1. The prohibition of Lo Sachmod-Buying or taking a coveted item from its owner:[1]

Pressuring an individual to sell an item that is not for sale:[2] Whoever [man or woman[3]] covets the house, or vessels, or any other item which can potentially be purchased, from his friend [i.e. a Jew[4]], transgresses the negative command of Lo Sachmod if the item was not for sale, and he pressured the owner to sell him the item, until he finally sold it to him. [This command is listed as one of the 365 negative commands.[5] The prohibition is transgressed irrelevant of how much one pay for the item, even if he paid the full amount, and even if he paid more than the items value.[6] It is likewise transgressed if he traded the person’s item for another item which is of greater value.[7]]

The form and amount of pressure:[8] The prohibition is transgressed whether one pressured his friend to perform the sale through friends who acted as intermediaries to press and pressure him to make the sale[9], or whether one did so himself by personally pressuring his friend [i.e. Heftzer][10], or asking him to sell it [i.e. Bakasha[11]] until he finally sold it to him. In both scenarios one transgresses the prohibition of Lo Sachmod. [This applies even if those friends hired other friends to do the job of pressuring him until he agreed to do the sale.[12] Thus, if one is a powerful person, or one sends a powerful person, to ask the owner to sell the item, then even if only a slight amount of pressure is needed to force him into the sale, the prohibition is transgressed. Accordingly, one may not ask his friend who is intimidated by him to sell him his item, if one knows that his friend will not be able to refuse his request due to the intimidation.[13] Furthermore, based on this some Poskim[14] rule that one should never ask a private person who is not running a store to sell him an item, even if he does not exert pressure and simply wants to discover if he is interested in the sale. However, others rule that there is never a problem in simply asking a person one time if he is interested in selling an item if he does not intend to apply any pressure on him to make the sale, as explained in Q&A.]   

If the sale never took place despite the pressure:[15] The prohibition of Lo Sachmod is only transgressed if in the end of the day one was successful in purchasing the coveted item from his friend as a result of the pressure that he faced. However, if in conclusion one was not successful in purchasing from the owner the item which he coveted [and he thus did not take the item into his possession], then he does not transgress this negative command prohibition.[16] [However, one does transgress the command of Lo Sisaveh, as will be explained in C. Likewise, even the simple expression of the idea that one would like to have the item of another, is considered sinful.[17]]

If the seller was forced to do the sale:[18] If one forced the owner to sell him the item, such as through physical force, or threat and blackmail and the like, then he transgress the Biblical prohibition of Lo Sachmod.

If the seller consented to the sale:[19] It is evident from the above ruling, that the prohibition is transgressed even if at the end of the day the seller consented to sell the item and says “I want to sell it”, if this  consent was achieved as a result of the pressure. [Nonetheless, if the seller truly agreed with a full heart to sell the item as a result of the pressure which convinced him to do so after seeing that it is indeed for his benefit to sell the item, then it is disputed in Poskim[20] if the prohibition is still transgressed.]

If the owner gave the person the item as a present:[21] It is disputed amongst the Poskim whether the prohibition is transgressed only if the item was sold to the person pressuring the owner, in contrast to it being gifted to him as a present in which case perhaps there is no prohibition transgressed. Or, if it is transgressed even if the owner gave it to him as a present as a result of the pressure.

If the person lent or rented the item to the person:[22] There is no prohibition against pressuring the owner to lend one or rent one the item. However, some rule that one should not be lenient in this matter.

Took item without consent of owner but with intent to pay for it:[23] One who forcibly purchases the item from the owner without his consent, such as if the owner refuses to sell the item and he takes it by force and pays the owner for it, whatever its value may be, then although he does not transgress the stealing prohibition, he transgresses the prohibition of Lo Sachmod. Likewise, if he was paid to be a custodian to guard an object for its owner, and he lies and tells the owner that the item was lost and goes ahead and pays the owner for the item, then he transgresses the prohibition of Lo Sachmod.[24] This prohibition however only applies towards the item of a Jew, however, it is not transgressed if one takes an item from a gentile with intent of paying the gentile its full value, even if the item is not for sale and the Gentile does not agree to sell it.[25]

If one steals the item: In the event that one took the coveted item against the will of the owner without paying for it, and without intent of eventually doing so [i.e. stole it], then many Poskim[26] rule that he also transgresses the prohibition of Lo Sachmod, in addition to transgressing the stealing prohibition. However, it is disputed amongst the Poskim[27] if this additional transgression of Lo Sachmod only applies in the event that one first pressured the owner to sell him the item, and due to his refusal to do so, the person stole it, or if it even applies if one steals an item without prior  discussion with the owner about a possible sale. According to all opinions, if the item was taken accidentally, such as if he thought that the item belongs to him, then the prohibition is not transgressed.[28]

