Exodus 22:5 · Bible study
Exodus 22:5 Commentary: Repaying the Best for Another's Loss
Hebrew · 9 what the commentators say
Meaning in one sentence
Why demand restitution from the best of your field for accidental damage? Exodus 22:5 reveals God's care for property, justice, and neighbor.
Research Summary
- Meaning: An owner whose stray animal grazes another’s field must pay from the best of his own produce.
- Key words: “causes to be eaten” and “lets loose”, the verbs imply permission or neglect, not direct theft.
- Main debate: Whether the original Hebrew referred to grazing or to fire (burning), and whether the “best” represents double compensation or simple full restitution.
- Theological theme: God holds people accountable for unintended harm because property and community matter to Him.
- Best use: Teaching on responsibility, restoration, and God’s care for economic justice in daily life.
Translation Comparison
BSB Berean Standard Bible 2020
If a man grazes his livestock in a field or vineyard and allows them to stray so that they graze in someone else’s field, he must make restitution from the best of his own field or vineyard.
WEB World English Bible 2000
“If a man causes a field or vineyard to be eaten by letting his animal loose, and it grazes in another man’s field, he shall make restitution from the best of his own field, and from the best of his own vineyard.
KJV King James Version 1769
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.
ASV American Standard Version 1901
If a man shall cause a field or vineyard to be eaten, and shall let his beast loose, and it 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.
YLT Young's Literal Translation 1898
`When a man depastureth a field or vineyard, and hath sent out his beast, and it hath pastured in the field of another, of the best of his field, and the best of his vineyard, he doth repay.
Darby Darby Bible 1890
If a man shall cause a field or vineyard to be eaten, and put in his cattle, and pasture in another man's field, of the best of his own field, and of the best of his own vineyard shall he make [it] good.
Douay-Rheims Douay-Rheims Bible 1899
If any man hurt a field or a vineyard, and put in his beast to feed upon that which is other men's: he shall restore the best of whatsoever he hath in his own field, or in his vineyard, according to the estimation of the damage.
Translations in other languages (10 available)
Si alguno hiciere pacer campo ó viña, y metiere su bestia, y comiere la tierra de otro, de lo mejor de su tierra y de lo mejor de su viña pagará.
Se alguém fizer pastar campo ou vinha, e meter seu animal, e comer a terra de outro, do melhor de sua terra e do melhor de sua vinha pagará.
Si un homme fait du dégât dans un champ ou dans une vigne, et qu’ il laisse son bétail paître dans le champ d’autrui, il donnera en dédommagement le meilleur produit de son champ et de sa vigne.
[22:4] Wenn jemand einen Acker oder Weinberg beschädigt, daß er sein Vieh läßt Schaden tun in eines andern Acker, der soll von dem Besten auf seinem Acker und Weinberg wiedererstatten.
Wanneer iemand een veld, of een wijngaard laat afweiden, en hij zijn beest daarin drijft, dat het in eens anders veld weidt, die zal het van het beste zijns velds en van het beste zijns wijngaards wedergeven.
Se uno arrecherà de’ danni a un campo altrui o ad una vigna, lasciando andare le sue bestie a pascere nel campo altrui risarcirà il danno col meglio del suo campo e col meglio della sua vigna.
Gdyby wypasł kto pole, albo winnicę, i puściłby bydlę swoje, aby się pasło na polu cudzem: z najlepszego urodzaju pola swego, i z najlepszego urodzaju winnicy swej nagrodzi.
Если кто потравит поле, или виноградник, пустив скот свой травить чужое поле, [смотря по плодам его пусть заплатит со своего поля; а если потравит всё поле,] пусть вознаградит лучшим из поля своего и лучшим из виноградника своего.
「人 若 在田 間或 在葡萄園 裡放牲畜，任憑 牲畜 上別人 的田裡 去吃，就必拿自己田 間上好的 和葡萄園 上好的 賠還。
If a man makes a fire in a field or a vine-garden, and lets the fire do damage to another man's field, he is to give of the best produce of his field or his vine-garden to make up for it.
Verse in Context
Scholars' Consensus
Commentators agree the law addresses damage caused not by deliberate malice but by carelessness. Keil and Delitzsch note that shilléach means "to let loose, set at liberty", a failure to restrain an animal, not a plan to destroy another's field. The owner remains responsible even for unintended consequences. The restitution "from the best" (from the Hebrew meytab) puts the burden on the offender to give high-quality produce. Gill explains Jewish law applied this rule to any garden or orchard, and that paying with the best was meant to make the owner careful in future. Matthew Henry adds that the punishment teaches that fraud and injustice impoverish the wrongdoer. All see the principle of full compensation for one's property causing loss, grounded in God's respect for a neighbor's livelihood.
How settled is the interpretation?
Interpretive difficulty: Medium
Main views:
- Negligence interpretation: The owner carelessly allows livestock to stray; the law holds him liable for unintended damage, requiring compensation from the best of his field. Supported by Keil & Delitzsch, Gill, and most Jewish commentators.
