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.

If any man hurt a field or a vineyard, and put in his beast to feed upon that which is other men's: he shall restore the best of whatsoever he hath in his own field, or in his vineyard, according to the estimation of the damage.

If a man shall cause a field or vineyard to be eaten, and put in his cattle, and pasture in another man's field, of the best of his own field, and of the best of his own vineyard shall he make it good.

When a man depastureth a field or vineyard, and hath sent out his beast, and it hath pastured in the field of another, of the best of his field, and the best of his vineyard, he doth repay.

If a man makes a fire in a field or a vine-garden, and lets the fire do damage to another man's field, he is to give of the best produce of his field or his vine-garden to make up for it.

If a man causes a field or vineyard to be eaten, and lets his animal loose, and it grazes in another man's field, he shall make restitution from his own field according to his produce; and if he shall have grazed over the whole field, he shall make restitution from the best of his own field, and from the best of his own vineyard.

If there is any damage to a field or a vineyard, when he has released his cattle to pasture on the land of a stranger, he shall repay the best of what he has in his own field, or in his own vineyard, according to the estimation of the damage.

Si depasci fecerit quispiam agrum aut vitem, et immiserit jumentum suum ut depasceretur agrum alterius: bonum agri ejus et bonum vineae ejus restituet.

If a man shall cause a field or vineyard to be eaten. This kind of fraud is justly ranked among thefts; viz., if any man shall have put in his beast to feed in another's field or vineyard. For if a person have made improper use of his servant to steal by him, he himself is deemed guilty of the offense, even although he may have touched nothing with his own hand; nor does he less do wrong who has given occasion of injury by means of a brute. Still, God restricts the punishment to a compensation of double the amount, because it cannot be certainly established that the master of the animal desired to effect the damage fraudulently and designedly; yet He requires the loss to be made up at the highest estimate of its value; [1] for thus I interpret "the goodness of his field and his vineyard," that the place having been examined, a liberal restitution shall be awarded to its owner, according to the utmost it would have probably produced in its greatest state of fertility.

Footnotes

1 - C.'s view of these words seems to be adopted by none of the commentators. They understand them more simply, that the restitution was to be made in kind, and of the best of the aggressor's produce. Whether we read with C. "bonum agri," or with others "de bono," or "de optimo," as Dathe and A. V., does not appear to affect this sense.

Shall put in his beast, and shall feed - Rather, shall let his beast go loose, and it shall feed.

If a man shall cause a field or vineyard to be eaten,.... Which is not his own, by putting cattle into it to feed upon it, as it is explained in the next clause:
and shall put in his beast, and shall feed in another man's field; do damage in one or both those two ways, either by his feet treading down the grass and fruits of the earth, which the Rabbins, as Jarchi says, think, is meant by putting in his beast; or with his beast eating up the same, which is intended by the latter phrase:
of the best of his own field, and of the best of his own vineyard, shall he make restitution for what damage is done by his beast in his neighbour's field or vineyard; and this held good of any garden or orchard injured in like manner; and it is a general rule with the Jews, that when any damage is sustained, he that does the damage is obliged to pay with the best the earth produces (l), even though better than was the man's that suffered the loss, that for the future he might be more careful of doing injury to another (m).
(l) Misc. Bava Kama, c. 1. sect. 1. (m) Bartenora in Misn. Gittin, c. 5. sect. 1.

Injury done to another man's field or corn was also to be made good by compensation for the injury done. If any one should consume a field or a vineyard, and let loose his beast, so that it fed in another man's field, he was to give the best of his field and vineyard as restitution. These words do not refer to wilful injury, for שׁלּח does not mean to drive in, but simply to let loose, set at liberty; they refer to injury done from carelessness, when any one neglected to take proper care of a beast that was feeding in his field, and it strayed in consequence, and began grazing in another man's. Hence simple compensation was all that was demanded; though this was to be made "from the best of his field," i.e., quicquid optimum habebit in agro vel vinea (Jerome).
(Note: The lxx have expanded this law by interpolating ἀποτίσει ἐκ τοῦ ἀγροῦ αὐτοῦ κατὰ τὸ γέννημα αὐτοῦ ἐὰν δὲ πάντα τὸν ἀγρὸν καταβοσκήσῃ before מיטב. And the Samaritan does the same. But this expansion is proved to be an arbitrary interpolation, by the simple fact that πάντα τὸν ἀγρόν forms no logical antithesis to ἀγρὸν ἕτερον.)

He that wilfully put his cattle into his neighbour's field, must make restitution of the best of his own. The Jews hence observed it as a general rule, that restitution must always be made of the best; and that no man should keep any cattle that were likely to trespass upon his neighbour, or do him any damage.