Exodus 22:1

“If a man shall steal an ox or a sheep, etc.] In which the substance of men chiefly lay in those times, and particularly the people of Israel, who were now come out of Egypt, with their flocks and herds, and these lying near together, were the more liable to be stolen; and hence also the laws in the preceding chapter concerning oxen and damages done by them, and oxen and sheep are only mentioned; perhaps chiefly because used in sacrifice, as well as serviceable for other things; not but that stealing other cattle and other things were criminal and forbidden, and to be punished in proportion: and kill it, or sell it; either of which cases would plainly show that he took it away with an…”

“LAWS CONCERNING THEFT. (Exo. 22:1-31) If a man shall steal an ox, or a sheep--The law respects the theft of cattle which constituted the chief part of their property. The penalty for the theft of a sheep which was slain or sold, was fourfold; for an ox fivefold, because of its greater utility in labor; but, should the stolen animal have been recovered alive, a double compensation was all that was required, because it was presumable he (the thief) was not a practised adept in dishonesty. A robber breaking into a house at midnight might, in self-defense, be slain with impunity; but if he was slain after sunrise, it would be considered murder, for it was not thought likely an assault would then…”

“The theft of an ox appears to have been regarded as a greater crime than the theft of a sheep, because it showed a stronger purpose in wickedness to take the larger and more powerful animal. It may have been on similar moral ground that the thief, when he had proved his persistency in crime by adding to his theft the slaughter, or sale, of the animal, was to restore four times its value in the case of a sheep (compare the marginal references), and five times its value in the case of an ox; but if the animal was still in his possession alive (see Exodus 22:4) he had to make only twofold restitution. return to 'Top of Page'”

“Five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep - More for an ox than for a sheep, because the owner, besides all the other profit, lost the daily labour of his ox. If we were not able to make restitution, he must be sold for a slave: the court of judgment was to do it, and it is likely the person robbed received the money. Thus with us in some cases, felons are transported to the Plantations, where only, Englishmen know what slavery is. But let it be observed, the sentence is not slavery, but banishment: nor can any Englishman be sold, unless he first indent himself to the captain that carries him over. Exodus 22:2”

“sheep: or, goat he shall: There is a smaller compensation required in other things ( Exo 22:9), and also a disproportion between an ox and a sheep. The reason of the former is, as Maimonides explains it, because money, goods, etc., are better guarded in houses and cities, than cattle in a field; which consequently can be more easily stolen. The reason of the latter seems to be, as it is explained by Bishop Patrick, that an ox was of greater value, and more useful for the purposes of husbandry. Lev 6:1-6; Num 5:7; Sa2 12:6; Pro 6:31; Luk 19:8 five oxen: Pro 14:4 Exodus 22:2”

“With regard to cattle-stealing, the law makes a distinction between what had been killed or sold, and what was still alive and in the thief's hand (or possession). In the latter case, the thief was to restore piece for piece twofold ( Exo 22:4); in the former, he was to restore an ox fivefold and a small animal (a sheep or a goat) fourfold ( Exo 22:1). The difference between the compensation for an ox and a small animal is to be accounted for from the comparative worth of the cattle to the possessor, which determined the magnitude of the theft and the amount of the compensation. But the other distinctions of twofold, fourfold, and fivefold restitution cannot be accounted for, either by…”