Returning the item to the owner as part of repentance:[29] One is not required to return the coveted item to the owner in the event that a consensual sale took place, even if the prohibition of Lo Sachmod was transgressed in the process.[30] However, if a consensual sale did not take place, such as he stole or took it by force in exchange for payment, then the item must be returned to the owner.[31]

If one purchases the coveted item from another owner – Does one transgress the prohibition if he purchases the item from a store or private seller:[32] The prohibition of Lo Sachmod is only transgressed if one covets the actual item that is owned by his friend and that it enter his possession, and he applies pressure to the owner until he retrieves his item. However, to simply covet an item that is similar to the item of the owner, does not transgressed any prohibition. Accordingly, there is no prohibition transgressed with one being envious of an item that a friend owns and then going and buying that item from a seller. [Thus, if one noticed that one’s friend purchased a brand-new phone, or garment, or car, or house, and he became jealous of him and decided to also purchase one for himself, then he does not transgress anything, and it is permitted for him to make the purchase. It is permitted for him to purchase it even from the same place that his friend purchased it from, and he does not need to find a different seller.]

Pressuring the owner to sell the item to another person:[33] It is disputed amongst the Poskim if the prohibition of Lo Sachmod is transgressed if one pressures an owner to sell his item to another person, and he does so due to this pressure.

Forcing or pressuring someone to purchase an item or service:[34] Some Poskim[35] rule that forcing or pressuring a person to purchase an item or service until he does so, transgresses the prohibition of Chamsan. Other Poskim[36], however, argue that no such prohibition is transgressed when a person agrees and consents to the purchase, even if it resulted from a salesman insisting and pestering the customer. Likewise, doing so does not contain the prohibition of Lo Sachmod, as so is the way of business. Nonetheless, it is certainly improper to put someone in a position that he is forced to agree to purchase an item and therefore even in business, over persistence and pestering of customers should be avoided.

Does one transgress the prohibition if he simply asked the owner if he would interested in selling it? There is no prohibition in simply asking the owner one time [and some say even two times[37]] if he is interested in selling the item, as this is the way of business and commerce.[38] However, if the owner says that the item is not for sale, then he may not ask him if he is willing to do a favor and sell him the item anyways, even if he does not pressure him and simply raises the question. Furthermore, based on this some Poskim[39] rule that one should never ask a private person who is not running a store to sell him an item, even if he does not exert pressure and simply wants to discover if he is interested in the sale.

 

1. The prohibition of Lo Sisaveh – Thinking of ways of purchasing the item:[40]

[In addition to the coveting prohibition of Lo Sachmod, there is a further prohibition of Lo Sisaveh. The difference between the two prohibitions are as follows: Although the prohibition of Lo Sachmod is not transgressed until one actually purchases [or takes] the coveted item from his friend as a result of his pressure, nonetheless,] from the moment that he begins to covet the item in his heart and thinks of ways of purchasing the item [i.e. thinks of ways of convincing the owner to sell him the item], then he transgresses the negative command of Lo Sisaveh.[41] [This command is listed as one of the 365 negative commands, independent of the negative command of Lo Sachmod.[42] However, if one simply covets the item in his heart and desires it to be his but does not actively contemplate a plan of how to get the item from the person and have him agree to sell it to him, or take it by force, or steal it, then there is no prohibition that is transgressed.[43] In summary, in all cases that one transgresses Lo Sachmod upon getting the coveted item, he already transgresses Lo Sisaveh the moment he begins contemplating how to accomplish getting the item. And, and all cases that getting the item does not transgress Lo Sachmod, contemplating getting it likewise does not transgress Lo Sisaveh. See Halacha D for all the cases that transgress Lo Sachmod.]

Contemplating buying the item from another owner:[44] The prohibition of Lo Sisaveh is only transgressed if one covets the actual item that is owned by his friend and that it enter his possession, and contemplates applying pressure to the owner until he retrieve his item. However, to simply covet an item that is similar to the item of the owner, does not transgress any prohibition. Accordingly, there is no prohibition transgressed with one being envious of an item that a friend owns and then contemplating how to buy that item from a seller.

 

 

1. The severity of jealousy of another person’s item:[45]

Leads to stealing and murder:[46] Coveting another person’s item [in one’s heart] leads one to think of ways of how to purchase the item from him, which in turn can lead to stealing [as if the owner refuses to sell it even after they are offered a lot of money and pressured into the sale, then one may come to steal it from him[47]], which in turn can lead to murder [as if the owner tries to physically prevent him from stealing the item, then one may come to murder him as indeed occurred in the story of Achav and Navos[48] as is brought in  the end of the article, and from Geichazi and Achan[49]]. [Furthermore, this can lead one to transgress all of the 10 Commandments, and for this reason it was brought as the last of the 10 Commandments.[50]]

The transgressions:[51] Thus, we learn that one who covets the item of another transgresses one negative command [i.e. Lo Sisaveh], and one who purchases the coveted item from the owner either through pressuring him or asking him, either personally or through friends, transgresses two negative commands, and therefore the verse states “Lo Sachmod” and “Lo Sisaveh.” [And, if he steals the item, then he transgresses three negative commands.[52]]

Losing that which you have:[53] It states in the Midrash:[54] Whoever covets that which he is not meant to have, than that which he covets he will not get and that which he already has will be taken from him.

1. The objects and items of which of the coveting prohibition applies to:[55]

The prohibition of Lo Sachmod only applies towards items that can be purchased from its owner, such as a house, a slave, an animal, and other objects and belongings of the like [i.e. phone, car, etc]. Thus, it applies to all items that have a monetary value[56], and are able to be purchased on the market[57] and change from one hand of ownership to another. However, things that are not of monetary value and are unable to be handed from one person to another, to leave the possession of the current owner and enter the possession of a new owner, are not relevant to the prohibition of Lo Sachmod.

Envy of someone’s Torah knowledge:[58] Accordingly, there is no prohibition in being envious of another person’s Torah knowledge, even if one desires to learn from him and gain all the knowledge that he has. It is even permitted for one to pressure the Torah scholar until he agrees to teach him.

Envy of someone’s occupation:[59] Likewise, it is permitted for one to be envious of another Jews occupation and career even if one desires for him to teach and train him in the occupation. It is even permitted for one to pressure the individual until he agrees to teach him.[However, one should not scheme to take over the job of another individual and doing so transgresses Lo Sachmod, at least in its spirit.[60]]

Envy of another person’s looks and beauty:[61] Likewise, it is permitted for one to be envious of another Jews beauty, such as his or her eyes or hair.

Real estate:[62] The prohibition of Lo Sachmod and Lo Sisaveh applies towards real estate, whether it be a house or field, or other property, as explicitly stated in Scripture.

Employee:[63] It is permitted for one to be envious of another Jews skills even if one desires to hire him as one’s employee. It is even permitted for one to pressure the individual until he agrees to take the job.

Items that are for sale:[64] The prohibition of Lo Sachmod and Lo Sisaveh is only transgressed when one convinces an owner who is not interested in selling the item into selling it to him. If, however, the person wants to sell it to make money and is actually looking for buyers, then nothing is transgressed and this is the regular way of business. [Furthermore, even if the owner is not interested in selling it to a specific customer, it is permitted for the customer to pressure the owner until he agrees to sell it to him.[65]]

Money and wealth:[66] It is disputed if one transgresses the prohibition of Lo Sachmod and Lo Sisaveh if one covets the money and wealth of another person, and not a specific object that he owns.

Items that are jointly owned:[67] The prohibition of Lo Sachmod and Lo Sisaveh applies even to jointly owned items, such as if one covets an item that is jointly owned by two people or more, [such as in a Corporation or public company, or real estate that has many investors]. However, it is disputed as to whether a co-owner and partner transgresses the prohibition if he covets the portion that is owned by his other partner or partners.

Rented items:[68] It is disputed if one transgresses the prohibition of Lo Sachmod if one covets the rented item of another person, [such as if he applies pressure to his friend to rent to him his leased car].

Coveting a Mitzvah item:[69] The prohibition of Lo Sachmod does not apply towards a Mitzvah item which the owner is obligated according to Jewish law to provide to another. Thus, it is permitted to pressure a wealthy man to give charity, or to pressure a person who has excess Matzah to give from his Matzah to a Jew who does not have any. However, some Poskim[70] rule that the prohibition of Lo Sachmod does apply towards the mitzvah item of a person if that person is not obligated to provide it to another. Thus, it is forbidden for one to pressure the owner of a beautiful Esrog, or unique pair of tefillin, to sell it to him.

Coveting one’s organ:[71] One does not transgress the prohibition of Lo Sachmod if he applies pressure to someone to donate an organ on his behalf and certainly if it is on the behalf of another.

