Exodus 21:35 · Bible study
Exodus 21:35 Commentary: Shared Loss When No Fault
Hebrew · 7 what the commentators say
Meaning in one sentence
This case law on dividing loss when a bull kills another ox reveals God's principle of equal sharing when no one is negligent.
Research Summary
- Meaning: This law mandates equal division of loss when an ox kills another and no negligence is proven.
- Key words: ox (שור), strike (נגף), sell (מכר), divide (חצה), money (כסף).
- Main debate: How to ensure fair valuation so no party profits; Jewish traditions discuss equal worth.
- Theological theme: God's equitable justice in property matters.
- Best use: Teaching fairness, community responsibility, and the grace of shared burden.
Translation Comparison
BSB Berean Standard Bible 2020
If a man’s ox injures his neighbor’s ox and it dies, they must sell the live one and divide the proceeds; they also must divide the dead animal.
WEB World English Bible 2000
“If one man’s bull injures another’s, so that it dies, then they shall sell the live bull, and divide its price; and they shall also divide the dead animal.
KJV King James Version 1769
And if one man’s ox hurt another’s, that he die; then they shall sell the live ox, and divide the money of it; and the dead ox also they shall divide.
ASV American Standard Version 1901
And if one man’s ox hurt another’s, so that it dieth, then they shall sell the live ox, and divide the price of it; and the dead also they shall divide.
YLT Young's Literal Translation 1898
`And when a man's ox doth smite the ox of his neighbour, and it hath died, then they have sold the living ox, and halved its money, and also the dead one they do halve;
Darby Darby Bible 1890
— And if one man's ox gore his neighbour's ox, and it die, then they shall sell the live ox, and divide the money thereof, and divide the dead also.
Douay-Rheims Douay-Rheims Bible 1899
If one man's ox gore another man's ox, and he die: they shall sell the live ox, and shall divide the price, and the carcass of that which died they shall part between them:
Translations in other languages (10 available)
Y si el buey de alguno hiriere al buey de su prójimo, y éste muriere, entonces venderán el buey vivo, y partirán el dinero de él, y también partirán el muerto.
E se o boi de alguém ferir ao boi de seu próximo, e este morrer, então venderão o boi vivo, e partirão o dinheiro dele, e também partirão o morto.
Si le bœuf d’ un homme frappe de ses cornes le bœuf d’ un autre homme, et que la mort en soit la suite, ils vendront le bœuf vivant et en partageront le prix; ils partageront aussi le bœuf mort.
Wenn jemandes Ochse eines andern Ochsen stößt, daß er stirbt, so sollen sie den lebendigen Ochsen verkaufen und das Geld teilen und das Aas auch teilen.
Wanneer nu iemands os den os van zijn naaste kwetst, dat hij sterft, zo zal men den levenden os verkopen, en het geld daarvan half en half delen, en den dode zal men ook half en half delen.
Se il bue d’un uomo perisce il bue d’un altro sì ch’esso muoia, si venderà il bue vivo e se ne dividerà il prezzo; e anche il bue morto sarà diviso fra loro.
Także, gdyby wół czyj ubódł wołu sąsiada jego, ażby zdechł, tedy sprzedadzą wołu żywego, i rozdzielą się zapłatą jego, onym też zdechłym podzielą się.
Если чей-нибудь вол забодает до смерти вола у соседа его, пусть продадут живого вола и разделят пополам цену его; также и убитого пусть разделят пополам;
「這人 的牛 若 傷了 那人的 牛，以至於死，他們要賣了 活 牛，平分 價值，也要 平分 死牛。
And if one man's ox does damage to another man's ox, causing its death, then the living ox is to be exchanged for money, and division made of the price of it, and of the price of the dead one.
Verse in Context
Original Language (Biblical Hebrew)
Old Testament · Biblical Hebrew · Exodus 21:35
Source: STEPBible TAGNT/TEHB (CC-BY 4.0). Click or tap a morphology code to see the full parsing.
