Property Rights
Property Rights
Liability for Loss
“Someone may uncover a cistern or dig one and fail to cover it. If a cow or donkey falls into it, the cistern’s owner must compensate the animal’s owner for its value and then may keep the dead animal.
“If one person’s bull kills another’s, they must sell the living bull and divide the money. They must also divide the dead one. But if it’s known that the bull has a habit of goring but the owner didn’t keep it penned up, the owner must compensate for the dead bull with another bull and then may keep the dead one.”
Image by Pixabay
The next set of covenant stipulations addresses liability for loss or damage to personal property. God expects his people to respect the belongings of others, a principle that follows from the tenth commandment.1 If financial loss results from theft or negligence, appropriate compensation must be made.
The first case study in this group covers negligence that results in the death of an animal. In the example, someone uncovers a cistern or digs a new one without a cover. Cisterns are deep holes used to collect rainwater. If left uncovered, they pose a serious risk of injury or death to anyone who falls into them. If this happened to someone’s animal, the person who left the cistern uncovered had to restore the value of the dead animal as if it were alive so its owner would suffer no loss. But having paid for the animal, the negligent party could then keep it for its meat and hide.
The second case study returns to the example of a goring bull, but this time the bull kills another bull, not a person. Like many male animals, bulls naturally attack other bulls that enter their territory. Such a fight would not necessarily indicate that the surviving bull would kill a person, so it didn’t have to be killed. Instead, the owners of the two animals would split the loss by selling the surviving bull and then dividing both the money and the dead bull. But if the surviving bull was already known to be aggressive, the owner would have to pay full compensation according to the law for negligence.
Theft
“Anyone who steals an animal from the herd or flock and slaughters or sells it must compensate the owner five herd animals for the stolen one or four flock animals for the stolen one. If the thief is caught breaking in and is killed, the person who struck the thief is not guilty of bloodshed. But if it happens after sunrise, the person who struck the thief is guilty of bloodshed.
“A thief must certainly provide compensation. Anyone who cannot compensate for a theft must be sold to pay for it. If what was stolen—whether a cow or donkey or sheep—is found alive in the thief’s possession, the thief must pay double.”
The next case study covers the theft of an animal from the flock or herd, the primary source of income for most Israelites. While liability laws aimed only to compensate the victim for any losses, theft carried punitive fines. If the authorities found the stolen animal in the thief’s possession, they would fine the thief double what was stolen.2 But if the animal was killed or sold, the thief had to pay five animals for a cow and four animals for a sheep or goat. Such a hefty fine could easily bankrupt someone, especially if the thief stole multiple animals.
Under certain circumstances, a thief also risked worse consequences. At night, lower-class families with small flocks often kept them on a lower level of the home.3 Other animals were kept in a shelter or pen and guarded by shepherds. In the dark, someone who caught a thief breaking in might not see a weapon or know the thief’s intentions. So that person would be justified in using deadly force. But during the day, people can see and call for help. So someone who killed a thief after sunrise would be liable for murder.
Another possible consequence of theft occurred if a thief couldn’t pay the required fine. In that case, the thief had to be sold into debt slavery to pay back the victim. The thief would then serve for six years before going free with a chance to start over.4
Damage to Crops
“Someone may allow livestock to graze in a field or vineyard. If a loosed animal grazes in someone else’s field, compensation must be provided from the best of the owner’s own field or vineyard.
“If a fire spreads to thornbushes and consumes sheaves of grain, uncut grain, or a whole field, the person who started the fire must provide full compensation.”
Two more case studies on liability cover negligence that results in the loss of someone else’s crops. The first case involves livestock let loose to graze in the owner’s field. But an animal wanders off into a neighboring field and eats some of the growing crops. In the second case, someone lights a fire that catches in thornbushes, which likely served as a border between fields. The fire consumes the bushes and spreads to a neighboring field, destroying the crops, whether harvested or still growing on the stalk.
In both cases, the penalty was the same. Full compensation had to be made from the best part of the negligent party’s own harvest. But since that person didn’t intend any harm, no additional fine was imposed.
Safekeeping
“Someone may entrust a neighbor with money or other valuables for safekeeping. If it’s stolen from the neighbor’s house and the thief is caught, the thief must pay double. But if the thief is not caught, the homeowner must be brought before God if he hasn’t taken his neighbor’s property.
