Messianic Education Trust
		Always Being Ready     Mishpatim   (Exodus 21:1 - 24:18)

Shemot/Exodus 22:10   An oath of the L-rd shall be between the two of them ... and the owner shall take [it] and [the guardian] shall not pay.

View whole verse and interlinear translation ...

After the Ten Words, spoken to all of Israel by The Name ...

HaShem: literally, Hebrew for 'The Name' - an allusion used to avoid pronouncing the Tetragrammaton, the so-called 'ineffable' name of G–d
HaShem from Mt. Sinai, parashat Mishpatim expounds and applies most of the principles as detailed case law. This section of the text - verses 9-14 - handles the three instances where one man legitimately has possession of another man's animals and an animal dies or disappears while in his charge. The purpose of all three situations is to explain how the liability for damage or loss of the animal is allocated. The first and longest section is concerned with what happens when the owner has paid a guardian to look after an animal for him; the second covers when an animal is borrowed from its owner; the third - and shortest - case is that of animals that are hired. In this first case, the text refers to a custodian who is paid to safeguard someone's property and is responsible if it is stolen or lost. This might be paralleled today by dog owners putting their animals in kennels while they are away on holiday, or by a dairy farmer employing a relief herdsman to look after and milk the cows during a period of illness.

If the custodian denies responsibility and there are no witnesses to support either party, our text provides a means for resolution: the custodian swears an oath that he has not been involved in the loss of the animal, which the owner must accept and that discharges the custodian's liability to pay compensation. The Who Is ...

The Rashbam: Rabbi Samuel ben Asher (1085-1174 CE), a grandson of Rashi; lived in Northern France; worked from the plain meaning of the Hebrew text even when this contradicted established rabbinic interpretaton
Rashbam explains that "he is not liable in case of circumstances beyond his control." Must this be an oath given in court, before judges and witnesses, or can it simply be a verbal event between the owner and the custodian? Our text uses the words בֵּין שְׁנֵיהֶם, "between the two of them", which makes the latter seem more likely, but Rabbi Who Is ...

Hirsch: Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch (1808-1888 CE), German rabbi, author and educator; staunch opponent of the Reform movement in Germany and one of the fathers of Orthodox Judaism
Hirsch smooths out the ambiguity by saying, "the oath lies entirely between the two parties, the court itself need not insist on it. If the defendant prefers to pay rather than to swear, or if the plaintiff is willing to let him off, the court need not impose the oath." Supporting that view, What Is ...

Targum Onkelos: An early (1^st-2^nd Century CE) translation/paraphrase of the Torah into Aramaic; attributed to a Roman convert to Judaism, Onkelos; used in Babylonian synagogues during the Talmudic era
Targum Onkelos changes the Hebrew noun שְׁבֻעַת to the Aramaic מוֹמָתָא, 'curse', implying the acceptance of punishment if one lies. This, Drazin and Wagner explain, "is a term customarily used when referring to court oaths."

Nahum Sarna suggests that the use of the tetragrammaton in our verse "in place of The Name ...

Elohim: one of the names of G-d, normally translated as "God"; the name that refers to G-d's attribute of justice; also taken to refer to G-d's power and might; actually a plural Hebrew noun that can mean "judges" depending on the context
Elohim, G-d, reflects the actual wording of the Israelite oath, just as in the regular oath formula ḥai YHVH, 'as HaShem lives.'" Our verse closes with the two results of the oath: that the owner must accept the oath as definitive - the verb וְלָקַח, the Qal 3ms affix form of the root לקח with a vav-reversive, usually means "to take" but can mean 'accept' or 'receive: "to no purpose did I smite your children; they would not  לָקָחוּ  accept correction" (Jeremiah 2:30, NJPS) - and the custodian is absolved of responsibility. The NJPS translation for our verse translates וְלָקַח as "he must acquiesce". Who Is ...

Abraham Ibn Ezra: (1089-1167 CE), born in Tudela, Spain; died in the South of France after wandering all around the shores of the Mediterranean and England; a philosopher, astronomer, doctor, poet and linguist; wrote a Hebrew grammar and a commentary on the Bible
Ibn Ezra remarks that "in the case of a dead or injured animal, the owner takes the carcass; if the animal was carried off, he accepts the oath." The What Is ...

The Mekhilta: The earliest known halakhic midrash or commentary on (parts of) the book of Exodus; formally named for Rabbi Ishmael and therefore set around 100-135CE, it was redacted some years after his time; quoted many times in the Bavli Talmud as "Rabbi Ishmael taught ..."
Mekhilta agrees: "the owner of the carcass has to attend to its disposal." The owner must accept the loss. As Cassuto summarises: "In other words, a paid guardian is exempt from making restitution in the event of an accident."¹

What, then, is to stop unscrupulous custodians from misappropriating animals entrusted to their paid charge and then simply taking an oath that they never touched them? How is the owner to make an assessment of how trustworthy potential custodians are before employing their services? Living in a modern society, we forget that an oral culture works in very different ways to what we would expect today. In particular, the value of a individual's personal word or oath is considered paramount. Once given, it is assumed to be unbreakable. In the event of an oath subsequently being proven to be false, the person who gave it is completely discredited; they may never again be a witness in any court case; their reputation is in shreds. Walter Brueggemann explains why this makes the oath such an important instrument: "This is a specific case of the ninth commandment, concerning false witnesses. In a society that regards taking an oath as a high-risk venture, the oath is enough and functions like a lie-detector test. If one asserts innocence in the matter, there is no restitution."²

Although the ninth commandment seems very straightforward - "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour" (Shemot 20:13d, NJPS), "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour" (D'varim 5:17d, NJPS) - the Holiness Code in the book of Vayikra explicitly connects the swearing of false oaths with the fifth commandment: "You shall not swear by My name falsely, and so profane the name of your G-d: I am the L-RD" (Vayikra 19:12, NJPS). If the custodian swears an oath "in/by HaShem", that invokes the fifth as well as the ninth commandment; it makes HaShem party to the oath, as if He is guaranteeing that the oath is valid. If that oath is, in fact, invalid or untrue - in this case, that the custodian was in someway involved in the death or disappearance of the owner's animal - then HaShem's name has been profaned by the custodian and the breaking of the oath becomes a significant matter of dispute between HaShem and the custodian.

