Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Exodus 22:12
And if it be stolen from him, he shall make restitution unto the owner thereof.
12. If, however, the animal be stolen, this might have been guarded against by greater care, and compensation must be made.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
From him, Heb. from with him, which is an emphatical expression, and notes that this was taken away, either,
1. From those things which were with him, or which were his, i.e. from the midst of his own goods, which supposeth fraud in him. Or,
2. From under his eye, when he either did know of it, or with common care and diligence it might have been known and prevented, and this argues gross neglect in him. And this is one reason why this man is bound to make restitution, when the other, Exo 22:7, is not: another reason of the difference is, because those things, Exo 22:7, were only or principally dead things, and such things as required no great care; or if they did, (for in that case also were included oxen, asses, &c., Exo 22:9) yet he with whom they were left received no recompence for them, and therefore was not obliged to any singular care about them; but here the things were such as needed great care and diligence, which also this man was obliged to perform by the hire which he received upon that account, which was Jacobs case, Gen 31:39.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
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.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
(12) If it be stolen from him, he shall make restitution.It seems to have been considered that theft could have been prevented by proper care, but that hurts from wild beasts or accidents were not preventible.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
12. If it be stolen from him Hebrew, from with him, that is, from a place where his immediate oversight would naturally prevent such seizure . In this case the loss would be regarded as due to his carelessness . Comp . Gen 31:39.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Exo 22:12. And if it be stolen from him The former verses make it very clear, that this restitution was only to be made in case the person, from whom the thing was stolen, did not make it evident, upon oath, that it was stolen without his knowledge or privity.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Exo 22:12 And if it be stolen from him, he shall make restitution unto the owner thereof.
Ver. 12. If it be stolen, ] sc., Through his carelessness. Poor Jacob had hard law. Gen 31:39
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
stolen from him: Exo 22:7, Gen 31:39
Reciprocal: Exo 22:5 – shall he make restitution Exo 22:6 – he that kindled the fire