Jealousy of spiritual matters: Jealousy and envy of another person’s stature can actually be virtuous if it motivates him to become more productive, and hence it states that “Kinas Sofrim Marbeh Chochmah” that the jealousy and envy amongst Torah scholars and authors of Torah books causes wisdom to increase, as competition is good for productivity.[72] Likewise, it states that even in the future era, and in Gan Eden, people will have envy of others portions in the world to come.[73]

_______________________________________________________________________

[1] Admur Hilchos Gezeila Ugeneiva Halacha 5; Michaber C.M. 359:10; Tur 359:10; Rambam Gezeila 1:9; Bava Metzia 5b; Kitzur SHU”A 182:5; Encyclopedia Talmudit Erech “Lo Sachmod” vol. 34 pp. 449-484

Lashes: Lashes is not given for transgressing the prohibition of Lo Sachmod. [Rambam ibid; Raavad ibid; Chinuch ibid; See Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid pp. 463-467 footnotes 112-148] Some rule this is because it is a Lav without a Maaseh. [Rambam ibid; See Maggid Mishneh on Rambam Gezeila Veaveida 1:9 that it does not have a Maaseh because in Rambam’s opinion, as opposed to Raavad’s, the transgression applies even if the owner consents to the sale; See Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 463-464 footnotes 112-122] Others rule it is a Lav with a Maaseh but is exempt from lashes because one must return the item. [Raavad ibid “I have not seen something more preposterous than this, as there is no greater action then taking the item. Rather there are no lashes because he has to pay back and return the object to the person whom he took the item from”; Maggid Mishneh on Rambam Gezeila Veaveida 1:9 that the Raavads opinion is more acceptable than the Rambam’s; See Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 464-467 footnotes 123-148]

[2] Admur ibid; Michaber ibid; Tur ibid; Rambam ibid; Bava Metzia ibid; Kitzur SHU”A ibid; Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that the prohibition is only transgressed if one did not get the consent of the seller to sell the item, as they learn that the prohibition of Lo Sachmod is specifically against taking an item with intent to pay for it without the permission of the owner. However, if the owner consents, even if this is the result of immense pressure, then there is no prohibition transgressed as this is part of the world of business. [Hasagas HaRavad on Rambam ibid; Tosafus Sanhedrin 25b; Semag L.S. 158; Poskim in Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 454 footnotes 37-42 and in Imrei Yaakov ibid] Other Poskim rule that the prohibition is only transgressed if one takes the coveted item without paying for it [hence transgressing both the stealing and Lo Sachmod prohibition]. However, if one pays for the item, even if he does so without the consent of the owner, then no prohibition is transgressed. [Tosafus Sanhedrin 25b; See Ir Shushan, brought and negated in Smeh ibid and Beir Heiytiv 359:6 in defense of Ir Shushan, brought and negated in Imrei Yaakov Biurim that the Biblical prohibition of Lo Sachmod does not apply anytime he pays for the item and it is only Rabbinical; See Poskim in Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 454-455 footnotes 43-44] However, some of these Poskim rule that the Rabbinical prohibition of Lo Sachmod does apply even if he pays for the item. [Ir Shushan and Beir Hieytiv ibid]

[3] Pashut; Chinuch Mitzvah 416 “Kol Baeiy Olam”; Minchas Chinuch Mitzvah 38

[4] See D!

[5] Rambam Sefer Hamitzvos L.S. 265; Bahag 33; Yireim; Semag; Semak; Chinuch Mitzvah 38; See Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 449 footnote 5

[6] Rambam ibid

[7] See Sefer Hamitzvos L.S. 266; Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 452 footnotes 25-28

[8] Admur ibid; Michaber ibid; Tur ibid; Rambam ibid; Bava Metzia ibid; Kitzur SHU”A ibid; Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 457- footnotes 58-

[9] Admur ibid; Michaber ibid; Rambam ibid; See Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 449 footnote 3

[10] Admur ibid; Omitted from Rambam ibid

[11] In the beginning of this Halacha, Admur and Rambam 1:9 omit the idea that simply asking him to sell a transgresses the command. However in the conclusion of the Halacha, Admur and Rambam 1:12 includes simply asking the person to sell it as part of the prohibition. Vetzaruch Iyun as to the previous omission and later inclusion of this word. All in all, however, it is clear that simply asking without pressure to see if the person is at all interested in selling the item does not transgress anything, and it is only if the request comes after pressuring the person, that the transgression takes place. Perhaps, one can suggest the difference between Heftzer and Bakasha; [Imrei Yaakov ibid 45 and in Biurim ibid]

[12] Toldos Shmuel Mitzvah 38 1:4; See Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 450 footnote 12

[13] See Shaareiy Teshuvah of Rabbeinu Yona 3:43; Orchos Chaim 2:43; Likkutei Sefas Emes 17; Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 452-453 footnote 36 and p. 457 footnote 59; Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid 40

[14] Aruch Hashulchan C.M. 359:13; Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 457 footnote 60

[15] Admur ibid; Michaber C.M. 359:10 and 12; Tur ibid; Rambam ibid “He does not transgress until he takes the item that he coveted”; Sefer Hamitzvos L.S. 265-266; Yireim Mitzvah 115; Mordechai Bava Kama 66; Ralbag Shemos 20:14 and Devarim 5:18; Mechilta Yisro 8; Zohar 3:261; Smeh 359:17; Aruch Hashulchan 359:8; See Har Melech 7:544; See Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 450 footnote 8

[16] The reason: One only transgresses this negative command if he actually purchases the coveted item, as the verse [Devarim 7:25] states “Lo Sachmod Kesef Vezahav Aleihem Velakachta Lecha.” [Admur ibid; Smeh ibid; Rambam ibid; Aruch Hashulchan ibid] Hence showing that the concept of Sachmod is connected with taking and purchasing.

