Exodus 22:5 stands within the Covenant Code (Exodus 20:22–23:33), a body of case law given by Jehovah to Israel shortly after the Exodus of 1446 B.C.E. The statute addresses civil liability in agricultural settings, particularly the responsibility of a livestock owner whose animals damage another man’s cultivated property. The verse is preserved in the Masoretic Text with clarity and precision, and its textual transmission demonstrates stability across manuscript traditions, with minor expansions in some witnesses that do not undermine the essential reading.

The Masoretic Text reads in part: מֵיטַב שָׂדֵהוּ וּמֵיטַב כַּרְמוֹ (“from the best of his field and from the best of his vineyard”). This clause functions as the climactic legal requirement: restitution must not merely equal the damage in quantity but must be drawn from the offender’s best produce.

The Updated American Standard Version renders the verse:

“If a man causes a field or a vineyard to be grazed over, or he does send out his beasts and so that it grazes in another field, he shall make restitution from the best of his own field and the best of his own vineyard.”

This translation reflects the Hebrew syntax faithfully and preserves the judicial force of the statute.

Hebrew Text and Grammatical Analysis

The legal protasis begins with a conditional clause introduced by כִּי, “If.” The verbal construction וְשִׁלַּח (“and he sends out”) derives from שָׁלַח, “to send,” here in the Piel stem, conveying deliberate action. The expression וּבִעֵר בִּשְׂדֵה אַחֵר (“and it grazes in another field”) employs בָּעַר in the Piel, a verb often meaning “to consume” or “to burn,” but in agricultural contexts referring to animals consuming vegetation. The imagery is vivid: the animals “burn up” the field by devouring it.

The apodosis contains the imperfect יְשַׁלֵּם (“he shall make restitution”), expressing mandatory legal obligation. The object phrase מֵיטַב שָׂדֵהוּ וּמֵיטַב כַּרְמוֹ specifies the quality of the compensation. The term מֵיטַב (“from the best”) is a construct form from טוֹב, “good,” intensified by context to denote the choicest produce. The double repetition—field and vineyard—ensures comprehensive application to Israel’s primary agricultural resources.

The Hebrew is concise, juridical, and internally coherent. No syntactical irregularity exists that would necessitate emendation.

The Masoretic Text as the Base

The Masoretic Text, as preserved in Codex Leningrad B 19A and corroborated substantially by the Aleppo Codex, provides a stable and complete reading of Exodus 22:5. The Masoretes preserved the consonantal text inherited from earlier scribal traditions and added the vocalization system between the 6th and 10th centuries C.E. Their meticulous counting and marginal notes prevented corruption of legal passages such as this one.

The clause “from the best of his field and from the best of his vineyard” is firmly attested in the MT and presents no internal contradiction. The legal principle is proportionate restitution drawn from the offender’s superior produce.

The Dead Sea Scrolls Evidence

Fragments of Exodus among the Dead Sea Scrolls (e.g., 4QExod manuscripts) attest to the antiquity of the Masoretic tradition. The Qumran textual tradition often aligns closely with the proto-Masoretic text. In Exodus 22:5, certain DSS manuscripts, along with the Septuagint and Samaritan Pentateuch, contain an expanded reading that appears to precede the final clause.

The additional wording may be summarized as: “from his field according to his produce. But if he lets his animals graze an entire field, he will pay compensation,” followed by the standard MT clause.

This expansion is explanatory in nature. It clarifies two scenarios: partial damage proportional to produce and complete devastation requiring full restitution. However, the Masoretic Text already conveys sufficient legal force without the expansion. The shorter reading reflects the more concise legal formulation typical of Mosaic case law.

Textual criticism recognizes that expansions often arise in the transmission history as scribes incorporate explanatory glosses into the main text. The expanded wording reflects interpretive amplification rather than original composition.