“For every accusation of theft of a cow, a donkey, a sheep, a cloak, or anything lost—when someone claims to own something in another’s possession—both parties must bring their case to God. The one God condemns must pay the other double.”
Image by OpenClipart-Vectors from Pixabay
The last set of covenant stipulations on property rights covers property lost while in the possession of someone other than the owner. In the first case study, someone asks a neighbor to look after something valuable other than livestock. But a thief breaks into the house and steals the item. If caught, the thief had to pay double the value of the stolen item, the standard penalty for theft.5
If the thief was not caught, the neighbor risked being accused of the theft. But God forbade his people from assuming guilt in such cases. Instead, they had to bring the accused before God, who would judge the case himself.6 He likely rendered judgment through some sign, such as the Urim and Thummim.7 If God declared the neighbor guilty, he would have to pay the fine.
A note on this case applied the same judgment when two parties disputed ownership of an item, this time including livestock. They would both stand before God so he could judge between them. If God condemned the person in possession of the item, that person would pay the double fine for theft. But if God condemned the person claiming the item instead, that person would pay double to the one falsely accused.
Supervising Livestock
“Someone may entrust a neighbor with a donkey, a cow, a sheep, or any other animal for safekeeping. If it dies or is injured or carried off in a raid but no one witnesses it, they will settle the matter with an oath to Yahweh between them that the neighbor didn’t lay a hand on the other’s property. Then the owner will accept the oath, and the neighbor will not have to provide compensation.
“But if the animal is stolen while with the neighbor, the neighbor must compensate the owner. If a wild beast kills the animal, the neighbor can bring the remains as evidence and not have to provide compensation.”
Image by Linda Braine from Creation Swap
The laws for livestock entrusted to another’s care differed from those for other valuables. Supervising someone’s livestock carried additional risks. They couldn’t be kept inside the house, and they could suffer death or injury in addition to being stolen. So God protected the caregiver against unfair accusations.
Normally, if an animal died or was injured or stolen, witnesses could testify about what happened, indicating the caregiver’s guilt or innocence. But if it happened without witnesses, often at night, the owner had to give the caregiver the benefit of the doubt. The caregiver would deny having caused the harm by swearing an oath to Yahweh, and the owner would accept the oath. It would then fall to Yahweh to punish anyone who swore falsely.
Still, God expected the Israelites to protect animals entrusted to them as they would protect their own. If a thief stole the animal while the caregiver was present, the owner was entitled to compensation. The owner could reasonably expect the caregiver would chase off a thief. But if a ferocious beast killed it, the caregiver could bring proof and not owe compensation.
Jacob’s complaint against Laban in Genesis 31:39 reflects these same principles. Jacob cared for Laban’s flock as a hired shepherd. He had to compensate Laban for any theft, no matter the time of day, and even for animals killed by wild animals. Though Jacob and Laban didn’t live under the covenant, Laban’s expectations clearly exceeded standard Near Eastern ethics.
Borrowing Livestock
“If anyone borrows an animal and it is injured or dies while its owner is not with it, the borrower must provide compensation. But if its owner is with it, the borrower won’t have to provide compensation. If it was hired, it’s covered by the fee.”
Image by RENE RAUSCHENBERGER from Pixabay
Someone entrusted with an animal for safekeeping was not held liable for accidental injury or death that occurred while trying to help another. But someone who borrowed an animal for work or for breeding did have to provide compensation for any harm. In each case, the one helping a neighbor assumed the least risk.
Two exceptions would exempt a borrower from having to provide compensation. First, if the animal’s owner was present, then the borrower couldn’t be held responsible for its care. Even though the animal worked for the borrower’s benefit, the owner still controlled it. Second, hiring an animal involved a business transaction instead of a favor. By accepting the fee, the animal’s owner also accepted the associated risks. The borrower would owe nothing more.
- See The Tenth Commandment.
- Paying double may mean returning the stolen animal plus one of the thief’s own. More likely, it means the thief would lose two animals, in addition to returning the stolen one.
- Green, Gospel of Luke, 129; Pritz, Study Notes, Luke 2:7.
- See Debt Slavery.
- See Theft.
- Though often translated “judges” here, the Hebrew word ʾelohim (“God”) doesn’t allow that meaning. The point of the passage is the impossibility of humans judging a case with no evidence. It has to be taken to God.
- Numbers 27:21; 1 Samuel 14:41–42.