Exodus 22:12

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}

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

(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.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

12. If, however, the animal be stolen, this might have been guarded against by greater care, and compensation must be made.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Stealth, of the person to whom it was entrusted, or by his connivance, as the Hebrew mamu, (de cum eo) "from with him," intimates. (Menochius)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

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 Jacob’s case, Gen 31:39.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

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.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

If it be stolen. If, however, the case was not an ambiguous one, but certainly known to he one of theft, restitution had to be made, since it was supposed that with proper care the theft might have been prevented.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

אם טרף יטרף IF IT BE TORN IN PIECES — by wild beasts.

יביאהו עד THEN LET HIM BRING WITNESSES that it has been torn in pieces by accident and he shall be freed from liability.

הטרפה לא ישלם HE SHALL NOT PAY THAT WHICH HAS BEEN TORN — It does not say טרפה לא ישלם “one which has been torn he shall not pay for” — but it says “the torn one”, (the one mentioned here, viz., that which was torn without him being able to prevent it). Because there is a torn beast for which he has to pay and a torn beast for which he has not to pay. For an animal torn by a cat, a fox or a marten he has indeed to make restitution; but for one torn by a wolf, a lion, a bear or a serpent he is not liable to pay. But how do you come to make such a distinction (lit., who whispered to you to draw such a conclusion)? Because, you see, it states, “and if it die or be injured, or be captured”. Now what is the characteristic of natural death? One cannot save from it! Thus, also, the injury and the capture must be such that he was unable to save the animal from it (cf. Mekhilta).

Rashi on the Tanakh — English translations: “The Judaica Press complete Tanach with Rashi, translated by A. J. Rosenberg” (CC BY 4.0); “Pentateuch with Rashi's commentary by M. Rosenbaum and A.M. Silbermann, 1929-1934” (public domain); “The Metsudah Tanach series, Lakewood, N.J” (CC BY 4.0); and “The Book of Joshua, Metsudah Publications, 1997” (CC BY 4.0). Text via Sefaria.

IF IT BE TORN IN PIECES — “by a wild beast. ‘Y’VIEIHU EID’ — let him bring witnesses that it has been torn in pieces by accident, and then he will be free from paying.” This is the language of Rashi.But one may wonder. Why did Scripture mention specifically here [in the case of the animal being torn to pieces by a wild beast], the necessity of having witnesses, since in this [very same section of the law of the paid guardian] it has already said above, [in the cases where the animal dies, or is hurt, or captured], The oath of the Eternal shall be between them both [i.e., between the owner of the animal and the guardian], and the law in all cases is alike: if there are witnesses that the animal died, or was hurt, or captured, he is free from paying and so also if it was torn in pieces by a wild beast, and if there are no witnesses he must take an oath in all cases, and if he does so, he does not pay? Perhaps Scripture speaks of the customary manner, for when an animal dies in his master’s crib or it goes up to the top of a crag and is hurt, there is usually no man seeing it; so also if it was captured by armed bandits who came upon it and took it from the flock and went away [there are usually no witnesses]. But when a lion or bear attacks, a multitude of shepherds is called forth against it, 31:4. and therefore Scripture says that he should bring the shepherds to court, and [upon their testimony] he will be freed from the liability of payment.Or we may explain that Scripture intends to establish the law enunciated by Isi ben Yehudah, who says, “No-one seeing it — he is free [from payment but he must swear]; but if there are witnesses who could testify in this matter, let him bring the witnesses and only then will he be free.” And the explanation thereof is as follows: If the accident happened [to the animal entrusted to his guardianship] in a place where people are present the whole day, we do not rely upon his oath but instead he must bring witnesses, and where an animal is torn in pieces by a wild beast, it is generally the case [that other people are present besides the guardian], and therefore Scripture required him to bring witnesses.Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra explained: y’vieihu eid — “let him bring part of the torn animal as witness, two legs, or a piece of an ear in proof of his statement.” And I have seen it explained thus in the Mechilta of Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai: “Aba Shaul said, he should bring the carcass, as it is said, Thus saith the Eternal, as the shepherd rescueth out of the mouth of the lion, two legs etc.”

Ramban (Nachmanides) on the Tanakh — English translation: “Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976” (CC BY 4.0). Text via Sefaria.