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

6 If fire break out, and catch in thorns, so that the stacks of corn, or the standing corn, or the field, be consumed therewith; he that kindled the fire shall surely make restitution.

7 If a man shall deliver unto his neighbour money or stuff to keep, and it be stolen out of the man’s house; if the thief be found, let him pay double.

8 If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall be brought unto the judges, to see whether he have put his hand unto his neighbour’s goods.

9 For all manner of trespass, whether it be for ox, for ass, for sheep, for raiment, or for any manner of lost thing, which another challengeth to be his, the cause of both parties shall come before the judges; and whom the judges shall condemn, he shall pay double unto his neighbour.

The first two verses address the restitution if one man is indirectly responsible for the destruction of another man’s crops. Whether the perpetrator left his beast to feed in the other man’s field, or if he kindled a fire that burned the crops down, he must make restitution. What is notable, however, is that he must make the restitution from the best of his own vineyard. This might be in part because the quality of the destroyed crops can no longer be ascertained, so the courts will just assume the highest value of destruction, and it may be in part a punishment for being so careless as to cause the destruction in the first place. If this penalty is skewed in any way, it is skewed to the benefit of the victim.

Verses 7 through 9 have to do with if a thief steals items or livestock that were being loaned from one man to another. If the items were stolen, and the thief is known, then obviously the thief will have to make restitution. But what if the person who was borrowing the things is only claiming that they were stolen? And what if the neighbor who loaned the things doesn’t believe that story? Then it really is a matter of one man’s word against another, and we are told that it rests upon the judges to determine who is in the right and who is in the wrong. This is the first time we have seen in the law the need for testimony and investigation. There is always going to be a need for some human judgment to resolve uncertain matters, which means there will be the potential for incorrect ruling. This is a necessary shortcoming that has applied to every law ever made. Law is still a good thing as a general concept, but we must recognize that it is never perfect.

Or, at least, it is imperfect for now. There is an eventual perfect solution as it turns out, which the Biblical record will turn to in tomorrow’s verses.