Scholars' Consensus
Commentators agree this law establishes equitable justice when negligence cannot be proven. Cambridge Bible notes that if no neglect can be proved against the owner, the damage is divided equally. Keil & Delitzsch state that both parties bear an equal amount of damage. Barnes adds context from Leviticus 17:1-6: the dead ox's flesh could not be eaten, so its value was only the hide. Gill discusses Jewish traditions on equal valuation, showing that the law aimed for fairness rather than profit. The core principle is shared loss when no one is at fault.
How settled is the interpretation?
Interpretive difficulty: Low
What is clear: When an ox kills another ox and the owner is not at fault, both owners share the loss equally by selling the live ox and dividing the proceeds along with the dead animal.
What Scholars Agree and Debate
| Topic | Agreed | Debated |
|---|---|---|
| Interpretation of the division | The live ox is sold and the money split; the dead ox is also divided between the owners. | How exactly the dead ox is valued, some traditions consider only the hide, while others allow for meat value if butchered properly. |
| Applicability today | The principle of shared loss when no fault can be proven is a timeless moral lesson. | Some Christians see this as a binding principle for community disputes; others view it as a culturally specific law with no direct modern application. |
| Connection to New Testament ethics | The verse reflects God's character of fairness and concern for community harmony. | Some see it as a model for church discipline or dispute resolution; others emphasize that in Christ we are called to go beyond such justice to forgiveness and self-sacrifice. |
| Role in the Covenant Code | This law demonstrates that God cares about everyday property conflicts, not only major moral issues. | Reformed traditions often use this to discuss the ‘third use of the law’ as a guide for Christian living; Lutheran traditions focus more on the law’s role in showing human sinfulness and need for grace. |
Historical & Cultural Context
Exodus 21:35 sits within the Covenant Code (Exodus 21, 23), a collection of case laws given to Israel at Sinai. These laws regulated daily life in a pastoral and agricultural society where livestock was a primary measure of wealth and status. Oxen pulled plows, carried loads, provided milk and hides, and were used in sacrifice. Their economic and religious value made disputes over them serious community matters.
This specific case addresses accidental goring when the ox had no known history of viciousness, a fact emphasized by the contrast with verse 36. The surrounding passages (verses 28, 32) show a pattern: if an ox kills a human, the ox is stoned and its owner faces possible death; if the ox was known dangerous, the owner bears full blame. Verse 35 occupies a middle ground, property damage without prior warning. The law requires the live ox to be sold and the money split equally, along with the dead ox. Because Leviticus 17 prohibited eating an animal not killed by proper blood draining (after being stoned or killed by another animal), the carcass had limited value, likely only for the hide. The result: both owners share the financial loss equally, preventing one from bearing a disproportionate burden when no fault could be assigned. This approach protected community peace by removing the need for blame, and it reflected God's character as a judge who values fairness even in everyday property disputes.
Textual Notes
The supplied commentaries note no significant textual variants for this verse.
Reception History
This specific case law has been read by Christian tradition as part of the moral instruction in the Old Testament, illustrating God’s concern for fair dealings in everyday life. Early church fathers, when commenting on the Pentateuch, often used such laws to teach about justice and mercy, sometimes allegorizing the oxen. Medieval theologians like Thomas Aquinas incorporated it into discussions of commutative justice, the fairness of exchanges between individuals. Reformers emphasized the equitable principle undergirding the civil law, viewing it as a model for community responsibility. Contemporary Christians from many traditions continue to reference this verse to support the idea that God’s people are called to share losses and to seek practical fairness when blame is unclear.
Preaching This Verse
Three-point outline
- Scenario of no fault. When an ox kills another ox and no prior viciousness is known, the law presumes neither owner is liable.
- Shared remedy. The live ox is sold, the money divided, and the dead ox split between them. The burden falls on both equally.
- God’s lesson. This illustrates divine justice that values fairness over revenge, and it invites us to bear each other's losses as members of a covenant community.
Five-point outline
- One man’s ox strikes another’s. The incident is accidental, with no negligence proven.
