Exodus 23:4-5

If thou meet thine enemy's ox or his ass going astray, thou shalt surely bring it back to him again.

If thou meet thine enemy's ox ... going astray. The ox and the donkey are specified as samples of the stock which constituted the staple property of the Israelites. The object of these counsels obviously is to encourage a humane and kindly spirit of willingness to protect the interests even of an enemy (cf. Matthew 5:43), when they are seen, in his absence, to be in jeopardy. They enjoin it as a duty to render good for evil (cf. Romans 12:17), and instead of taking revenge for his injuries, to confer upon him a seasonable and important benefit, by rescuing his cattle from being damaged or lost. This is the purport of the precept in both verses, though the meaning is somewhat obscured in the latter-by the form of our translation.

If thou see the ass of him that hateth thee, х sona'ªkaa (H8130)] - participle used as a substantive-thine enemy, synonymous with 'oyibkaa (H341), in Exodus 23:4].

And wouldest forbear to help him: thou shalt surely help with him. [The difficulty which lies in this clause arises from the double use of the verb `aazab (H5800) - first in its primary meaning, to leave, to desert; and then in the secondary tense of untying, cutting loose.] The translation proposed by Gesenius is as follows: 'When thou seest the ass of thine enemy lying down (having sunk oppressed) under his burden, beware that thou leave him not, but thou shalt surely loosen the bands (of the donkey) with him'-i.e, thou shalt assist the owner to slacken or undo the fastenings of the load; or rather, to lift up the fallen beast.

A modern illustration of this precept is given by Dr. Thomson ('The Land and the Book,' vol. 1:, p. 89). 'See that donkey; the people lifting it are bitter enemies-Maronites and Druses-quite recently engaged in a bloody social war, and ready to begin again on the very first opportunity; and yet they help to lift the donkey that is lying under his burden, as though they were the best friends in the world. We have in this simple incident the identical occasion for the precept, and its most literal fulfillment.

'Nor is this all. It is fair to infer, from the peculiar specification made by Moses, that the people in his day were divided into inimical parties and clans, just as they now are in these mountains. Moses would not have mentioned the donkey of an enemy, if enemies were not so common that the case was likely to occur. So also we may conclude that the donkeys were half-starved, and then overloaded by their cruel masters; because such are now the conditions in which these poor slaves of all work ordinarily fall under their burdens; and then, as now, it required the united strength of at least two persons lifting, one on either side, to enable the donkey to rise out of his painful and often dangerous predicament. The plan is to lift the beast to its feet without taking off the load, which is a tedious business. And once more, we may infer, with certainty, that the roads were then as rough and slippery as this which has upset the unfortunate donkey. All these deductions I believe to be very near the truth. Manners and customs, men and things, roads and loads, continue very much what they were three thousand years ago' (cf. Deuteronomy 22:4). This version removes all ambiguity, and evolves the duty inculcated in a clear and intelligible manner.