Footnotes

1. Exodus 22:7 tn The word usually means “vessels” but can have the sense of household goods and articles. It could be anything from jewels and ornaments to weapons or pottery.
2. Exodus 22:7 tn Heb “to keep.” Here “safekeeping,” that is, to keep something secure on behalf of a third party, is intended.
3. Exodus 22:7 tn Heb “found.”
4. Exodus 22:8 tn Heb “found.”
5. Exodus 22:8 tn Here again the word used is “the gods,” meaning the judges who made the assessments and decisions. In addition to other works, see J. R. Vannoy, “The Use of the Word ha’elohim in Exodus 21:6 and 22:7, 8, ” The Law and the Prophets, 225-41.
6. Exodus 22:8 tn The phrase “to see” has been supplied.
7. Exodus 22:8 tn The line says “if he has not stretched out his hand.” This could be the oath formula, but the construction here would be unusual, or it could be taken as “whether” (see W. C. Kaiser, Jr., “Exodus,” EBC 2:438). U. Cassuto (Exodus, 286) does not think the wording can possibly fit an oath; nevertheless, an oath would be involved before God (as he takes it instead of “judges”)—if the man swore, his word would be accepted, but if he would not swear, he would be guilty.
8. Exodus 22:9 tn Heb “concerning every kind [thing] of trespass.”
9. Exodus 22:9 tn The text simply has “this is it” (הוּא זֶה, huʾ zeh).
10. Exodus 22:9 tn Again, or “God.”
11. Exodus 22:9 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).
12. Exodus 22:9 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.
13. Exodus 22:10 tn The form is a Niphal participle of שָׁבַר (shavar, “to break”) which means injured, maimed, harmed, or crippled.
14. Exodus 22:10 tn This verb is frequently used with the meaning “to take captive.” The idea here then is that raiders or robbers have carried off the animal.
15. Exodus 22:10 tn Heb “there is no one seeing.”
16. Exodus 22:11 tn The construct relationship שְׁבֻעַת יְהוָה (sh^evuʿat y^ehvah, “the oath of Yahweh”) would require a genitive of indirect object, “an oath [to] Yahweh.” U. Cassuto suggests that it means “an oath by Yahweh” (Exodus, 287). The person to whom the animal was entrusted would take a solemn oath to Yahweh that he did not appropriate the animal for himself, and then his word would be accepted.
17. Exodus 22:12 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).
18. Exodus 22:12 sn The point is that the man should have taken better care of the animal.
19. Exodus 22:13 tn The word עֵד (ʿed) actually means “witness,” but the dead animal that is returned is a silent witness, i.e., evidence. The word is an adverbial accusative.
20. Exodus 22:14 tn Heb “if a man asks [an animal] from his neighbor” (see also Exod 12:36). The ruling here implies an animal is borrowed, and if harm comes to it when the owner is not with it, the borrower is liable. The word “animal” is supplied in the translation for clarity.
21. Exodus 22:14 tn Heb “he”; the referent (the man who borrowed the animal) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
22. Exodus 22:15 tn Literally “it came with/for its hire,” this expression implies that the owner who hired it out and was present was prepared to take the risk, so there would be no compensation.