The Septuagint Reading

The Septuagint (LXX) renders the verse: “If anyone should feed his cattle in a field or a vineyard…” This translation smooths the Hebrew idiom. The Greek translator interprets בִּעֵר as simple feeding rather than retaining the stronger sense of destructive consumption.

The LXX also includes the expanded material similar to the DSS and Samaritan Pentateuch. This indicates that the Greek translator worked from a Hebrew Vorlage that contained the longer reading or that explanatory glosses had already entered certain Hebrew textual streams prior to translation.

Nevertheless, the LXX’s expansion does not invalidate the Masoretic reading. The shorter MT reading maintains legal clarity and internal completeness. The LXX often harmonizes and explicates legal material, and its value lies in confirming the antiquity of the core legal principle, not in superseding the Hebrew base text.

The Samaritan Pentateuch

The Samaritan Pentateuch likewise includes the expanded clause. The Samaritan textual tradition frequently exhibits harmonizing tendencies, particularly within legal sections. Additions that clarify procedure or parallel adjacent laws are characteristic of that tradition.

In this case, the Samaritan reading parallels the expanded DSS and LXX tradition. Its agreement demonstrates the existence of a longer textual stream in antiquity. However, textual antiquity alone does not determine originality. Internal evidence favors the Masoretic brevity. The expansion reads like a clarifying gloss integrated into the text.

The Principle of the Shorter Reading

Within sound textual criticism, the shorter reading is often preferable when the longer reading appears explanatory or harmonizing. The Masoretic Text’s concise form aligns with the style of surrounding casuistic laws. The expanded form elaborates what is already implied.

The MT states that restitution must come from “the best.” This implicitly covers both partial and total damage scenarios. The expanded wording spells out what the MT leaves legally understood. Therefore, the Masoretic reading is not deficient; it reflects the original juridical succinctness.

Legal and Theological Implications

The statute enforces personal responsibility. A livestock owner cannot excuse himself by claiming lack of intent. The phrase “he sends out his beasts” indicates negligence or deliberate action. Liability attaches to the owner.

Restitution from “the best” ensures that the injured party receives fair and honorable compensation. The law discourages carelessness by requiring the offender to give superior produce. This aligns with the broader legal framework of Exodus 21–23, which consistently mandates equitable restoration rather than punitive excess.

The text does not reflect evolving legal layers but a coherent covenantal law code delivered in the 15th century B.C.E. Its preservation in stable textual form demonstrates faithful transmission through Israel’s scribal tradition.

Textual Transmission and Stability

The convergence of the Masoretic Text, Dead Sea Scroll fragments, Septuagint, and Samaritan Pentateuch confirms the antiquity of Exodus 22:5. The core elements are identical across traditions: grazing damage, owner responsibility, and restitution from superior produce.

The variation consists of explanatory expansion, not contradiction. The Masoretic Text remains the most carefully preserved and textually controlled tradition. The expansion attested in DSS, LXX, and Samaritan manuscripts represents a secondary development within certain textual streams.

This phenomenon illustrates preservation through transmission rather than miraculous immunity from scribal activity. Minor expansions occurred, yet the essential content and legal force remained intact across centuries.

Conclusion

Exodus 22:5 in the Masoretic Text presents a clear and internally coherent legal statute requiring restitution for agricultural damage caused by livestock. The Hebrew grammar is precise, the legal logic is complete, and the textual attestation is strong.

The expanded reading found in some Dead Sea Scroll manuscripts, the Septuagint, and the Samaritan Pentateuch reflects interpretive clarification rather than original composition. The shorter Masoretic form aligns with the stylistic brevity of Mosaic case law and stands as the preferred base text.

The verse demonstrates the integrity of the Hebrew textual tradition and confirms that careful scribal transmission preserved the covenantal laws delivered to Israel in 1446 B.C.E. Sound textual criticism supports confidence in the Masoretic reading without resorting to conjectural emendation or speculative reconstruction.

You May Also Enjoy

Understanding the Masora: Notations in the Masoretic Text and their Significance

See more

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS