Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Exodus 22:5
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. a field ] i.e. a field of his own, from which he allows the cattle to stray into the field of a neighbour.
the best ] The Heb. as Gen 47:6; Gen 47:11, also of land. The verse contains difficulties, however; and two corrections have accordingly been proposed. (1) Why, as no malicious intention seems to be imputed to the owner of the cattle, is compensation to be made from the best of his field? LXX. Sam. read words after ‘another man’s field,’ which remove this difficulty, viz. ‘[he shall surely make it good from his own field according to its produce; but if it eat the whole of the field,] of the best of his own field,’ &c.; the whole of the crop is eaten; the carelessness is accordingly greater, no judgement can be formed of the quality of the destroyed crop, and it is consequently to be replaced from the best which can be given. (2) This however by no means removes all the difficulties: ( a) a ‘vineyard’ was not a pasture-ground for cattle, it was protected against animals by a stone fence, Isa 5:5; ( b) the renderings ‘cause to be eaten’ and ‘feed’ ( and ) are doubtful: to ‘eat’ or to ‘feed’ (i.e. to graze) is an uncertain rendering of , even in Isa 3:14; Isa 5:5; Isa 6:13; and both words elsewhere mean only to kindle (fire: so in v. 6), to burn, or (fig.) to destroy. Hence it is very probable that we should read with slight changes ( for , and for ), ‘If a man cause a field or a vineyard to be burnt [to destroy stubble or weeds, as is still the custom in Palestine in summer: cf. on ch. Exo 15:7, and Verg. G. i. 84 f.], and let the burning (same word as in v. 6b, ‘the fire’) spread, and it burn in another man’s field, of the best,’ &c. (so B.; and, long before him, Aldis Wright, Journ. of Phil. iv., 1872, p. 72 f.): as the damage is due carelessness, if not (Wright) to incendiarism, the reason why compensation is to be made of the ‘best’ becomes apparent (cf. Cook, p. 202). Fire spreads rapidly in the hot summers of Palestine; and such carelessness is punished severely by the Arabs ( L. and B. ii. 293).
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
5, 6. Compensation to be paid for damage done by cattle being allowed negligently to stray ( v. 5 if the text be sound); and by fire spreading accidentally ( v. 6) to another man’s field.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Shall put in his beast, and shall feed – Rather, shall let his beast go loose, and it shall feed.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
A field or vineyard, or orchard, or other things of like nature; which is generally to be observed in laws.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
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.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Injury done to another man’s field or corn was also to be made good by compensation for the injury done. If any one should consume a field or a vineyard, and let loose his beast, so that it fed in another man’s field, he was to give the best of his field and vineyard as restitution. These words do not refer to wilful injury, for does not mean to drive in, but simply to let loose, set at liberty; they refer to injury done from carelessness, when any one neglected to take proper care of a beast that was feeding in his field, and it strayed in consequence, and began grazing in another man’s. Hence simple compensation was all that was demanded; though this was to be made “from the best of his field,” i.e., quicquid optimum habebit in agro vel vinea ( Jerome).
(Note: The lxx have expanded this law by interpolating before . And the Samaritan does the same. But this expansion is proved to be an arbitrary interpolation, by the simple fact that forms no logical antithesis to .)
Exo 22:6 Exo 22:6 also relates to unintentional injury, arising from want of proper care: “ If fire break out and catch thorns (thorn-hedges surrounding a corn-field, Isa 5:5; Sir. 28:24), and sheaves, or the standing seed ( the corn standing in the straw), or the field be consumed, he that kindleth the fire shall make compensation (for the damage done).”
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
Verse 5:
The law of the trespass prohibits the wanton use or destruction of anothers field (business). The trespasser must make restitution of equal amount from the very best of his field (business).
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
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.
(138) C.’s view of these words seems to be adopted by none of the commentators. They understand them more simply, that the restitution was to be made in kind, and of the best of the aggressor’s produce. Whether we read with C. “bonum agri,” or with others “de bono,” or “de optimo,” as Dathe and A. V. , does not appear to affect this sense.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(5) If a man shall cause a field . . . to be eaten.On theft follows trespass, another injury to property. Two kinds of trespass alone are mentioned; but from these the principles to be followed in punishing trespass generally can be sufficiently made out. Accidental injury, such as that caused by fire extending from one mans field into anothers, was to be simply compensated up to the amount of damage done; but voluntary injury, such as followed on the turning of beasts into a neighbours ground, was to be more than compensated. The amount of produce destroyed was to be exactly calculated, and then the injurer was to make good the full amount of his neighbours loss out of the best of his own produce.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
EXPOSITION
LAW OF TRESPASS.Next to theft, and not much behind it, is the wanton damage of what belongs to anotheras when a person injures his neighbour’s crops, either by turning beasts into his field, or by causing a conflagration in it. To turn beasts in was the more determinedly malicious act, and therefore the damage done was to be compensated by making over to the injured party a like quantity of produce out of the best that a man was possessed of; whereas simple restitution, was sufficient when fire had spread accidentally from a man’s own land to his neighbour’s. We may conclude that if the trespass of the cattle were accidental, simple restitution sufficed; and if the fire were kindled of set purpose, the heavier rate of penalty was exacted.
