We should keep in mind that this summary of case law is not meant to be a compendium, but a sample of rulings that would indicate something of how God as sovereign views justice. These rulings indicate the moral character of God. Thus, a wise heart could extrapolate a great deal from this sampling of decisions. This is how God expects His people to treat each other. These rulings assume that the people involved are kinfolks.
If someone steals livestock, and it can be proved, the thief owes the original owner four sheep for one, or five oxen for one. How he pays that is another matter; he owes it. Thieves typically broke in by digging through a wall, either of clay and lath, or of mud over stones. Doing so at night, the thief is fair game if he is killed by the panicked residents defending themselves in darkness. However, being caught in daylight, it’s more reasonable to expect folks to wrestle and take him into custody. If they fail, they should have at least a good chance of identifying him. Once caught, he has to repay whatever the value of what was taken. If he is poor, he can be sold on a servant bond to repay the debt.
If what he stole was an animal, and it is found alive in his custody, he shall repay double. This is rather like our modern “grand theft” in that animals were typically the most valuable things people owned in that day and time, in terms of how it useful it was in keeping them alive. We get the image that it’s only slightly less valuable than a human. They weren’t as accountable as humans, but still pretty valuable. So anyone who fails to control his livestock, so that they graze someone else’s crops, shall repay with the best of his own crops. This implies that the victim gets to choose what pleases him in like amount, one for one value.
It was common in those days to burn the stubble of a harvested field. Most fields were separated from each other by piled stones pulled from the fields, in which thorns and other things grew wild. Since harvest was a dry season, this weed patch would also be dry, and might catch fire and spread to someone else’s field. If the adjacent field still had unharvested crops, or the harvest is still stacked in the field, it could be a disaster for the neighbor. Whomever started this fire without keeping it under control is liable for the loss.
There were no safe deposit boxes in those days. It was a common courtesy to accept your neighbor’s valuables for safe keeping when the owner had to be away from home for a while. Anyone paying attention to the affairs of their neighbors, as cousins typically did, would know about such deposits. It might tempt a thief to try stealing it, since it’s all neatly packed. If caught, the thief has to pay double, on the principle that his act was predatory, not just a crime of opportunity. If the thief isn’t caught, the two shall appear before the local judge, who will try to make sure whether the trustee had any involvement in the crime. For example, did he make it easy for the thief by pretending he knew nothing about it?
For something like this involving trust and fraud, the standard ruling was to repay double. Again, it was a predatory crime. However, property with feet to move on its own was a different story. Domestic animals can wander off, get eaten, or frightened and run away. In such cases, the trustee can make an oath before God of his innocence. This is essentially calling a conditional curse down upon oneself. With such an oath, the victim of loss is restricted from seeking any further redress. That kind of stuff could have happened while the animal was still in his own custody.
But if this animal was actually stolen, implying that there is some evidence the trustee didn’t take reasonable care to guard against such theft, then he has to repay the value of the animal. If he can prove the animal was killed by a natural predator (dogs, lions and bears did roam Palestine)then the trustee was not accountable. The victim would have to “blame” God in that case.
Borrowing an animal, typically for plowing or bearing some other load, made the borrower liable for the animal’s health and safety. If the owner of the animal came along, this implies the owner was being paid for it. Any losses for a hired animal were the owner’s problem, but he also need not come up with another animal to fulfill the contract.
All of this makes good sense for kinfolks dealing with each other. It all assumes that these people care about each other’s welfare, and aren’t looking for an excuse to exploit each other. It also deals with the reality that your own blood kin may not be the finest people in this fallen world.
A thought on this: stealing between family members “feels” to me (as a modern guy) not as serious as stealing from complete strangers, or even local people, like a shop proprietor. But back then it might have felt much more grave, because there was supposed to be much more trust between blood, and these laws dealt with the theft of major resources, not like a video game or a t-shirt. The livestock seems like they were “owned” much more by the family than by individual, but were overseen by a one or a few individuals. If this were more or less true, theft would be an offense against the family that benefit from the livestock but also against the livestock caretakers.
You got it, Jay. This wasn’t petty squabbling over toys, but threats to family livelihood.