner will accept the oath of Yahweh that he has not stolen it and there will be no restitution. If it is torn by beasts, production of the torn beast will avoid the need for restitution (Exodus 22:10-13).
It will be noted that in each case with its parallel ‘a' refers to beasts stolen for which there must be compensation, ‘b' refers to where a thief steals and must pay double, ‘c' are two examples of accidental damage for which there must be restitution.
“If a man shall steal an ox or a sheep and kill it, he shall pay five oxen for an ox or four sheep for a sheep. If the thief be found breaking in and be smitten so that he dies there shall be no blood-guiltiness for him. If the sun be risen on him there shall be blood-guiltiness for him. He should make restitution. If he have nothing then he shall be sold for his theft. If the theft be found in his hand alive, whether it be ox or ass or sheep, he shall pay double.”
When a thief breaks in at night, whether to a tent, a house or an animal enclosure, any resulting harm to him is his own fault. The owner cannot know his intentions and cannot be held blood guilty for killing him. But if it is by daylight this does not apply, except of course in defence of himself or his family, as the owner is more aware of who it is and what is going on and knows what threat he is facing. The requirement then is that the thief make restitution.
In all cases a thief who is caught must make restitution. If he kills or sells a stolen animal the restitution is fivefold. If the animal is still alive it is twofold. If he cannot make adequate restitution pay then he can be sold to pay the debt.
There is a principle here that among other punishments a thief should pay recompense to his victim. There is also the clear distinction between killing a thief because he is a threat to life, and killing one in anger, the one being allowed the other being forbidden.
“If a man shall cause a field or vineyard to be eaten, and shall let his beast loose and it feed in another man's field, he shall make restitution from the best of his own field and the best of his own vineyard.”
This regulation clearly assumes fruitful fields and vineyards. However they would have had such in Egypt and would have the same again in the land flowing with milk and honey. The regulation was no doubt already a recognised custom and as such is included here as a promise of the certainty of what is to come as they anticipate their future. God is not just providing regulation for this ‘short' wilderness journey. He wants them to think of the future that is in view and to look forward to it and have confidence in it, not to think only in the short term. It is an earnest of the promised land.
The word for vineyards (kerem) is used in Arabic to represent a field cultivated with particular care, and that may be the case here.
Note that restitution is made from the best of his own fields. There is to be no argument about the quality of the lost grain. We may not have fields or vineyards, but there are two principles here, responsibility for damage caused which is our fault, and the need for proper and full compensation.
“If fire break out and catch in thorns so that the shocks of corn, or the standing corn, or the field be consumed, he who kindled the fire shall surely make restitution.”
Here a man who starts a fire is responsible for any damage it does. The ‘thorns' are probably the thorn hedges that divide fields from each other. Thus, while burning in his own fields, he has been careless and allowed the hedges to catch on fire which in turn have spread the fire to the neighbouring fields. Alternately the brushwood in his field may have caught fire and spread it to the neighbouring fields. Full restitution is to be made, presumably again from the best in his fields. We are to take responsibility for our actions.
“If a man shall deliver to his neighbour silver or stuff to keep, and it be stolen from the man's house, if the thief be found he shall pay double. If the thief is not found then the master of the house shall come near to God to see whether he has put his hand to his neighbour's goods. For every matter of trespass, whether it be for ox, for ass, for sheep, for clothing, or for any kind of lost thing of which one says, “This is it,” the cause of both parties shall come before God. He whom God shall condemn shall pay double to his neighbour.”
The case here is where someone has entrusted silver, goods or livestock to his neighbour for one cause or another, and the neighbours claims it has been lost or stolen. If the thief is caught there is no problem. He has to pay back twice the value of what he stole.
But if no thief is caught then the question is as to whether the receiver of the goods is being honest. He may therefore be required to ‘come near to God', through Moses or a deputy, or, later, the priests. This may involve his having to swear a solemn oath before God as to the truth of the situation (Exodus 22:11).
However, if the other party points to something and say, “This is it,” but cannot prove it to everyone's satisfaction, the only answer then is to let God resolve the issue. ‘Come before God.' In this case both parties come before God, that is approach God through Moses or his deputies, or later through the priests. In this case both may be required to swear an oath of Yahweh (Exodus 22:11), or the decision might be made by oracle from God (especially while Moses was alive), or by use of lots (compare 1 Samuel 14:41), probably through Urim and Thummim (Numbers 27:21; 1 Samuel 28:6). The aim is partly to frighten any guilty party into admitting the truth and to resolve the matter finally. The guilty person knows that Yahweh will know the truth. In this last case recompense is made to the innocent party of twice the value of what the guilty party sought to steal.
“If a man deliver to his neighbour an ass, or an ox, or a sheep or any beast to keep, and it die or is hurt or is driven away with no man seeing it, the oath of Yahweh shall be between them both as to whether he has not put his hand to his neighbour's goods, and its owner will accept it and he shall not make restitution. But if it be stolen from him he shall make restitution to its owner. If it is torn in pieces let him bring it as a testimony; he shall not make good what is torn.”
The idea here would seem to be that the neighbour has taken responsibility for looking after the animal, presumably being rewarded for doing so. One difference between the case here and that in Exodus 22:9 is that here the owner does not specifically claim ‘this is it', pointing to another animal. Thus the oath before Yahweh is to be accepted.
There are three possible eventualities. 1) that the animal has been hurt, or has died naturally or has disappeared without anyone knowing how, and the neighbour denies that it is his fault 2) that it is known that it was stolen because there is evidence to that effect. In this case the neighbour should have kept better care of it and has been negligent, 3) that the animal has been torn to pieces by wild beasts. ‘If it be stolen' must refer to where the theft is somehow testified to, as against the cases where it just ‘disappeared' because driven away with no man seeing it. In the former case restitution must be paid, but in the latter no restitution is required. The suggestion would seem to be that he should have prevented it from being stolen. It was his job. But that he could not be blamed for something unwitnessed, because no one would really know what had happened. Where it is torn in pieces by a wild beast no restitution is required, but the evidence is required (compare Genesis 31:39; Amos 3:12). This would prove that the keeper was on the alert.
“The oath of Yahweh.” An example where the use of God's name is allowable in determining the just position before the court. Compare Hebrews 6:16.
In all these cases the background is that the neighbour is originally doing a good turn to the owner who has asked him to care for his property or is doing it for pay. Where the neighbour borrows the goods or beasts the situation is different.