Exodus 21:36 · Bible study
Exodus 21:36 Commentary: Owner Responsibility & Divine Justice
Hebrew · 7 what the commentators say
Meaning in one sentence
Why does the Law distinguish between a known vicious ox and a first offense? Explore the principle of graduated liability and its meaning for justice.
Research Summary
- Meaning: The owner who knew his ox was dangerous and failed to restrain it must pay full restitution for the animal it killed.
- Key words: yada (known), nagach (habit of goring), shamar (kept in, guarded), mi.temol shilshom (yesterday and three days ago, idiom for habitual).
- Main debate: Whether the dead animal became the victim's or the negligent owner's; supplied commentators agree it goes to the victim as partial compensation.
- Theological theme: God holds people accountable proportionally to their knowledge and opportunity to prevent harm.
- Best use: Teaching responsible stewardship, the connection between knowledge and culpability, and the restorative purpose of justice.
Translation Comparison
BSB Berean Standard Bible 2020
But if it was known that the ox had a habit of goring, yet its owner failed to restrain it, he shall pay full compensation, ox for ox, and the dead animal will be his.
WEB World English Bible 2000
Or if it is known that the bull was in the habit of goring in the past, and its owner has not kept it in, he shall surely pay bull for bull, and the dead animal shall be his own.
KJV King James Version 1769
Or if it be known that the ox hath used to push in time past, and his owner hath not kept him in; he shall surely pay ox for ox; and the dead shall be his own.
ASV American Standard Version 1901
Or if it be known that the ox was wont to gore in time past, and its owner hath not kept it in; he shall surely pay ox for ox, and the dead beast shall be his own.
YLT Young's Literal Translation 1898
or, it hath been known that the ox is one accustomed to gore heretofore, and its owner doth not watch it, he certainly repayeth ox for ox, and the dead is his.
Darby Darby Bible 1890
Or if it be known that the ox have gored heretofore, and its owner have not kept him in, he shall in any case restore ox for ox; and the dead shall be his.
Douay-Rheims Douay-Rheims Bible 1899
But if he knew that his ox was wont to push yesterday, and the day before, and his master did not keep him in; he shall pay ox for ox, and shall take the whole carcass.
Translations in other languages (10 available)
Mas si era notorio que el buey era acorneador de ayer y antes de ayer, y su dueño no lo hubiere guardado, pagará|strong="H7999, H7999" buey por buey, y el muerto será suyo.
Mas se era notório que o boi era chifrador desde o passado, e seu dono não o houver guardado, pagará boi por boi, e o morto será seu.
Mais s’ il est connu que le bœuf était auparavant sujet à frapper, et que son maître ne l’ ait point surveillé, ce maître rendra bœuf pour bœuf, et aura pour lui le bœuf mort.
Ist's aber kund gewesen, daß der Ochse zuvor stößig war, und sein Herr hat ihn nicht verwahrt, so soll er einen Ochsen für den andern vergelten und das Aas haben.
Of is het kennelijk geweest, dat die os van te voren stotig was, en zijn heer heeft hem niet bewaard, zo zal hij in alle manier os voor os vergelden; doch de dode zal zijns wezen.
Se poi è noto che quel bue era già da tempo uso cozzare, e il suo padrone non l’ha tenuto rinchiuso, questi dovrà pagare bue per bue, e la bestia morta sarà sua.
Ale jeźliby to było wiadomo, że on wół bódł przedtem, a nie miał go pod strażą pan jego, koniecznie odda wołu za wołu, a zdechłego sobie weźmie.
а если известно было, что вол бодлив был и вчера и третьего дня, но хозяин его [быв извещен о сем] не стерег его, то должен он заплатить вола за вола, а убитый будет его.
人若 知道 這牛 素來 是 觸人的，主人 竟不 把牛拴著，他必要 以 牛 還 牛，死 牛要 歸自己。」
But if it is common knowledge that the ox has frequently done such damage in the past, and its owner has not kept it under control, he will have to give ox for ox; and the dead beast will be his.
Verse in Context
Original Language (Biblical Hebrew)
Old Testament · Biblical Hebrew · Exodus 21:36
Source: STEPBible TAGNT/TEHB (CC-BY 4.0). Click or tap a morphology code to see the full parsing.
Scholars' Consensus
Commentators across traditions agree this verse completes a case law on property damage caused by livestock. The owner who knew his ox was dangerous, the Hebrew idiom mi.temol shilshom ('yesterday and three days ago') signals a known habit, and still failed to restrain it must make full restitution. Keil and Delitzsch observe that when no neglect is proved, the loss is divided; here the guilty owner compensates with a full ox. Gill adds that the dead animal goes entirely to the victim 'because the owner of the vicious ox took no care of him.' Cambridge Bible calls this 'full compensation' for culpable neglect. Barnes notes that the dead ox was worth little more than its hide, since the flesh could not be eaten (see Leviticus 17:1-6). The weight of the commentary tradition is clear: knowledge of risk creates a higher standard of care, and failure to meet that standard carries heavier penalty.
How settled is the interpretation?
Interpretive difficulty: Low
What is clear: An owner who knows his animal is dangerous and fails to restrain it is fully liable for the damage it causes.