- The second ox dies. Property loss has occurred, but no human is at fault.
- Sell the live ox. The animal that caused the damage is sold, converting the asset to cash.
- Divide the money. The proceeds of the sale are split equally between the two owners.
- Divide the dead animal. The carcass is also shared, so both participate in whatever small value remains.
Illustration hooks
- A tree on the boundary between two properties falls during a storm and damages both yards. Unless one neighbor was negligent, the cleanup cost is often split.
- Two children playing with borrowed toys; one toy breaks the other. If no one was reckless, the parents might replace the toy together as a shared loss.
- A workplace where one employee’s tool malfunctions and damages a colleague’s equipment. Without clear blame, a fair agreement might involve sharing the replacement cost.
Questions your congregation is asking
- “Is this law obsolete, or does it teach a lasting principle about handling disputes today?”
- “If I lose something through no fault of my own, why should I have to share the cost with the other person?”
- “How does this Old Testament rule connect with Jesus’ command to love my neighbour as myself?”
Leading a Discussion
Exodus 21:35 presents a case where an ox kills another ox and no one is at fault. God’s instruction is to share the loss equally. This passage challenges our instinct to assign blame and demands that we consider how community, not just individual rights, shapes justice. Use these questions to explore what this law reveals about God and about how we live with others.
Discussion questions
- Read the verse carefully. What are the specific steps the law requires after the ox dies?
- Compare this verse with verse 36. How does the outcome differ when the ox was known to be vicious? What does that tell us about the principle at work?
- Why do you think God commands the live ox to be sold and the money divided, rather than simply given to the owner of the dead animal?
- Imagine two people in your community have a dispute over property damage that was accidental. How might the principle of shared loss apply in a way that preserves peace?
- This law protects both parties equally. What does it teach us about God’s character and his desire for human relationships?
- How does this Old Testament case law prepare us for the New Testament call to “bear one another’s burdens” (Galatians 6:2)?
- What is one practical way you can apply the spirit of this law, shared responsibility in uncertain loss, in your own life this week?
Word Study
The key original-language words in this verse. Select any word for its full lexicon entry — meaning, every occurrence in Scripture, and related words.
Interlinear and lexical data from STEPBible (CC BY 4.0). Commentaries are public domain.
For personal reflection
Read the devotional page — prayer, application, and "for families"
What the Commentators Say
6 public-domain commentaries, condensed into plain language.
Barnes' Notes on the Bible Protestant 1832
Barnes notes that under the law, the flesh of a dead ox could not be eaten, so its only value was the price of the hide. This limitation drastically reduced the compensation owed for the animal.
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges Anglican 1880
The commentary highlights a legal distinction: if the owner of a vicious ox took reasonable care, the loss from a goring is split equally between the two owners. But if the owner was negligent in keeping the ox confined, he must repay the full value of the dead animal and keep the carcass.
Geneva Bible Notes Reformed 1599
The Geneva note stresses fairness in shared loss: when one ox kills another, both owners split the live ox's sale price and also share the dead carcass. Neither party bears the full cost alone, reflecting a principle of communal responsibility for accidental property damage.
Gill's Exposition of the Bible Baptist 1748
Gill notes that the law requires selling the live ox and dividing the money to prevent the injured owner from profiting unfairly if the offending ox is far more valuable. The Jewish ruling limits payment to the value of the ox that did the harm, not beyond it.
Keil & Delitzsch OT Commentary Protestant 1876
Keil-Delitzsch highlights a graduated principle of responsibility: a person who causes damage through carelessness pays full compensation, while an owner whose animal causes harm shares the loss unless he knew the animal was dangerous, in which case he bears the full cost.
Lange's Commentary Reformed 1857
Lange argues that these civil laws are not primarily a criminal code but a system designed to train Israel for freedom. He highlights that the section begins with emancipation regulations, signaling that personal liberty is the central concern, and that slavery as an existing institution is transformed within the theocracy's educational purpose.