Exodus 22:5-15
One source of frequent conflict is over individual property rights. A person who has paid for something naturally and justifiably resents having the property used or damaged by someone who has nothing invested. He didn’t have the building painted to give taggers a place to write, for example. God gave specific guidelines as to how these matters should be handled.
“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.” (Exodus 22:5)
For years, San Juan County was considered a free range area. What that means is that instead of the owners being required to keep their livestock on their property, it is the responsibility of their neighbors to keep them out of their own yards. If they damage your garden or property, the owner is not liable. As a result, many farmers did not bother to maintain their fences. Frequently, drunks would run into homeowners fences and knock them down allowing cattle to get in and destroy peoples yards. It caused a lot of conflict between home owners and cattle owners. This law was established to prevent such conflict. If the owner of the cattle allowed them to get in, he was responsible for replacement of what they destroyed, and with the best replacement available. If a drunk tore down the fence or a fisherman or hunter left the gate open they were responsible for replacement in the same manner.
“If fire break out, and catch in thorns, so that the stacks of corn, or the standing corn, or the field, be consumed therewith; he that kindled the fire shall surely make restitution.” (Exodus 22:6)
If a person started a fire that got out of control and damaged other people’s property, he was responsible for paying for all the damage. That it was an accident was no excuse. His actions caused the other person's loss and it was up to him to make it good.
“If a man shall deliver unto his neighbour money or stuff to keep, and it be stolen out of the man's house; if the thief be found, let him pay double. If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall be brought unto the judges, to see whether he have put his hand unto his neighbour's goods.” (Exodus 22:7-8)
Whether there was a formal contract or not, if a person agreed to keep things for someone else, there was a responsibility to that person. If it turned up missing they were to try to find out who took it. If the thief was caught , he was to pay double, but if he were not they were to check on the person who was supposed to keep it to see if he had taken it. The same laws regarding theft would apply to him if he had.
“For all manner of trespass, whether it be for ox, for ass, for sheep, for raiment, or for any manner of lost thing, which another challengeth to be his, the cause of both parties shall come before the judges; and whom the judges shall condemn, he shall pay double unto his neighbour.” (Exodus 22:9)
Questions about the ownership of disputed items were to be decided by independent judges reviewing the facts of the case, with the invalid claim paying double the price of the item to the rightful owner, who also got to keep the animal. Frivolous lawsuits were effectively discouraged.
“If a man deliver unto his neighbour an ass, or an ox, or a sheep, or any beast, to keep; and it die, or be hurt, or driven away, no man seeing it: Then shall an oath of the LORD be between them both, that he hath not put his hand unto his neighbour's goods; and the owner of it shall accept thereof, and he shall not make it good. And if it be stolen from him, he shall make restitution unto the owner thereof. If it be torn in pieces, then let him bring it for witness, and he shall not make good that which was torn.” (Exodus 22:10-13)
In agreeing to keep livestock for another person, there is an element of risk that is not true for other things. Living things can get hurt, die or run away with no warning or way of preventing it. Unless there was proof to the contrary, it was to be assumed that such events were unavoidable and the owner was to just accept the loss. Part of the responsibility was to prevent theft however, and if the livestock were stolen he had failed to perform his duty and was liable. If evidence was found to show what happened it was to be made available.
“And if a man borrow ought of his neighbour, and it be hurt, or die, the owner thereof being not with it, he shall surely make it good. But if the owner thereof be with it, he shall not make it good: if it be an hired thing, it came for his hire.” (Exodus 22:14-15)
It is amazing how many people feel no sense of responsibility to return things they borrow. If a person borrowed something, he was responsible to return it in the same state as when he received it or repair or replace it. If the owner went along to operate it, it was the owner’s responsibility, rather than the borrower’s. Think how many lawsuits would be eliminated if our laws were as straight forward and clear as these. Lawyers need complex and confusing laws to prosper, and the more the better. In the future, the Jews would greatly amplify God’s initial laws, giving rise to legal profession. By Jesus' day, their additions to the law would require a book more than twice the size of the entire Bible to accomplish what God had done with these few simple laws.