The prophets speak out about the way that the kingdoms of Israel and Judah abused the name of HaShem by making false or empty vows. In Israel, for example, Hosea voices HaShem to say, "They utter mere words; with empty oaths they make covenants; so judgment springs up like poisonous weeds in the furrows of the field" (Hosea 10:4, ESV). Israel offers promises and commitments it never intends to keep in order to make political agreements with the surrounding nations to try and save their necks. Judah is no better; speaking through the prophet Isaiah, HaShem says, "Hear this, O house of Jacob, who are called by the name of Israel, and who came from the waters of Judah, who swear by the name of the L-RD and confess the G-d of Israel, but not in truth or right" (Isaiah 48:1, ESV). Judah swears untruthfully and falsely in the name of the L-rd. HaShem is aware of both and warns both kingdoms that He will place them under judgement for their sin in this way.

More dramatically, Zedekiah - as part of his appointment as the king of Jerusalem - promised fidelity to the Babylonian king, Nebuchadnezzar. Later, breaking his oath and foreswearing his pledged allegiance, "Zedekiah rebelled against the king of Babylon" (2 Kings 24:20, ESV). Nebuchadnezzar, with HaShem's permission, invaded the land of Judah and, besieging the city of Jerusalem, the Babylonians eventually took him prisoner: "They slaughtered the sons of Zedekiah before his eyes, and put out the eyes of Zedekiah and bound him in chains and took him to Babylon" (25:7, ESV). In this way, HaShem showed how much He abhors breakers of honest - even if apparently secular - promises bound by an oath made in His name. After the return from exile, Malachi voices HaShem reminding the people that swearing falsely is still a major issue for Him: "I will draw near to you for judgment. I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, against the adulterers, against those who swear falsely, against those who oppress the hired worker in his wages, the widow and the fatherless, against those who thrust aside the sojourner, and do not fear me, says the LORD of hosts" (Malachi 3:5, ESV).

We can see a worked example of this in the Apostolic Writings. Ananias and Sapphira sold a piece of property and, after keeping back some of the funds for themselves, Ananias brought it to the apostles as if it were the whole sale price of the property. Being told by the Spirit what is really happening Peter says, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back for yourself part of the proceeds of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to G-d" (Acts 5:3-4, ESV). Ananias promptly falls down and dies; HaShem acts to repudiate the implied oath in His name and to punish the offender. A few hours later, Sapphira comes in, not knowing what has happened and Peter asks her, "Tell me whether you sold the land for so much" (v. 8, ESV). "Yes," she replies, to have Peter say, "How is it that you have agreed together to test the Spirit of the L-rd? Behold, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out" (v. 9, ESV). Sapphira too promptly dies as HaShem fulfills His word for a second time.

Although not couched in an oath formula, the dialogue between Herod and the Magi after the birth of Yeshua, is another example of a false oath or commitment. The magi have arrived in Jerusalem to ask where the new just-born king of the Jews is to be found, after following His star across the desert. Herod is disturbed but gets the necessary answer from the chief priests and scribes: Bethlehem. Then he secretly calls the magi and tells them, "Go and search diligently for the child, and when you have found him, bring me word, that I too may come and worship him" (Matthew 2:8, ESV), all the while having nothing but murderous intentions in his heart. When the magi are warned in dream about Herod and so go home by another way, Herod "became furious, and he sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in all that region who were two years old or under, according to the time that he had ascertained from the wise men" (v. 16, ESV). Shortly afterwards, Herod died, leaving no clear heir to his kingdom.

Two actions become incumbent upon us: we must always be ready to speak simply but truthfully - as Yeshua taught His followers, "Let what you say be simply 'Yes' or 'No'; anything more than this comes from evil" (5:37, ESV) - and, guided by the Spirit and in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, we must always be ready to accept the word of a fellow disciple. Does that mean that we will never be disappointed or let down? No, but that becomes a matter between HaShem and the other who has either deliberately or inadvertently made a commitment that they cannot keep. We will have acted with integrity: either keeping our word, even sometimes at cost to ourselves, or granting others the grace we ourselves received. We are to be "wise as serpents and innocent as doves" (10:16, TLV). That is the way of the kingdom.

1. - Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Exodus, (Magnes Press, Jerusalem, 1983), page 287.

2. - Walter Brueggemann, "Exodus", in The New Interpreter's Bible Commentary Vol I, edited by Leander E. Keck, (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2015), page 426.

Further Study: Romans 16:17-20; Hebrews 6:16-18

Application: Always speaking truthfully ourselves and being ready to accept the word of others can sometimes be a costly affair, but demonstrates our integrity and willingness to treat others as we would wish to be treated and as Yeshua treats us. Ask the Master today how you can improve in this area and be a more consistent witness of the kingdom of G-d.

Buy your own copy of the Drash Book for Exodus/Shemot now at Amazon US or Amazon UK.

© Jonathan Allen, 2026

Messianic Trust Home Page	Join Weekly Email	More Weekly Drashot
Last Week	Support the work of producing this weekly commentary	Next Week
Last Year - 5785	Scripture Index