share torah logo

Exodus 22:4 - Best for best: restitution's divine justice

Exodus 22:4 - שמות 22:4

Hebrew Text

כִּי יַבְעֶר־אִישׁ שָׂדֶה אוֹ־כֶרֶם וְשִׁלַּח אֶת־בעירה [בְּעִירוֹ] וּבִעֵר בִּשְׂדֵה אַחֵר מֵיטַב שָׂדֵהוּ וּמֵיטַב כַּרְמוֹ יְשַׁלֵּם׃

English Translation

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 field, and of the best of his vineyard, shall he make restitution

Transliteration

Ki yav'er-ish sadeh o-kherem v'shilach et-be'iro uvi'er bisdeh acher meitav sadeihu umeitav karmo yeshalem.

Hebrew Leining Text

כִּ֤י יַבְעֶר־אִישׁ֙ שָׂדֶ֣ה אוֹ־כֶ֔רֶם וְשִׁלַּח֙ אֶת־<span class="mam-kq-trivial">בְּעִירֹ֔ה</span> וּבִעֵ֖ר בִּשְׂדֵ֣ה אַחֵ֑ר מֵיטַ֥ב שָׂדֵ֛הוּ וּמֵיטַ֥ב כַּרְמ֖וֹ יְשַׁלֵּֽם׃ <span class="mam-spi-samekh">{ס}</span>        
כִּ֤י יַבְעֶר־אִישׁ֙ שָׂדֶ֣ה אוֹ־כֶ֔רֶם וְשִׁלַּח֙ אֶת־בְּעִירֹ֔ה וּבִעֵ֖ר בִּשְׂדֵ֣ה אַחֵ֑ר מֵיטַ֥ב שָׂדֵ֛הוּ וּמֵיטַ֥ב כַּרְמ֖וֹ יְשַׁלֵּֽם׃ {ס}        

🎵 Listen to leining

Parasha Commentary

Parshat Mishpatim: The Laws of Damage by Grazing

The verse (Exodus 22:4) discusses the case where a person allows his animal to graze in another's field or vineyard, causing damage. The Torah mandates that the responsible party must compensate the owner from "the best of his field and the best of his vineyard." This law falls under the category of nezek (damages) in Jewish civil law.

Rashi's Explanation

Rashi (Exodus 22:4) clarifies that the phrase "מֵיטַב שָׂדֵהוּ וּמֵיטַב כַּרְמוֹ" ("the best of his field and the best of his vineyard") means the responsible party must compensate with the highest-quality produce, not inferior crops. This ensures fair restitution for the damaged party.

Halachic Principles in the Talmud

  • Bava Kamma 6a: The Mishnah establishes that this law applies to both intentional and unintentional grazing. Even if the animal wandered on its own, the owner is liable if he was negligent in guarding it.
  • Rambam (Hilchot Nizkei Mammon 1:1): The obligation to pay from the best produce is derived from the principle of tashlumei nezek (full restitution), ensuring the injured party is fully compensated.

Midrashic Insight

The Mechilta (on this verse) connects this law to the broader ethical principle of responsibility. Just as one must guard his animal from causing damage, so too must a person be mindful of his actions and their impact on others.

Practical Implications in Jewish Law

According to Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 398:1), the assessment of damage must consider the market value of the destroyed crops at the time of the incident. The liable party cannot offer compensation of lesser value, reinforcing the Torah’s emphasis on justice (tzedek).

📚 Talmud Citations

This verse is quoted in the Talmud.

📖 Bava Kamma 6b
The verse is discussed in the context of damages caused by one's animal grazing in another's field, focusing on the principle of restitution from the best of the offender's property.
📖 Bava Kamma 7a
Further discussion on the application of the verse regarding the assessment of damages and the requirement to compensate from the best of one's field or vineyard.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What does Exodus 22:4 mean?
A: Exodus 22:4 discusses the law of damages where someone's animal grazes in another person's field or vineyard. The Torah requires the owner of the animal to pay compensation from the best of his own field or vineyard, not from inferior produce (Rashi on Exodus 22:4).
Q: Why is this law about animal damages important?
A: This law teaches responsibility for one's property and actions. The Torah emphasizes that owners must guard their animals to prevent damage to others' property (Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Nizkei Mammon 1:1). It establishes principles of fairness in restitution.
Q: Why does the Torah specify paying from 'the best' of one's field?
A: The requirement to pay from the best produce ensures proper restitution. As the Talmud explains (Bava Kamma 7a), this prevents someone from giving poor quality compensation when their animal damaged another's superior crops.
Q: Does this law apply to modern situations?
A: Yes, the principles apply whenever one's property causes damage to another's. The Talmud (Bava Kamma 2a) extends these laws to various damage cases, showing their ongoing relevance in Jewish civil law (Halacha).
Q: What's the difference between this verse and the previous damage laws in Exodus?
A: While Exodus 22:3 discusses theft, verse 4 deals with negligence - where one fails to properly guard their animal. The Rambam (Hilchot Geneivah 1:1) explains these are different categories of monetary law with distinct requirements.