One source of frequent conflict is over individual property rights. A person who has paid for something naturally and justifiably resents having the property used or damaged by someone who has nothing invested. He didn’t have the building painted to give taggers a place to write, for example. God gave specific guidelines as to how these matters should be handled.
“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.” (Exodus 22:5)
For years, San Juan County was considered a free range area. What that means is that instead of the owners being required to keep their livestock on their property, it is the responsibility of their neighbors to keep them out of their own yards. If they damage your garden or property, the owner is not liable. As a result, many farmers did not bother to maintain their fences. Frequently, drunks would run into homeowners fences and knock them down allowing cattle to get in and destroy peoples yards. It caused a lot of conflict between home owners and cattle owners. This law was established to prevent such conflict. If the owner of the cattle allowed them to get in, he was responsible for replacement of what they destroyed, and with the best replacement available. If a drunk tore down the fence or a fisherman or hunter left the gate open they were responsible for replacement in the same manner.
“If fire break out, and catch in thorns, so that the stacks of corn, or the standing corn, or the field, be consumed therewith; he that kindled the fire shall surely make restitution.” (Exodus 22:6)
If a person started a fire that got out of control and damaged other people’s property, he was responsible for paying for all the damage. That it was an accident was no excuse. His actions caused the other person's loss and it was up to him to make it good.
“If a man shall deliver unto his neighbour money or stuff to keep, and it be stolen out of the man's house; if the thief be found, let him pay double. If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall be brought unto the judges, to see whether he have put his hand unto his neighbour's goods.” (Exodus 22:7-8)
Whether there was a formal contract or not, if a person agreed to keep things for someone else, there was a responsibility to that person. If it turned up missing they were to try to find out who took it. If the thief was caught , he was to pay double, but if he were not they were to check on the person who was supposed to keep it to see if he had taken it. The same laws regarding theft would apply to him if he had.
“For all manner of trespass, whether it be for ox, for ass, for sheep, for raiment, or for any manner of lost thing, which another challengeth to be his, the cause of both parties shall come before the judges; and whom the judges shall condemn, he shall pay double unto his neighbour.” (Exodus 22:9)
Questions about the ownership of disputed items were to be decided by independent judges reviewing the facts of the case, with the invalid claim paying double the price of the item to the rightful owner, who also got to keep the animal. Frivolous lawsuits were effectively discouraged.
“If a man deliver unto his neighbour an ass, or an ox, or a sheep, or any beast, to keep; and it die, or be hurt, or driven away, no man seeing it: Then shall an oath of the LORD be between them both, that he hath not put his hand unto his neighbour's goods; and the owner of it shall accept thereof, and he shall not make it good. And if it be stolen from him, he shall make restitution unto the owner thereof. If it be torn in pieces, then let him bring it for witness, and he shall not make good that which was torn.” (Exodus 22:10-13)
In agreeing to keep livestock for another person, there is an element of risk that is not true for other things. Living things can get hurt, die or run away with no warning or way of preventing it. Unless there was proof to the contrary, it was to be assumed that such events were unavoidable and the owner was to just accept the loss. Part of the responsibility was to prevent theft however, and if the livestock were stolen he had failed to perform his duty and was liable. If evidence was found to show what happened it was to be made available.
“And if a man borrow ought of his neighbour, and it be hurt, or die, the owner thereof being not with it, he shall surely make it good. But if the owner thereof be with it, he shall not make it good: if it be an hired thing, it came for his hire.” (Exodus 22:14-15)
It is amazing how many people feel no sense of responsibility to return things they borrow. If a person borrowed something, he was responsible to return it in the same state as when he received it or repair or replace it. If the owner went along to operate it, it was the owner’s responsibility, rather than the borrower’s. Think how many lawsuits would be eliminated if our laws were as straight forward and clear as these. Lawyers need complex and confusing laws to prosper, and the more the better. In the future, the Jews would greatly amplify God’s initial laws, giving rise to legal profession. By Jesus' day, their additions to the law would require a book more than twice the size of the entire Bible to accomplish what God had done with these few simple laws.
No comments:
Post a Comment