[17] See Derisha C.M. 371:9; Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 458 footnote 69

[18] Smeh 359:14; See Michaber C.M. 359:10; Seemingly, this is no different than the case of one who takes the item with intent to pay without the owner’s consent, of which Admur and other Poskim rule that Lo Sachmod is transgressed, and is a Kal Vechomer from one who gets the owner to consent to the sale; See Tosafos Bava Metzia 5a and Sanhedrin 25b and Rashi there that such a person is a Chamsan; See Encyclopedia Talmudit Erech Chamsan

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that he does not transgress a Biblical prohibition of Lo Sachmod in such a case and he is simply called a Chamsan, which is Rabbinical. [Ir Shushan, brought and negated in Smeh ibid; Beir Heiytiv 359:6 in defense of Ir Shushan and negation of Smeh]

[19] Implication of Admur ibid and Michaber ibid; Rambam ibid as explained in Magid Mishneh and Megilas Sefer ibid; Poskim in Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 452-453 footnotes 29-33; See Imrei Yaakov ibid 44

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that the prohibition is only transgressed if one did not get the consent of the seller to sell the item, as they learn that the prohibition of Lo Sachmod is specifically against taking an item with intent to pay for it without the permission of the owner. However, if the owner consents, even if this is the result of immense pressure, then there is no prohibition transgressed as this is part of the world of business. [Hasagas HaRavad on Rambam ibid “Velo Amar Rotzeh Ani”; Tosafus Sanhedrin 25b in 2^nd answer; Semag L.S. 158; Poskim in Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 454 footnotes 37-42 Poskim in Imrei Yaakov ibid] Other Poskim rule that the Biblical prohibition of Lo Sachmod does not apply anytime he pays for the item and it is only Rabbinical. [Ir Shushan, brought and negated in Smeh ibid and Beir Heiytiv 359:6 in defense of Ir Shushan, brought and negated in Imrei Yaakov Biurim] Other Poskim rule that the prohibition is only transgressed after consent, if the individual was unable to refuse the request due to the immense pressure. However, if he could have refused the request being that the pressure was not so great, then the prohibition is not transgressed. [See Likkutei Sefas Emes 17; Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 454 footnotes 36]

Chamsan: Although it is evident that one transgresses Lo Sachmod in such a case, nonetheless, he’s not considered a Chamsan, as one is only considered a Chamsan if he does not receive the consent of the owner to go through with the sale. [See Bava Kama 62a; Tosafos Bava Metzia 5a and Sanhedrin 25b and Rashi there; Encyclopedia Talmudit Erech Chamsan; Imrei Yaakov on Admur Biurim  “Sheiyn Dato”]

[20] See Minchas Chinuch Mitzvah 38:2 [transgresses]; Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 452 footnotes 34-36;

[21] See Shaareiy Teshuvah 3:6 that he transgresses also by a gift and so writes Shemiras Halashon 2 and Sefer Hamitzvos Hakatzar L.S. 40; Betzel Hachochma 3:44-10; Eretz Tzevi 3:6; Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 455 footnote 45 and p. 456 footnotes 52-55; See regarding pressuring the owner to disown the item so one can acquire it that doing so does not transgress the prohibition: Maharil Diskin Devarun 5:18; Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 452 footnotes

[22] Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 470 footnote 166

[23] Admur Kuntrus Achron 440:11 [See there that if one takes the item on his own accord, without knowledge or permission of the owner, with intent to pay for it that he transgresses Lo Sachmod, and not Lo Sigzol/Signov]; Smeh 359:14 regarding a forced sale that it transgresses Lo Sachmod Biblically; The following Poskim rule that Lo Sachmod is transgressed specifically in this case, and not in the case where the seller agrees: Hasagas HaRavad on Rambam ibid “Velo Amar Rotzeh Ani” and Tosafus Sanhedrin 25b in 2^nd answer and Poskim in Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 454 footnotes 37-4; See Bava Kama 5b and Tosafus Sanhedrin 25b in his question regarding Shomer paying for Pikadon and keeping it for himself under claim it was lost or stolen [See Michaber C.M. 359:9 that such a person who keeps a Pikadon for pay is called an Oshek]; See Tosafos ibid and Sanhedrin 25b and Rashi there that such a person is a Chamsan; See Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 450-452; See Encyclopedia Talmudit Erech Chamsan; Imrei Yaakov ibid in Biurim