- Wilful trespass interpretation (Calvin): Calvin argues the act of “putting in his beast” amounts to theft because the owner used the animal as an instrument of fraud; double compensation is warranted as a punishment.
- Burn interpretation (Cambridge Bible): The Hebrew verbs more commonly mean “burn” than “eat,” so the law may address accidental fire spreading from field-burning, which explains why the offender pays from the best—the entire crop is hopelessly destroyed.
What is clear: God requires an owner whose property or actions cause loss to a neighbor to restore that loss generously, even when the damage was not intended.
What Scholars Agree and Debate
| Topic | Agreed | Debated |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the damage is intentional or accidental | All agree the owner acts carelessly by letting the animal loose, and the damage is not premeditated theft. | Calvin treats it as a form of theft (the intent to use the animal to graze another's field), while Keil & Delitzsch and others emphasize non-intentional negligence. |
| Meaning of “from the best” (meytab) | All agree on full compensation from the offender's highest-quality produce. | Calvin views “best” as a valuation that yields double compensation; Jewish tradition and most modern commentators see it as simple replacement in kind but from premium goods. |
| Original verb: “graze” or “burn” | The standard reading is that livestock eat the field; both interpretations agree the law covers property damage. | Cambridge Bible and others propose the verb meant “burn,” referring to accidental fire from stubble-clearing, a common hazard in ancient Palestine. |
| Whether the law is mandatory or a model | It is a binding case law for ancient Israel, reflecting God’s justice. | Jewish tradition integrated it into the Mishnah as halakha; Christian traditions usually see the principle as morally instructive but not a civil statute for today. |
Historical & Cultural Context
Ancient Israelite life was built around field and vineyard, the family's food and income. Flocks and herds moved through unfenced common lands, but personal fields were bounded by stone piles or thorn hedges. Straying livestock could quickly ruin a season's crop. This verse belongs to the Book of the Covenant (Exodus 21, 23), a collection of case laws governing everyday disputes. The surrounding laws cover theft, property damage, and bodily harm, showing God's concern for order in a newly formed nation.
Unlike modern legal systems that distinguish negligence from strict liability, Israelite law often held an owner responsible for his animal's actions. The animal itself was part of the household, and the owner had both the duty and the means to control it. The requirement to give "the best" (the fullest and finest produce) went beyond simple replacement. Jewish commentators developed this into a broader principle: "he who does damage pays from the best of the earth." This ensured the victim received not just any substitute but something that fully matched or exceeded what was lost.
Some scholars, including the Cambridge Bible, propose the Hebrew verb could also mean "burn" rather than "graze." They suggest the law may have originally addressed damage from fire spreading during stubble-clearing, a common practice in dry Palestinian summers. If so, the "best" compensation makes even more sense: fire can destroy the entire crop with no chance to judge quality, so the neighbor is entitled to premium restitution. Whether grazing or burning, the law holds the offender accountable and protects the vulnerable landowner from economic disaster.
Textual Notes
The supplied sources note that the Septuagint and Samaritan Pentateuch expand this verse by adding a clause: “he shall make it good from his field according to its produce; but if it eats the whole field, from the best of his own field.” The Cambridge Bible considers this an interpolation, arguing it does not form a logical contrast. The Hebrew text used in the Masoretic tradition, which underlies most English translations, does not include this addition. There is also a text-critical proposal that the original verb meant “burn” rather than “graze,” based on usage elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, but this remains a minority view and does not affect the basic import of the law.
Reception History
Jewish tradition incorporated this law into the larger framework of torts. The Mishnah (Bava Kama) applies the principle that one who causes damage through animals pays from the “best of the land.” Rabbinic commentators saw the severity as a deterrent. In Christian history, the verse was read as evidence that God cares about economic fairness and neighborly responsibility. John Calvin used it to argue that even unintentional wrongs are serious and require material restitution. Matthew Henry saw in it a lesson that unjust gain will consume a person’s own wealth. Modern readers often focus on the principle of making things right beyond the minimum, a pattern they connect to the gospel’s call to abundant restoration.
Preaching This Verse
Three-point outline
- Carelessness carries cost. God does not treat unintended harm as harmless. The owner who lets his animal stray must pay, because real loss happened to a real neighbor.
- Full restitution reflects God's justice. Giving the best, not the leftovers, reveals a God who restores what is broken. His justice aims to heal, not just punish.
- Our property is not truly ours. We are stewards. What we own can be used for good or harm. The law calls us to manage so that others are not diminished.
Five-point outline
- The law assumes community. Fields adjoin; lives overlap. No one lives alone. Our choices affect others.
- Responsibility begins before the damage. The owner should have kept the animal contained. Prevention is better than compensation.
- Paying the best is a mark of repentance. It costs the offender more than the victim lost. That extra cost says, "I am sorry for the harm I caused."