Exo 22:5
If a man shall cause a field or vineyard to be eaten.Rather “to be eaten of,” or “to be browsed upon.” And shall feed.Rather, “and it shall feed.” Of the best, etc.This means that, without reference to the quality of the crop damaged, the injurer should forfeit an equal amount of his own best produce.
Exo 22:6
If fire break out.It is usual in the East (as in England) to burn the weeds on a farm at certain seasons of the year. When this is done, there is always a danger, in the dry parched-up Eastern lands, of the fire spreading, and carotid watch has to be kept. If this watch were neglected, a neighbour’s sheaves or standing corn might be seriously damaged or even destroyed. The law punished such carelessness, by requiring the man who had kindled the fire to make restitution.
HOMILETICS
Exo 22:5, Exo 22:6
The law of love forbids all injury to a neighbour.
There are many who would scorn to steal the property of a neighbour, who yet make light of injuring it in other ways, as by trespass, or by negligence. But if we love our neighbour we shall be anxious not to injure him in any way. “Love worketh no ill to his neighbour.” lie that allows his cattle to pasture in a neighbour’s field, or his hares and rabbits to spoil a neighbour’s crops, or his poultry to break bounds and damage a neighbour’s garden, cannot feel towards him as a Christian should feel. Love would hinder any injuries, nay, even any intrusive or obnoxious act. Love would also be a strong check upon neglect and carelessness. Men are careful enough not to damage their own property; did they really love them, they would be as careful not to damage the property of their neighbours. And what is true of property is true of other things also. We are bound
I. NOT TO INJURE OUR NEIGHBOUR‘S CHARACTER, either by direct attacks upon it, or by carelessly suffering it to be maligned by others.
II. NOT TO INJURE HIS DOMESTIC PEACE.
1. By impertinent intrusion;
2. By spying and tale-bearing;
3. By scattering suspicions.
III. NOT TO INJURE HIS INTERESTS.
1. By divulging without necessity what may hurt him;
2. By pushing our own interests at his expense;
3. By knowingly advising him ill;
4. By setting pitfalls that he may fall into them.
If we offend in any of these respects, it is our duty, so far as possible, to “make restitution”
(1) By compensating to him any loss he may have sustained;
(2) By disabusing those whose minds we may have poisoned;
(3) By ample and humble apology.
Too often this last will be all that is in our power; for “the tongue is a fire” (Jas 3:6), which scatters its brands far and wide, and creates conflagrations that it is impossible to extinguish. Let each and all seek to control that “unruly member” which “setteth on fire the course of nature,” and is itself “set on fire of hell.”
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
Exo 22:5. If a man shall cause a field, &c. This equitable law of restitution extended to all cases. The law of the twelve tables was more severe upon this head, as Calmet observes; for there it is enjoined, that if any one cut down, or let his cattle eat another’s field; if he be of age, he shall be consecrated to Ceres; if under age, he shall be beaten as the praetor shall order, and make double restitution. This verse might be rendered, much more properly, thus, When any man shall cause a field or a vineyard to be eaten, sending out his own beast, which shall feed upon the field of another; of the best, &c.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
See the moral sense of this, exemplified in the case of David. 2Sa 12:1-4 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Exo 22:5 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.
Ver. 5. To be eaten. ] By unadvised turning in of his cattle, through mistake or neglect.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
field. of. Between these two words the Samaritan Pentateuch and Septuagint have “he shall surely make restitution out of his own field according to the yield thereof; and if the whole field be eaten”. This is not due to Ellipsis but to Homoeoteleuton (App-6), by which, in transcribing, the eye of the copyist went back (in error) to the latter of the like endings of two sentences, and thus omitted the intervening words between “field” and “field”.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
shall he make restitution: Exo 22:3, Exo 22:12, Exo 21:34, Job 20:18
Reciprocal: Num 25:11 – that I
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Exo 22:5. He that wilfully put his cattle into his neighbours field, must make restitution of the best of his own. 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 neighbour, or do him any damage.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
The fourth case involves damage due to grazing or burning. In the first instance (Exo 22:5) the Torah required restitution from "the best" of the offender whereas the Code of Hammurabi required only restitution. [Note: Code of Hammurabi, section 57.] These two examples further illustrate God’s respect for the rights of others.