Keluaran 22:9-12

22:9 In all cases of illegal possessions, ¹  whether for an ox, a donkey, a sheep, a garment, or any kind of lost item, about which someone says ‘This belongs to me,’ ²  the matter of the two of them will come before the judges, ³  and the one whom ⁴  the judges declare guilty ⁵  must repay double to his neighbor. 22:10 If a man gives his neighbor a donkey or an ox or a sheep or any beast to keep, and it dies or is hurt ⁶  or is carried away ⁷  without anyone seeing it, ⁸  22:11 then there will be an oath to the Lord ⁹  between the two of them, that he has not laid his hand on his neighbor’s goods, and its owner will accept this, and he will not have to pay. 22:12 But if it was stolen ¹⁰  from him, ¹¹  he will pay its owner.

[22:9]  ¹ tn Heb “concerning every kind [thing] of trespass.”

[22:9]  ² tn The text simply has “this is it” (הוּא זֶה, hu’ zeh).

[22:9]  ³ tn Again, or “God.”

[22:9]  ⁴ tn This kind of clause Gesenius calls an independent relative clause – it does not depend on a governing substantive but itself expresses a substantival idea (GKC 445-46 §138.e).

[22:9]  ⁵ tn The verb means “to be guilty” in Qal; in Hiphil it would have a declarative sense, because a causative sense would not possibly fit.

[22:10]  ⁶ tn The form is a Niphal participle from the verb “to break” – “is broken,” which means harmed, maimed, or hurt in any way.

[22:10]  ⁷ tn This verb is frequently used with the meaning “to take captive.” The idea here then is that raiders or robbers have carried off the animal.

[22:10]  ⁸ tn Heb “there is no one seeing.”

[22:11]  ⁹ tn The construct relationship שְׁבֻעַת יְהוָה (shÿvu’at yÿhvah, “the oath of Yahweh”) would require a genitive of indirect object, “an oath [to] Yahweh.” U. Cassuto suggests that it means “an oath by Yahweh” (Exodus, 287). The person to whom the animal was entrusted would take a solemn oath to Yahweh that he did not appropriate the animal for himself, and then his word would be accepted.

[22:12]  ¹⁰ tn Both with this verb “stolen” and in the next clauses with “torn in pieces,” the text uses the infinitive absolute construction with less than normal emphasis; as Gesenius says, in conditional clauses, an infinitive absolute stresses the importance of the condition on which some consequence depends (GKC 342-43 §113.o).

[22:12]  ¹¹ sn The point is that the man should have taken better care of the animal.