Other opinions: From some sources it is implied that the prohibition of Lo Sachmod is only transgressed if one takes the item without pay [i.e. stealing!]. [Ir Shushan, brought and negated in Smeh ibid and Beir Heiytiv 359:6 in defense of Ir Shushan and negation of Smeh, that the Biblical prohibition of Lo Sachmod does not apply if he pays for the item and it is only Rabbinical; See Tosafos Sanhedrin 25b in his first answer that the Lo Sachmod prohibition is implied to only be transgressed if one doesn’t pay money for the item; See however Bava Kama 5b and question of Tosafus ibid and so brings Smeh 359:14 that this is the mistake of people in their interpretation of the prohibition, as in truth the prohibition is transgressed even in such a case that money is paid.]

[24] Bava Kama 5b; See Michaber C.M. 359:9 that such a person who keeps a Pikadon for pay is called an Oshek; See Tosafus Sanhedrin 25b

[25] Admur KU”A ibid

The reason: As when one intends to pay the owner for the value of the stolen object there is no prohibition of stealing, but rather of Lo Sachmod [Admur KU”A ibid based on Bava Metzia 5b; Avnei Nezer 44:4; 324:5; 325:15; See Chikrei Halachos 1:23b], and the prohibition against Lo Sachmod [force sales] was never said regarding the items of gentiles. The reason for this is because the verse states “Lo Sachmod … Reiecha”, your friend, which comes to include only a Jew. [Admur KU”A ibid based on ruling that Lo Sashok does not apply to item of Gentile due to that the verse says Reiacha; See Admur Gzeila Ugineiva 4 who excludes the money of a gentile from the prohibition of Lo Sashok, however in Halacha 5 Admur makes no mention of exclusion of item of gentile from the prohibition of Lo Sachmod; Other Poskim who also rule Lo Sachmod does not apply to a gentile: Chasan Sofer in Shaar Hamakneh p. 92; Poskim brought in Sdei Chemed Mareches Lamed 130; See Avnei Nezer 44:4; 324:5; 325:15; Emek Sheila 82; Tehila Ledavid 3:31; Chikrei Halachos ibid]

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule the prohibition of Lo Sachmod applies even against the property of a gentile, and hence it is forbidden to steal his items even if one has intent to pay. [Devar Moshe Tinyana 98; Poskim in Sdei Chemed ibid; See Perisha 604] Other Poskim leave this matter in question. [P”M 604 M”Z 1]

[26] See Michaber C.M. 359:11 and Rambam 1:12 and Aruch Hashulchan C.M. 359:12 that one who steals the coveted item transgresses three negative commands [omitted from Admur ibid], hence making it clear in his opinion that even stealing item transgresses the Lo Sachmod prohibition; Tosafos Sanhedrin 25b in his first answer that this is the only prohibition of Lo Sachmod; See Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 450-451 and Poskim in footnotes 13-19 and p. 454-456 and footnotes 43-57

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that the prohibition of Lo Sachmod is not transgressed in such a case, and one only transgress the prohibition of stealing. [See Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 450-451 and Poskim in footnotes 13-19 for a dispute regarding if the item must be Halachically acquired by the person who took it in order to transgress Lo Sachmod and p. 454-456 and footnotes 43-57 for a dispute regarding if stealing the coveted item also transgresses Lo Sachmod and for a dispute if this is the main intent of Lo Sachmod; See Bava Kama 5b that people are mistaken to think that Lo Sachmod is transgressed if one takes the item without pay [i.e. stealing!] and see Tosafus ibid that according to this approach one transgresses two prohibitions, although it is unclear if their mistake is only in the fact that they attribute the prohibition of Lo Sachmod to only this case or if the mistake is the fact that they attribute the prohibition of Lo Sachmod at all to this case and in truth it does not apply when one steals an object; However, see Tosafos Sanhedrin 25b in his first answer that the Lo Sachmod prohibition is implied to only be transgressed if one doesn’t pay money for the item. This concluding wording of the Rambam was completely omitted from Admur ibid, hence implying unlike the above opinion. Vetzaruch Iyun;]

[27] See Aruch Hashulchan ibid and Maharam Shick 38:3 that is only transgressed after trying to convince the owner to sell it; Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 457-458 footnotes 62-67

[28] See Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 458 footnotes 70-76

