Deposit (פַּקָּדוֹן, pikkadon', something placed in trust; "store," Ge 41:36; "delivered," Le 6:2,4; Sept. παραθήκη [so in 2 Timothy 1, 12], or παρακαταθήκη [see Grinfield, N.T. Hellenisticum, p. 1146]; Vulg. depositum). The arrangement by which one man kept at another's request the property of the latter until demanded back (Ex 22:7), was one common to all the nations of antiquity (Sir W. Jones, Law of Bailments, in his Works , 8:448); and the dishonest dealing with such trusts is marked by profane writers with extreme reprobation (Herod. 6:86; Juvenal, 13:199, etc.; Joseph. Ant. 4:8, 38; War, 4:8, 5, 7), a view which is likewise taken by Clemens Alex. (Strom. 6:749), Chrysostom (Orat. lxiv, p. 640), and others (see Rawlinson, Herod. 4:477, note). Even our Savior seems (Lu 16:12) to allude to conduct in such cases as a test of honesty. In later times, when no banking system was as yet devised, shrines were often used for the custody of treasure (2 Maccabees 3:10, 12,15; Xenoph. Anab. v. 3, 7; Cicero, Legy. 2:16; Plutarch, Lys. c. 18). Among an agricultural people, the exigencies of war and other causes of absence must often have rendered a temporary deposit, especially as regards animals, an owner's only course of safety. SEE TRESPASS. Nor was the custody of such property burdensome, for the use of it was no doubt, so far as that was consistent with its unimpaired restoration, allowed to the depository, which office also no one was compelled to accept. The articles specified by the Mosaic law are, (1) "money or stuff;" and (2) "an ass, or an ox, or a sheep, or any beast." The first case was viewed as only liable to loss by theft (probably for loss by accidental fire, etc. no compensation could be claimed), and the thief, if found, was to pay double, i.e. probably to compensate the owner's loss, and the unjust suspicion thrown on the depositary (comp. Goschen, Vorles. ib. Civilrecht, II, 2:315). If no theft could be proved, the depositary was to swear before the judges that he had not appropriated the article, and then was quit (comp. Schweppe, Romans Privatrecht, p. 373). In the second, if the beast were to "die, or be hurt, or driven away, no man seeing it" — accidents to which beasts at pasture were easily liable (comp. שָׁבָה, 1Ch 5:21) — the depositary was to purge himself by a similar oath. (Such oaths are probably alluded to in Heb 6:16, as "an end of all strife"). In case, however, the animal were stolen, the depositary was liable to restitution, which probably was necessary to prevent collusive theft (Kalisch, Exod. p. 419). SEE DAMAGES. If it were torn by a wild beast, some proof was easily producible, and, in that case, no restitution was due (Ex 22:7-13). The Jewish commentators make various distinctions on this enactment (see Rosenmüller, in loc.). In case of a false oath so taken, the perjured person, besides making restitution, was to "add the fifth part more thereto," to compensate the one injured, and to "bring a ram for a trespass-offering unto the Lord" (Le 6:5-6). In the book of Tobit (5:3) a written acknowledgment of a deposit is mentioned (i. 14 ; 4:20 ). This, however, merely facilitated the proof of the fact of the original deposit, leaving the law untouched. The Mishna (Baba Mezia, c. 3; Shebuoth, v. 1) shows that the law of the oath of purgation in such cases continued in force among the later Jews (Michaelis, Mos. Recht, ch. 162). See Smith's Dict. of Class. Antiq. s.v. Depositum. The Roman law of deposit is stated in Justinian's Institutes, 3, tit. 14:3; comp. iv, tit. 6:17, 23. (See Sandars, p. 429, 540, 543; Vinnius, p. 815, 819.) A deposit, in Athenian law, was likewise called παρσκαταθήκη (Demosthenes, pro Photm. Orator. Attic. Bekker, Oxon. 6:1042). Comp. the Λόγος τραπεζιτικός of Isocrates (Or. Attici, Bekker, Oxon. 2:515-533) SEE PLEDGE.