Exodus 22:10-15 Restitution and Responsiblilty

"If a man gives a donkey, an ox, a sheep or any other animal

 to his neighbor for safekeeping
and it dies or is injured or is taken away while no one is looking,

the issue between them will be settled by the taking of an oath before the LORD
that the neighbor did not lay hands on the other person's property.
The owner is to accept this, and no restitution is required.

But if the animal was stolen from the neighbor,
he must make restitution to the owner.
If it was torn to pieces by a wild animal,
he shall bring in the remains as evidence
and he will not be required to pay for the torn animal.

If a man borrows an animal from his neighbor
and it is injured or dies while the owner is not present,
he must make restitution.
But if the owner is with the animal,
the borrower will not have to pay.
If the animal was hired, the money paid for the hire covers the loss.

Exodus 22:10-15 (NIV)
________________________________________________________

This passage continues the themes of responsibility and restitution which began in earlier verses of this chapter.  In some cases, it is difficult to determine exactly what has happened in a situation involving a loss of property.  Rather than allow continued suspicion to exist between neighbors, the situation was resolved by the taking of an oath before the LORD that the one under suspicion had not stolen his neighbor's property.  No restitution was required in this case.  The owner would accept this because he knew that no one would lightly take an oath before the LORD.  Perhaps more significantly, he knew that the LORD would not take this oath lightly, and would punish the offender if he had lied.

However, if an animal was stolen while in the care of another, that person was responsible for making restitution for it.  If a wild animal had killed it, the remains were to be brought in as evidence that the animal had not been eaten by himself.  No payment was required in this case.

  

A borrowed animal which was injured or died while in the care of another required restitution.  If the owner had remained with the animal, the borrower was not responsible for reparations.  [I suppose it was assumed that the owner should have been watching over his own animal.]  If the animal had been hired, the money paid for the hire covered the loss.  [This last provision troubled me, for what if a person hired an ox worth $500 for $100 for one day of plowing his fields?  If the ox is injured or dies, the owner would have lost out on $400 worth of property!  So I assume that this is still talking about a situation where the owner is still with the hired animal as it is working.  In that case, I could see that the actual owner would be responsible for the animal's well-being.]     

Exodus 22:1-9 Property Protection

"If a man steals an ox or a sheep and slaughters it or sells it,

he must pay back five head of cattle for the ox

and four sheep for the sheep.

If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies,

the defender is not guilty of bloodshed;

but if it happens after sunrise, he is guilty of bloodshed.

A thief must certainly make restitution,

but if he has nothing, he must be sold to pay for his theft.

If the stolen animal is found alive in his possession

-- whether ox or donkey or sheep --

he must pay back double.

If a man grazes his livestock in a field or vineyard

and lets them stray and they graze in another man's field,

he must make restitution from the best of his own field or vineyard.

If a fire breaks out and spreads into thornbushes
so that it burns shocks of grain or standing grain or the whole field,
the one who started the fire must make restitution.

If a man gives his neighbor silver or goods for safekeeping
and they are stolen from the neighbor's house,
the thief, if he is caught, must pay back double.
But if the thief is not found,
the owner of the house must appear before the judges
to determine whether he has laid his hands on the other man's property.
In all cases of illegal possession of an ox, a donkey, a sheep, a garment,
or any other lost property about which somebody says, 'This is mine,'
both parties are to bring their cases before the judges.
The one whom the judges declare guilty must pay back double to his neighbor."

Exodus 22:1-9 (NIV)
_____________________________________________

Some observations:

• Someone who steals one ox must pay five head of cattle, while someone who steals a sheep must pay four sheep.  Obviously the point is to discourage stealing, since the price was so steep.
• If a thief breaks in at night, and is killed by the property owner, the defender was not considered guilty.  However, if the break-in occurs after sunrise, the thief could not be killed.  [I guess the thinking was that if a thief attacked at night, the intruder may be intending to kill under cover of darkness, and thus may be killed himself.  However, a thief discovered in daylight might be identified and punished with a punishment which is more appropriate for the crime of thievery.  Where there is some question about motives -- was the intruder intent on thievery or murder? -- better to err on the side of giving the intruder the benefit of the doubt, rather than take a life for thievery.] 
• Restitution is seen as so important that the thief is even sold to repay his debt if he has no resources of his own.  Apparently poverty is no excuse for stealing.
• If a stolen animal is recovered, the thief is still supposed to pay back double, even though the person's original animal is returned to him.
• Grazing animals may stray, but if they graze in another man's field, the animal's owner must repay the loss.  Otherwise it might become too convenient to just let your animals graze in another man's field!  Not only that, but the offender is expected to give his best products, not just a token restitution.
• Someone who starts a fire must take responsibility for the losses incurred by it.
• Property which has been entrusted to another person might possibly be stolen, but if it is, the thief must pay back double.  In cases where the thief is not found, judges must determine whether the person who had been entrusted with the items had stolen them.
• Any property which is disputed must be brought before the judges to determine the true owner.  The guilty person must repay double.

 

Exodus 21:28-36 Injuries Involving Animals

"If a bull gores a man or woman to death,

the bull must be stoned to death,

and its meat must not be eaten.

But the owner of the bull will not be held responsible.

If, however, the bull has had the habit of goring,

and the owner has been warned but has not kept it penned up

and it kills a man or a woman,

the bull must be stoned and the owner must also be put to death.

However, if payment is demanded of him,

he may redeem his life by paying whatever is demanded.

This law also applies if the bull gores a son or daughter.

If the bull gores a male or female slave,

the owner must pay thirty shekels of silver to the master of the slave,

and the bull must be stoned.

If a man uncovers a pit or digs one and fails to cover it

and an ox or a donkey falls into it,

the owner of the pit must pay for the loss;

he must pay its owner, and the dead animal will be his.

If a man's bull injures the bull of another and it dies,

they are to sell the live one
and divide both the money and the dead animal equally.

However, if it was known that the bull had the habit of goring,

yet the owner did not keep it penned up,

the owner must pay, animal for animal,

and the dead animal will be his.

Exodus 21:28-36 (NIV)

_____________________________________

Some observations:

• If a bull gored someone to death, it was to be stoned, and its meat was not to be eaten.  Why? Was this because the rage of the bull triggered some hormonal reaction which might taint the meat and make it harmful in some way, or was it just so that no one could hope to profit in any way from such a tragedy?
• I note that the owner was not to be held responsible in the first case, for the goring was accidental, and unexpected.  However, if the bull had a habit of goring and the owner did not take precautions, the bull and the owner were both put to death, unless the injured party's relatives were willing to accept a ransom for the owner's life.
• If someone uncovered or dug a pit, they must cover it to prevent accidents from occurring.  If an ox or donkey fell into it and was killed, the pit's owner must pay for the loss of the animal, and the dead animal became his property.
• If one man's bull injured another man's bull and it dies, the live one must be sold and the two divide the money and the dead animal between them.  Again, if the owner knew of his bull's habit of goring, yet did not take precautions, he had to replace the other man's animal and the dead one would become his.
• As far as consequences are concerned, a clear distinction is made between the death of an animal and the death of a man.  This says something about man's status [made in the image of God].  Man is not just some other kind of animal.

Exodus 21:18-27 Consequences of Fighting

"If men quarrel and one hits the other with a stone or with his fist

 and he does not die but is confined to bed,

the one who struck the blow will not be held responsible

if the other gets up and walks around outside with his staff;

however, he must pay the injured man for the loss of his time

and see that he is completely healed.

If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod

and the slave dies as a direct result,

he must be punished,

but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two,

since the slave is his property.

If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman

and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury,

the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands
and the court allows.

But if there is serious injury,

you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth,

hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

If a man hits a manservant or maidservant in the eye and destroys it,

he must let the servant go free to compensate for the eye.

And if he knocks out the tooth of a manservant or maidservant, 

he must let the servant go to compensate for the tooth."

Exodus 21:18-27

_____________________________________________

In the previous post we dealt with personal injuries resulting in death.  In the present post we are dealing with reparations for injuries caused by fighting.

