Exodus 22:5

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.

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.

Exo 22:5. He that wilfully put his cattle into his neighbour’s 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.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

(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 man’s field into another’s, 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 neighbour’s 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 neighbour’s loss out of the best of his own produce.

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

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’ (הבעיר and בער) are doubtful: to ‘eat’ or to ‘feed’ (i.e. to graze) is an uncertain rendering of בער, 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 (הבערה for בעירה, and ובערה for ובער), ‘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 Bä.; 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).

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.

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.

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.

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

Shall put in his beast, and shall feed - Rather, shall let his beast go loose, and it shall feed.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

A field or vineyard, or orchard, or other things of like nature; which is generally to be observed in laws.

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

Vers. 5, 6. LAW OF TRESPASS. Next to theft, and not much behind it, is the wanton damage of what belongs to another as 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.

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.

Vers. 5, 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", (Jam_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."

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

He that wilfully put his cattle into his neighbour's 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.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

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 שׁלּח 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 ἀποτίσει ἐκ τοῦ ἀγροῦ αὐτοῦ κατὰ τὸ γέννημα αὐτοῦ ἐὰν δὲ πάντα τὸν ἀγρὸν καταβοσκήσῃ before מיטב. And the Samaritan does the same. But this expansion is proved to be an arbitrary interpolation, by the simple fact that πάντα τὸν ἀγρόν forms no logical antithesis to ἀγρὸν ἕτερον.)

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 (הקּמה the corn standing in the straw), or the field be consumed, he that kindleth the fire shall make compensation (for the damage done)."

Keil & Delitzsch — Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament (1861–1891) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API. (Old Testament only.)

If a man grazes his livestock

"If a man lets his animals eat plants"

it grazes

"it eats plants"

he must make restitution

"he must pay back the owner of that field"

translationWords

vineyard

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

כי תצא אש IF A FIRE GOETH FORTH — i. e. even if it goeth forth (extends) by itself (Bava Kamma 24b) from the field in which it has been lit into another persons field.

ומצאה קוצים AND CATCH IN THORNS —chardons in old French

ונאכל גדיש SO THAT THE STACKS OF CORN [OR THE STANDING CORN] BE CONSUMED, because it (the fire) licked up the thorns and gradually reached the stacks of corn or the standing corn, i. e. corn that is still attached to the ground.

או השדה OR THE FIELD — because it (the fire) liked up his furrow (the newly broken soil), so that it became hard and he (the owner) has to plough it again (Bava Kamma 60a).

שלם ישלם המבער HE THAT KINDLED [THE CONFLAGRATION] SHALL SURELY PAY — Although he has lit the fire on his own soil and it extended by itself through the thorns which it came across, he has to make restitution because he did not guard his fire (lit., burning coals) that it should not extend and cause damage.

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.