“... In terms of distance, this law is not far from Hammurabi’s goring ox law, and it prescribes vicarious punishment, something that CC prohibits in the middle of its goring ox law in verse 31, as noted in the discussion of topic 9. Verse 31 is only two verses away from the negligence law in verses 33–34. Of all the laws that consider vicarious punishment of a child in LH (otherwise, LH 116, 210; CC also has correlates with these laws; see topics 6, 7, and 9), LH 230 is the closest to the situation described in 21:31 in that it involves a case of negligence where a child is the victim. The concerns of LH 229–230 therefore cluster in Exodus 21:31, 33–34. Furthermore, both of the laws in Exodus 21:33–34 and LH 229–230 describe a case of “falling.” The falling is, of course, not the same in the two laws, but the principle of attraction operative in organization and creation of Near Eastern law may have allowed CC to generate its particular law.9 Furthermore, the technique of conceptual inversion, as found between LH 282 and 21:5–6 (see topic 1), may have led to creation of a law about an animal falling in as opposed to a house falling down. ...”