The first paragraph (v. 18-19) is fairly straightforward:  If injuries result from fighting, the one who struck the blow is responsible for the injured person's medical treatment and loss of time from work.

The next section gets tricky for me.  If someone beats his slave with a rod, and the slave dies, the person is to be punished (for manslaughter, I presume).  If the slave is able to recover, the master is not punished.  However, the part I stumble over is what follows, for the text says (v.21): "but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property."  Yikes.  The only thing I can think of is that these rules are dealing with the realities of the day, in which slavery was a common aspect of everyday life, and slaves were considered the property of their owners.  I believe that these regulations were to ensure fair treatment and also (as we will see in the following verses) to limit the extent of retaliation for injuries.

Here is where things get even more complicated.  A note on that verse (v.21) in the NIV Study Bible referred me to this passage in Leviticus:

"If one of your countrymen becomes poor among you

and sells himself to you, do not make him work as a slave.

He is to be treated as a hired worker or a temporary resident among you;

he is to work for you until the year of Jubilee.

Then he and his children are to be released,

and he will go back to his own clan and to the property of his forefathers.

Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt,

they  must not be sold as slaves.

Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God.

Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you;

from them you may buy slaves.

You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you

and members of their clans born in your country,

 and they will become your property.

You can will them to your children as inherited property

and can make them slaves for life,

but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."

Leviticus 25:39-46 (NIV)

So, it seems that the Israelites may sell themselves as servants to a fellow Israelite, but are not to be treated as slaves.  Also, they must be released in the year of Jubilee, for God did not want his people, whom He had redeemed from Egypt, to be slaves.  However, Israelites could buy slaves from other nations, who could be considered property and enslaved for life, and even willed to their children as inherited property.

This made me wonder what could be the purpose behind such distinction between the Israelites and the other nations.  I knew that the Israelites were God's covenant people, yet it troubled me that in this passage in Leviticus, people from other nations could be treated like property.  Then I began to imagine what a slave in an Israelite household might be thinking.  Hopefully such slaves would be treated humanely, for the Israelites knew what it felt like to be worked ruthlessly.  God even referred to this fact at several points:  Deuteronomy 5:12-15; 15:12-15; 16:10-12; 24:17-22.

Also, I began to think that such a slave might wish that he was an Israelite, exempt from such slavery.  Then I thought about how this might lead such a slave to consider becoming a follower of Israel's God.  I do not know the details about the process of how such a conversion might come about, but I imagine it was possible and that such a slave would eventually have more of a servant status than a slave status.  So could the distinction between the treatment of people from other nations and the treatment of an Israelite who had sold himself into service become a factor which could lead these people from other nations to come to know the true God?  This is the only redeeming aspect which I can imagine in such circumstances.  For Israel was given laws which set them apart from other peoples, with the intent of showing that they were the people of God -- not for any display of pride or nationalism, but for the end purpose of revealing God to the nations.

Another fascinating aspect of this passage is the part which is found in Exodus 21:22-23.  Here we see that if a pregnant woman is injured accidentally because men are fighting, and she gives birth prematurely, the offender can be fined whatever the woman's husband demands (within the limits of the law).  However, the text goes on to say that if there is serious injury, retaliation can be taken to same extent as the injury:  life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.  This is important for two reasons:

• 1)  It limits the retaliation so that the punishment fits the crime.  It is not that a person has to retaliate in kind, as much as it limits the extent of possible retaliation. 

• 2)  It gives both the mother and the unborn child protection.  Thus the child, though unborn, is considered a person worthy of protection.

Verses 26 and 27 of this passage speak of some practical outworking of these ideas.  A manservant or maidservant whose eye is destroyed must be set free to compensate for such a loss.  Interestingly, the same goes for the loss of a tooth.  At first I found it strange that the servant could be set free for the loss of 'just a tooth'.  Then I began to think about how these days there is the recognition that dental health can have all kinds of repercussions for our health in general.  So I think that this is just another example of the Bible being correct about something years before society is willing or able to recognize it.  This makes me want to read God's Word all the more carefully.