[29] See Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 459

[30] Maggid Mishneh on Rambam Gezeila Veaveida 1:9 in explanation of opinion of Rambam the by a consensual sale there is no need to return and the object even though a transgression took place

[31] See Raavad Gezeila Veaveida 1:9 “I have not seen something more preposterous than this, as there is no greater action then taking the item. Rather there are no lashes because he has to pay back and return the object to the person whom he took the item from” However, in his opinion the transgression only applies if the owner did not agree to the sale; See Maggid Mishneh ibid

[32] Rav Avraham Ben Harambam on Shemos 20:14; Betzel Hachochmah 3:43; Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid 41; See Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 462 footnotes 104-108

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that one transgresses even in such a case. [Derech Pikudecha Mitzvah 38; Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid footnotes 108]

[33] See Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 467-468 footnotes 152-156; Even Yisrael 5:105 [no Lo Sachmod]

[34] See Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid Biurim “Sheiyn Daato” in length

[35] Pischeiy Chosehn Geneiva 1:26

[36] Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid

[37] Betzel Hachochmah 3:43 that only if one asks three times does he transgress as we learn regarding other matters

[38] Yehuda Yaleh C.M. 33 based on Sefer Chareidim Mitzvos Hateluyos Beleiv 21; Shaareiy Tehsuvah 3:43; Betzel Hachochmah 3:43; Imrei Yaakov ibid 45 and in Biurim

[39] Aruch Hashulchan C.M. 359:13; Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 457 footnote 60

[40] Admur ibid; Michaber C.M. 359:10 and 12; Tur ibid; Rambam Gezeila Veaveida 1:10 and 12; Sefer Hamitzvos of Rambam L.S. 266; Midrash Michilta Derashbi Shemos ibid; Maggid Mishneh on Rambam Gezeila Veaveida 1:10; Bach 359; Minchas Pitim in name of Zohar; Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 459-460 footnotes 81-88; Imrei Yaakov ibid 43

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that the prohibition of Lo Sisaveh is only transgressed if one actually takes the item. [See Moshav Zekeinim Shemos 20:14 in name of Rabbeinu Tam; Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid footnote 88] Likewise, some Poskim rule that there is no difference between the prohibition of Lo Sachmod and Lo Sisaveh, and they are the same exact prohibition simply being said in different words by the Torah. [Even Ezra Shemos 11:5 and 20:1; Yireim Mitzvah 115; Semag; Many Poskim in Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid footnote 89; Imrei Yaakov ibid 43]

[41] The reason: As the prohibition against coveting referred to in the words Lo Sisaveh, applies simply to the desire of the heart. [Admur]

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that the prohibition of Lo Sisaveh is only transgressed if one contemplates ways of taking the item from the owner without his consent for the sale. However, if he contemplates ways of convincing the owner to sell it to him until the owner will agree, then there is no prohibition that is transgressed. [See Maggid Mishneh on Rambam 1:10 in opinion of Raavad ibid; Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid footnote 98] Other Poskim rule that the prohibition of Lo Sisaveh is only transgressed if one actually takes the item. [See Moshav Zekeinim Shemos 20:14 in name of Rabbeinu Tam; Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid footnote 88] Other Poskim rule that the Biblical Lo Sachmod prohibition only applies if one actually steals the item [see Ir Shushan and Beir Hieytiv ibid], and the same would apply here regarding Lo Sachmod, and it is only transgressed if one contemplates stealing the item.

If one knows he will not be able to buy it: It is disputed amongst the Poskim as to whether this prohibition is transgressed even if one knows that he will not be successful in getting the owner to sell it to him, such as of the owner is very powerful, but one nevertheless fantasizes about doing so. [See Smeh 359:18; Perisha 359; Ramban Devarim 5:18; Encyclopedia Talmudit p. 474 footnotes 201-208]

[42] Rambam Sefer Hamitzvos L.S. 266; Chinuch Mitzvah 416; Maggid Mishneh on Rambam Gezeila Veaveida 1:10 based on Mechilta ibid; See Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 449 footnote 81

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that there is no difference between the prohibition of Lo Sachmod and Lo Sisaveh, and hence they are not to be counted as two separate mitzvah’s of the 613 and are all considered one mitzvah. [Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid footnote 93]

[43] Implication of Admur and all Poskim ibid; Aruch Hashulchan 359:8 as learned from the Misoninim in Parshas Behalosecha; Sdei Chemed Lamed Kelal 130; Sefer Chareidim Mitzvos Hateluyos Baleiv p. 30; Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 461 footnote 95-101

