Keluaran 22:9

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.

Keluaran 22:12

22:12 But if it was stolen ⁶  from him, ⁷  he will pay its owner.

Keluaran 21:33-34

21:33 “If a man opens a pit or if a man digs a pit and does not cover it, and an ox or a donkey falls into it, 21:34 the owner of the pit must repay ⁸  the loss. He must give money ⁹  to its owner, and the dead animal ¹⁰  will become his.

[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.

[22:12]  ⁶ 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]  ⁷ sn The point is that the man should have taken better care of the animal.

[21:34]  ⁸ tn The verb is a Piel imperfect from שָׁלַם (shalam); it has the idea of making payment in full, making recompense, repaying. These imperfects could be given a future tense translation as imperfects of instruction, but in the property cases an obligatory imperfect fits better – this is what he is bound or obliged to do – what he must do.

[21:34]  ⁹ tn Heb “silver.”

[21:34]  ¹⁰ tn Here the term “animal” has been supplied.