Excerpt Browser

This page displays the full text of excerpts.  When viewing a single excerpt, its “Share,” “Switch Article,” and “Comment” functions are accessible.

DEUTERONOMY — 5:18 covet

DEUT185 The Torah repeats the Ten Commandments in the book of Deuteronomy. In the book of Exodus, the tenth commandment reads, "You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's" (Exodus 20:14). The Hebrew verb prohibiting coveting is "Lo Tachmod." In Deuteronomy, however, a second verb is added with other slight changes: "You shall not desire your neighbor's wife, nor shall you covet your neighbor's house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor's" [this verse]. The additional verb, "do not desire" ("Lo Titave"), is the subject of debate among the commentaries. Some Jewish law authorities see both verbs as identical and make no distinction between the laws in Exodus and in Deuteronomy (Semag, Mitzvah 158). Rashi agrees with this interpretation (Rashi commentary to this verse). However, the vast majority and normative Jewish approach is to divide this probation into two distinct categories (Zohar 3:261). One prohibition, merely desiring your neighbor's object, is prohibited under Lo Titave, without requiring any action to take place. Coveting, on the other hand, requires a distinct action to be taken in order to be guilty of the sin. But how could a Jew be guilty of a sin from a mere emotion, which may be beyond his control? Maimonides indeed points out that merely desiring the object is not enough to be guilty of "do not desire" ("Lo Titave"). A person must actually plot and scheme how he will obtain the object (without doing any action) to be guilty of this prohibition (Maimonides, Hilchot Gezaila 1:10). Thus, while the sin does not involve any actual action, it does require much more than a mere base emotion. The Code of Jewish Law, Shulchan Aruch, agrees with Maimonides. One can sin without an action, but to be guilty a person must do more than simply desire. He must also use his brain to devise a means to buy or obtain the object (Shulchan Aruch, Chosen Mishpat 359:10-11). The second prohibition of coveting is more clear-cut. The Midrash states that in order to be guilty of sin, a person must act upon his desire to obtain his neighbor's wife, his house, or any object belonging to him (Midrash, Mechilta, HaChodesh 8). What action renders one guilty of coveting? Tur seems to say that merely talking about obtaining the object is enough to make a person guilty (Tur, Choshen Mishpat 371). Maimonides believes that a person must take a concrete action to obtain the object, by approaching the neighbor and repeatedly annoying him or her to give or sell it when the neighbor is reluctant to do so. If the neighbor actually does give it or sell it, only then is the person guilty of the sin of coveting. Shulchan Aruch reflects the view of Maimonides, which has become normative Jewish law: until the neighbor (reluctantly) gives or sells the object after badgering, a person is not guilty of "thou shalt not covet" (Shulchan Aruch, Chosen Mishpat 359:10) Rabbi Eliezer Papo, a later commentary (1785-1825), sums up the two prohibitions simply: "Anyone who desires and then attempts to obtain his neighbor's object as a gift or by purchasing it, violates 'Thou shalt not covet.' And even if he does not attempt to buy it, but merely thinks about ways to get the object into his position, he has violated the prohibition of 'Thou shalt not desire.'" Pele Yo'etz on "Chemdah."

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

DEUTERONOMY — 5:18 covet

DEUT181 Do not covet what belongs to your fellow Jew. One should not wonder, “How can the Torah forbid us to have covetous thoughts when we see beautiful, attractive things in the possession of our neighbors?” Such a question assumes that one has no power over one's thoughts. In truth, a person can stop himself from covetous desire and only fools and people stooped in sin think otherwise. It certainly is within our capability to control our thoughts and wishes so that we do not desire everything that we see. It is simply a matter of willpower. Just as we can come to want something, we just as easily can make ourselves not want it and completely divorce ourselves from thinking about it. Not one of our thoughts, fixed or fleeting, is hidden from Hashem. Accordingly, if we transgress His Will by thinking thoughts that He forbids, He punishes us. On the other hand, for those who love Him and turn all of their thoughts towards perfecting how they serve Him, He sets aside unlimited amounts of kindness. Nothing is better for a person than a virtuous and pure thought, for such is the beginning and end of every good deed. About this mitzvah, our sages teach (Mechilta, Parashas Yisro, chap. 20), “Physical desire leads to coveting, and coveting leads to theft.” Key concept is obvious, for distancing us from theft benefits everyone. As soon as one permits oneself to harbor covetous thoughts for something that belongs to his fellow Jew, he violates this prohibition. His punishment is great, for coveting leads to several types of woe, as received from prophecy about the incident involving Achav and Navos [1 Kings 20-22—AJL].

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

DEUTERONOMY — 5:18 covet

DEUT182 In this blending of creed and deed is the genius of Judaism seen at its best. To take one example. What other Statute-Book, ancient or modern, has tabled such a law as "Thou shall not covet", (Exodus xx:14, [this verse]), implying that one can wrong a neighbour in the heart no less than by bodily injury? [Continued at [[LEV391]] Leviticus 19:14 I LEHRMAN 317]

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

DEUTERONOMY — 5:18 crave

DEUT186 It is a negative commandment not to crave in one’s heart something that belongs to his fellow-man as Scripture says, Neither shall you crave, etc. (D’varim 5:18). This prohibition is apart from the injunction, You shall not covet (Sh’moth 20:14). For a person transgresses the prohibition against craving once he thinks in his heart how he can acquire that object, and his heart is persuaded in the matter [to follow his plan]. Then he violates the injunction, Neither shall you crave, since craving is but in the heart alone. If he then acquires that object, having importuned its owner and sent many friends to him, until he gets it, he violates also the injunction, You shall not covet.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

DEUTERONOMY — 5:18 good

DEUT189 An example of the obligation to provide a pension for public sector workers in their old age or in those cases where they are totally disabled is to be found in the minute books of the community council of Poznan. Written in Eastern Europe, they contain the following decision, from the year of 1636: “Seeing as how our teacher, our master, Rabbi Shimon Zusshinder, has sat faithfully in judgment here in our community for many years, and now, due to failing eyesight and age, is no longer able to fulfill this task, it is fitting that the community should see that he is provided for in an honorable fashion.” Pinkas Kehilat Poznan, Regulation 189. The basis for such a decision is, again, to be found in the biblical injunction “And thou shalt do that which is righteous and good” (Deuteronomy 5:18); it is an act of kindness rather than a legal obligation.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

DEUTERONOMY — 5:18 slave

DEUT190 The practice of separating sexual lust from other types of lust is reflected in the Bible. The original version of the Decalogue outlawed covetousness of sex and property in a single prohibition [this verse]. The Deuteronomic version of the Decalogue prohibits the two types of lust in two separate injunctions (this verse). Despite the strictness of the Jewish moral code, the ancient rabbis evinced a sympathetic understanding of the inordinate effort frequently entailed in man's resistance to sexual temptation. They were impressed by the fact that even the Bible made a concession to man's powerful sex drive in a situation where an absolute prohibition would only provoke defiance. The law regarding a heathen female captive of war, offering a psychological outlet for the sake of preserving the virtue of all parties involved, is a concession to human weakness (Deuteronomy 21:10-14, Kiddushin 21b).

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

RSS
First436437438439440441442443444446448449450451452453454455Last
Back To Top