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that the actual feeling of jealousy in the heart and coveting of the item of another person  transgresses the prohibition, even without any contemplation how to get the item from the person. [Even Ezra Shemos 11:5 and 20:1; Yireim Mitzvah 115; Semag; See Yehuda Yaleh C.M. 33 that so is implied from Rambam in Sefer Hamitzvos Lav 266 and Chinuch and Ralbag, brought in Sdei Chemed Lamed Kelal 130; Pela Yoeitz Erech Chemda; Many Poskim in Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 462 footnotes 102-103]

[44] Rav Avraham Ben Harambam on Shemos 20:14; See Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 462 footnotes 104-108

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that one transgresses even in such a case. [Derech Pikudecha Mitzvah 38; Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid footnotes 108]

[45] Admur ibid; Michaber 359:11-12; Rambam ibid 1:11-12; See also Rabbeinu Bechayeh Kad Hakemach Erech Chemda

Lashes: See Halacha D in footnote!

Invalidation for testimony: See Michaber 359:9 that one who forces somebody to sell his item is not Biblically invalidated for testimony, but Rabbinically; Smeh 259:14 and Bava Metzia 5b and Sanhedrin 25b and Beis Shmuel 28:2 that people think the prohibition is only if you don’t pay and hence anytime someone paid for the item, he is not biblically invalid for testimony; Encyclopedia Talmudit Erech Chamsan; See Imrei Yaakov ibid 44

[46] Admur ibid; Michaber 359:11; Rambam ibid 1:11

[47] Michaber ibid and Rambam ibid as the verse states “and you coveted homes and stole them”

[48] Michaber ibid and Rambam ibid

[49] Kad Hakemach ibid

[50] Kad Hakemach ibid

[51] Admur ibid; Michaber 359:12; Rambam ibid 1:12

[52] Michaber ibid; Rambam ibid; Omitted from Admur ibid, Vetzaruch Iyun! See Halacha D for a dispute regarding if one transgresses Lo Sachmod if he steals an item

[53] Kad Hakemach Erech Chemda

[54] Midrash Raba Bereishis 20:10; Sota 9b

[55] Admur Hilchos Gezeila Ugeneiva Halacha 5; Michaber C.M. 359:10; Tur 359:10; Rambam Gezeila 1:9;  Mechilta Yisro Parsha Ches; Smeh 359:18; Aruch Hashulchan 359:10; Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid Os 2 pp. 471-473

[56] The status of an item that its value is less than a Peruta: It is disputed amongst the Poskim as to whether the prohibition is transgressed if one covets an item whose value is less than a Peruta. [See Minchas Chinuch 38; Sdei Chemed Lamed Kelal 130; Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid pp. 475-476 footnotes 211-220]

[57] Items available for purchase on the market: Some Poskim suggest that the prohibition only applies to items that are not readily available on the market to purchase, for if one desires the specific item owned by the individual for whatever reason. However, if he desires the general item and it just happens to be his friend owns one, then he does not transgress Lo Sachmod if he pressures him to sell it to him, if it is readily available on the market. [Eretz Tzevi 4 in name of Imrei Emes; Imrei Yaakov ibid in Biurim “Over Belo Sachmod”; See Betzel Hachochma 3:44]

[58] Mefarshim on Mechilta ibid; Aruch Hashulchan 359:10; Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 472 footnotes 184-186

[59] Aruch Hashulchan C.M. 359:10; Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 472 footnotes 187

[60] See Sefer Lereiacha Kamocha 7 that so is understood from Semak ibid regarding Korach

[61] Mechilta Derashbi 20:14; Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 472 footnotes 189

[62] Mechilta Yisro ibid; Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 473 footnotes 190-196

Other opinions: Some suggest that there are Poskim who will learn that the prohibition against coveting another person’s real estate property such as a field, excluding a house, is only regarding Lo Sisaveh and not regarding Lo Sachmod. [See Encyclopedia ibid]

[63] See Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 473 footnote 197

[64] See Admur ibid Halacha 5 “if the owner did not have intent to sell it”; Rambam Sefer Hamitzvos L.S. 258; Chareidim L.S.; Kitzur SHU”A 182:5; See Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 474 footnotes 209-210

[65] Netziv on Mechilta ibid; See Encyclopedia ibid

[66] See Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 476 footnotes 221-222

[67] See Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 476-477 footnotes 223-230

[68] See Sdei Chemed Lamed Kelal 130; Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 477-478 footnotes 221-236

[69] See Eretz Tzevi 4; Betzel Hachochma 3:43-12-14; Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 468-470 footnotes 157-165

[70] Chidushei Harim Bava Kama 66b; Betzel Hachochma ibid; Many Poskim in Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 469 footnotes 163

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that one does not transgresses even in such a case. [Poskim in Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid footnote 164]

[71] See Even Yisrael 5:105

[72] Bava Basra 21a and 22a

[73] Bava Basra 75a; Hayom Yom 19^th Nissan

Bookmark