- The standard is high, but it is for protection. God knew that a poor family could not survive the loss of a harvest. The law protects the vulnerable from the carelessness of the strong.
- Christ fulfills this principle. Jesus restores not just what was lost but gives abundant blessing. The cross goes beyond restitution to reconciliation.
Illustration hooks
- A neighbor's dog digs up a flowerbed that took years to cultivate. The dog's owner offers to replant with better plants than were there before. The extra effort mends the relationship.
- A farmer burns stubble on a windy day. The fire jumps the road and burns a neighbor's wheat field. He loses his own crop to pay back the neighbor's best yield.
- A borrowed tool is broken through careless use. The borrower gives a new, better tool, not just because he must, but because he values the friendship.
Questions your congregation is asking
- If I accidentally damage someone's property, is it enough to say sorry, or does God expect me to make it right materially?
- Does this Old Testament law apply today, or was it only for Israel under the covenant?
- How far should I go to make restitution? Does the “best” standard mean I have to give more than what I damaged?
Leading a Discussion
This law sits in a collection of everyday rules that show God cares about how we treat one another's stuff. When a neighbor loses a crop because of your stray animal, the relationship sours. God provides a way to restore both the field and the peace. As you discuss, think about your own responsibilities for unintended harm.
Discussion questions
- What kind of damage is described in this verse? Who is at fault, and is the intention malicious?
- Why does the law require compensation “from the best” of the offender’s field? What does that tell you about God’s standard of justice?
- Read Exodus 22:3 and 21:34. How do these parallel laws treat accidents? What pattern do you see?
- Calvin ranked this offense “among thefts.” Do you agree? How is carelessness different from stealing?
- In your life, where might you be causing harm without meaning to? What would it look like to make things right “from the best”?
- How does this law shape your view of God? Does He seem demanding, or protective of the vulnerable?
- How does Jesus’ teaching about turning the other cheek (Matthew 5:38, 42) relate to this principle of restitution? Is it the same, or different?
Cross-References
Source: Treasury of Scripture Knowledge (TSK, public domain)
| Exodus 21:34 | the owner of the pit shall make it good. He shall give money to its owner, and the dead animal shall be his. |
| Exodus 22:3 | If the sun has risen on him, he is guilty of bloodshed. He shall make restitution. If he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. |
| Exodus 22:12 | But if it is stolen from him, the one who stole shall make restitution to its owner. |
| Job 20:18 | He will restore that for which he labored, and will not swallow it down. He will not rejoice according to the substance that he has gotten. |
Cross-reference data from OpenBible.info (CC BY 4.0). Commentaries are public domain.
For personal reflection
Read the devotional page — prayer, application, and "for families"
What the Commentators Say
9 public-domain commentaries, condensed into plain language.
Barnes' Notes on the Bible Protestant 1832
Barnes offers a translation correction here, arguing that the phrase should be read as "shall let his beast go loose" rather than "shall put in his beast." The emphasis falls on releasing the animal to graze freely, not on confining it.
Calvin's Commentaries Reformed 1564
Calvin treats the case as theft even when the owner uses an animal or servant to do the harm; the guilt lies with the one who caused the damage indirectly. He limits the penalty to double compensation because proving deliberate fraud is difficult, but he insists the restitution must match the field's highest probable yield.
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges Anglican 1880
The Cambridge Bible School editors argue the original text likely described fire spreading from a field burned to clear stubble, not cattle grazing in a neighbor's field. This reading explains why the careless owner must pay from the best of his own field: fire damage is severe and spreads rapidly in Palestine's dry summers.
Geneva Bible Notes Reformed 1599
The Geneva note stresses that restitution for letting an animal graze in another's field must come from the best of the offender's own produce, not from any inferior portion. This principle demands full and fair compensation by requiring the offending party to bear the highest cost of replacement.
Gill's Exposition of the Bible Baptist 1748
Gill notes two ways a beast can damage a neighbor's field: by trampling the crops underfoot or by eating them. The law requires restitution with the best of the offender's own field or vineyard, even if that produce is better than what was lost, a rule meant to make owners more careful.
Keil & Delitzsch OT Commentary Protestant 1876
Keil and Delitzsch stress that this law deals with careless, not intentional, damage. The Hebrew word for letting an animal loose implies negligence, not deliberately driving it into another's field. The guilty party must still pay full compensation from the best of his own field or vineyard.
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.
Matthew Henry's Commentary Reformed/Presbyterian 1710
Henry highlights a key principle in this law: injustice not only fails to enrich but actually impoverishes the thief. He notes that the higher restitution for a stolen ox, five oxen for one, reflects the owner's loss of the animal's daily labor, a loss not applicable to a sheep.
Wesley's Explanatory Notes Methodist/Wesleyan 1754
Wesley highlights the strict Old Testament rule that a man whose cattle trespassed into a neighbor's field had to repay from the best of his own herd. This principle, he notes, taught that restitution must be generous and that owners were responsible to keep their animals from causing harm.