Exodus 22 5

Exodus 22:5 kjv

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.

Exodus 22:5 nkjv

"If a man causes a field or vineyard to be grazed, and lets loose his animal, and it feeds in another man's field, he shall make restitution from the best of his own field and the best of his own vineyard.

Exodus 22:5 niv

"If anyone grazes their livestock in a field or vineyard and lets them stray and they graze in someone else's field, the offender must make restitution from the best of their own field or vineyard.

Exodus 22:5 esv

"If a man causes a field or vineyard to be grazed over, or lets his beast loose and it feeds in another man's field, he shall make restitution from the best in his own field and in his own vineyard.

Exodus 22:5 nlt

"If an animal is grazing in a field or vineyard and the owner lets it stray into someone else's field to graze, then the animal's owner must pay compensation from the best of his own grain or grapes.

Exodus 22 verses

Exodus 22 5 Meaning

Exodus 22:5 establishes a civil law concerning liability for property damage caused by a person's negligence involving livestock. If an individual allows their livestock to graze destructively in another person's field or vineyard, or intentionally releases them to do so, the responsible party must provide full and equivalent restitution. This restitution must come from the best of their own agricultural produce, ensuring the victim is made completely whole and suffers no loss of quality or livelihood. The law emphasizes accountability, justice, and the protection of private property within the community of Israel.

Exodus 22 5 Context

Exodus 22:5 is part of the "Book of the Covenant" (Exo 20:22-23:33), which follows the giving of the Ten Commandments. This section lays out practical civil and social laws for the Israelites as they form a nation under God's covenant. The laws transition from divine commands to their application in daily life, covering various scenarios of human interaction, property rights, personal injury, and social justice. The historical context is that of an agrarian society, where land, fields, and livestock were primary means of survival and wealth. These laws were crucial for maintaining order, deterring negligence, and ensuring economic stability and equity among the community members in a direct agricultural economy. They also reflect God's concern for protecting the vulnerable and ensuring fairness, providing a sharp contrast to the arbitrary and often brutal legal codes of surrounding pagan nations, which often favored the powerful.

Exodus 22 5 Word analysis

• If (כִּי, ki): Introduces a conditional clause, indicating a specific case or hypothetical situation for which a law is being prescribed. It signifies that this is a direct case law.
• a man (אִישׁ, ish): Refers to any male individual, but in broader legal contexts, it generally applies to any responsible person. It highlights individual accountability within the community.
• causes a field (שָׂדֶה, sadeh) or vineyard (כֶּרֶם, kerem): These specific terms refer to cultivated agricultural land, the primary source of sustenance and economic prosperity in ancient Israel. Damaging them means directly impacting someone's livelihood and ability to provide for their family. The term "causes" ('בָּעֵר,' ba'er) indicates a causal action, implying either direct initiation or negligence.
• to be grazed (יְבַעֵר, yeva'er): Derived from the root בער (ba'ar), meaning "to burn, consume, destroy." Here, in the causative (Hifil) form, it specifically means "to cause to consume by grazing." This emphasizes that the damage is inflicted by the agent (livestock) but caused by the owner's action or inaction. The nuance of "consuming" speaks to thorough destruction of crops.
• or lets his livestock loose (א֥וֹ שִׁלַּח, o shilach): 'שלח' (shalach) means "to send, let go." This indicates either an intentional act of releasing animals into another's property, or failing to keep them restrained, both scenarios implying negligence or deliberate harm. This contrasts with damage from a contained animal that breaks out.
• and it feeds (וּבִעֵר, u'biyar): 'בָּעֵר' (ba'ar), again meaning to consume or graze. The repetition reinforces the active damage done by the animals. The suffix implies the "it" (the livestock).
• in another man's field (שְׂדֵה אַחֵר, sedeh aher): Explicitly clarifies that the property damaged is not the offender's, emphasizing violation of property rights.
• he shall make restitution (שַׁלֵּם יְשַׁלֵּם, shallem yeshallem): 'שׁלם' (shalem) means "to be whole, complete, at peace, pay back." The emphatic repetition (infinitive absolute followed by finite verb) means "he shall surely make full restitution." This is a foundational legal principle – the wrongdoer must restore the victim to the state they were in before the damage. It is about "making whole," connecting to the broader concept of shalom (peace, well-being).
• from the best (מֵיטַב, meitab): From 'טוֹב' (tov), "good, excellent." The superlative form 'meitab' means "the very best." This is crucial. Restitution is not just any payment, but equivalent quality produce. This prevents giving damaged or inferior goods as compensation and ensures that the victim is fully compensated without qualitative loss. It acts as a deterrent and a measure of equity.
• of his own field (שָׂדֵהוּ, sadehu) and from the best of his own vineyard (וּמֵיטַב כַּרְמ֑וֹ, umeitab karmo): This specifies that the payment comes directly from the offender's own property of the same kind and quality as what was damaged. This direct link makes the payment tangible, proportionate, and equitable in an agrarian economy, signifying direct consequence from one's own prosperity.

• "If a man causes a field... to be grazed" or "lets his livestock loose and it feeds": These phrases outline the specific actions and their immediate consequence. The legal language distinguishes between active "causing to graze" (e.g., directing animals) and passive negligence ("letting loose"). Both carry liability.
• "he shall make restitution from the best of his own field and from the best of his own vineyard": This phrase encapsulates the core legal principle of full and qualitative restitution. It not only mandates compensation but specifies the standard of that compensation, ensuring justice for the victim and reinforcing the seriousness of property rights. This sets a high bar for accountability.

Exodus 22 5 Bonus section

The strong emphasis on "the best" for restitution highlights a critical aspect of God's justice system—it aims for holistic restoration (shalom) rather than mere minimal compensation. In an agricultural economy without standardized currency, mandating payment from equivalent, high-quality produce prevented dispute and ensured the victim could quickly replace their lost yield. This proactive measure protected the stability of individual households, vital for the entire tribal structure. Furthermore, the inclusion of such detailed property laws immediately following the Ten Commandments demonstrates that civil conduct and ethical treatment of one's neighbor were not secondary to worship but an integral part of covenant fidelity. These specific provisions set Israel apart from cultures where the powerful could often inflict damage without redress, demonstrating God's standard for a righteous community.

Exodus 22 5 Commentary

Exodus 22:5 details a vital aspect of Israelite civil law, focused on property rights and personal responsibility in an agrarian society. The law addresses damage to crops or vineyards caused by a person's livestock, stemming either from direct intent (causing to be grazed) or negligence (letting animals loose). The divine expectation is clear: the person whose animals inflicted the damage must make full and quality-equivalent restitution from their own possessions. This provision safeguards the economic livelihood of farmers and vine-growers, as their fields and vineyards represented their primary means of sustenance.

This law is foundational for several reasons: it emphasizes God's concern for justice and the protection of private property, which are crucial for a stable society. The demand for restitution "from the best" (מֵיטַב, meitab) signifies that compensation must not merely cover the literal amount but must ensure no qualitative loss to the victim. This robust principle not only deterred irresponsible animal husbandry but also prevented fraudulent or insufficient recompense. It underscored that justice means restoring what was lost, in full measure and quality, thereby promoting equity and discouraging self-enrichment at a neighbor's expense. This law exemplifies the practicality of God's covenant, shaping a community characterized by mutual respect and accountability.