What Scholars Agree and Debate
| Topic | Agreed | Debated |
|---|---|---|
| Owner's knowledge and liability | An owner who knew his ox was vicious and did not restrain it bears greater liability than one who did not know. | Some traditions apply this as a strictly civil statute for Israel; others draw a moral principle about negligence that transcends the Old Covenant. |
| Disposal of the dead animal | The dead animal cannot be eaten (Barnes points to Leviticus 17). | Gill and others argue it goes to the victim; Poole seems to assume it goes to the negligent owner as a penalty. The supplied commentaries lean toward the victim. |
| Relation to lex talionis | This verse operates within a framework of proportionate restitution (Exodus 21:23-25). | Christians have debated whether the eye-for-eye principle mandates literal retaliation or serves as a maximum limit for compensation. The context here shows compensation, not corporal punishment. |
| Application to modern civil law | The principle of graduated liability, greater culpability for known risks, is broadly accepted in ethical reasoning. | Christians differ on whether the specific rules (e.g., ox-for-ox) should inform modern legislation or remain a cultural artifact of ancient Israel. |
Historical & Cultural Context
Israel in the late second millennium BC was an agrarian society where livestock represented a family's primary wealth. Oxen pulled plows, threshed grain, and served as currency for sacrifices and trade. To lose an ox was a significant economic blow. The laws in Exodus 21:28-36 address disputes over straying or violent animals, showing God's concern for both human life and property.
The phrase mi.temol shilshom (yesterday and day before yesterday) functioned as a legal idiom for 'habitually known.' It appears in verse 29 for a bull that kills a person, a capital case for the owner. Here, the same idiom shifts to a property-damage scenario, demonstrating a scaled application of the same principle. Ancient Near Eastern law codes (e.g., the Code of Hammurabi) also address goring oxen, but the biblical version uniquely ties the owner's liability to his prior knowledge. This introduces a moral dimension: negligence is evaluated not only by the act but by what the owner could and should have prevented.
The dead animal's flesh could not be eaten (Barnes cites Leviticus 17:1-6 on the requirement to drain blood), so its value was limited to the hide. This made full compensation genuinely costly for the negligent owner, a practical incentive to restrain dangerous animals. The law thus placed concrete responsibility on those who held property that could harm others.
Textual Notes
The supplied commentaries note no significant textual variants for Exodus 21:36. The phrase mi.temol shilshom (yesterday and three days ago) appears similarly in verses 29 and 36, though verse 29 adds that the owner had been warned before an attack on a human. The consonantal text is stable across Hebrew manuscripts.
Reception History
Jewish tradition developed these laws extensively in the Mishnaic tractate Bava Kamma, which grades liability into categories ranging from harmless (beasts that do not gore) to warned (those goring three times). Early Christian writers such as Origen and Augustine saw the civil laws of Moses as preparing a people for Christ, not binding on Gentile believers in the same way. Reformation commentators (Calvin, Luther) emphasized the principle that property carries responsibility to the neighbor. In modern preaching, the passage is often used to teach the importance of proactive care for those under our authority or influence.
Preaching This Verse
Three-point outline
- Knowledge raises the bar. The owner 'knew' the ox had gored before (v.36). Divine justice considers what we know, not just what we do.
- Negligence has a price. Failing to act on known risk carries real consequences, here, full restitution of an ox.
- Restitution restores relationships. The payment does not punish aimlessly; it makes the victim whole and holds the negligent party accountable.
Five-point outline
- Graduated liability in God's law. Compare verse 35 (divided loss for unknown vice) with verse 36 (full compensation for known vice).
- Knowledge without action is guilt. The owner had all the information needed to prevent harm.
- Proportionate justice. The penalty fits the level of fault, not just the harm done.
- Property is a trust. Ownership entails duties to the community, not just rights.
- The dead animal belongs to the victim. Even the minimal value of the carcass goes to the one who lost the ox, a further incentive for owners to be careful.
Illustration hooks
- A neighbor whose dog has bitten before but who still lets it run loose. When it attacks another pet, is he fully responsible?
- A landlord who ignores a broken stair railing. A tenant falls. Does the law treat him differently than if the railing had just broken without warning?
- A driver who knows her brakes are failing but postpones the repair. When an accident happens, should insurance cover it fully?
Questions your congregation is asking
- Does God hold us accountable for things we didn't know, or only for what we knew and ignored?
- How does this ancient law apply to modern cases of negligence, such as unsafe workplaces or defective products?
- If we have harmed someone through carelessness, what does restitution look like in a grace-based community?
Leading a Discussion
This law shows that God's justice is not one-size-fits-all. It distinguishes between accidental harm and harm that results from knowing negligence. As you discuss, consider how knowledge and responsibility work together in your own life and church community.
Discussion questions
- Read Exodus 21:35-36. What is the difference between the two cases? Why does the law treat them differently?
- The Hebrew idiom 'yesterday and the day before' means 'habitually.' Why is it important that the owner knew the ox was dangerous?
- What does this principle of graduated liability tell us about God's character? How does it balance justice and mercy?
- In what areas of modern life do we see a similar distinction between accidental harm and negligence? Is this fair?
- The negligent owner had to pay full compensation and lost the dead animal (v.36). Why was such a strong penalty necessary?
- How does this law challenge the way we view our possessions and responsibilities toward others?
- If someone in your church community has been harmed by another's carelessness, how can they seek both justice and reconciliation?
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 that the owner's liability depends on prior knowledge: if the ox had a history of goring and the owner failed to restrain it, he must pay full compensation, losing his own ox while giving a live one to the injured party. Negligence is the deciding factor.
Gill's Exposition of the Bible Baptist 1748
Gill stresses that an ox owner who knows his animal has a habit of goring and fails to restrain it carries full liability. He must pay ox for ox, and the dead ox goes entirely to the injured party, a stricter penalty for his prior knowledge and neglect.
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 laws form the political foundation of Israel, not a criminal code but a system to train a people for freedom. He notes that the section begins significantly with emancipation laws, and all main points indirectly safeguard personal liberty within the theocracy.