Qitzur Shulchan Arukh – 182:15-16

טו: הַמּוֹצֵא פֵרוֹת בַּדֶּרֶךְ תַּחַת אִילָן שֶׁהוּא נוֹטֶה עַל הַדֶּרֶך, אִם הֵם פֵּרוֹת שֶׁדַּרְכָּן לִפּוֹל מִן הָאִילָן וּבִנְפִילָתָם הֵם נִמְאָסִים, אוֹ אֲפִלּוּ אֵינָם נִמְאָסִים אֶלָּא שֶׁרֹב הָעוֹבְרִים שָׁמָּה הֵמָּה גוֹיִם, אוֹ שֶׁהֵם פֵּרוֹת שֶׁדֶּרֶךְ הַבְּהֵמוֹת לֶאֱכֹל אוֹתָם, וְהֵן עוֹבְרוֹת דֶרֶךְ שָם, הֲרֵי הַבְּעָלִים כְּבָר נִתְיָאֲשׁוּ מֵהֶם וּמֻתָּרִים. אֲבָל אִם הֵם פֵּרוֹת שֶׁאֵינָם נִמְאָסִים בִּנְפִילָתָם, וְרֹב הָעוֹבְרִים שָׁמָּה הֵמָּה יִשְׂרְאֵלִים, אֲסוּרִים מִֹשוּם גָּזֵל. וְאִם הֵם שֶׁל יְתוֹמִים קְטַנִּים, אֲסוּרִים בְּכָל עִנְיָן, כִּי הַקְּטַנִּים, אֵין הַיֵאוּשׁ וְהַמְּחִילָה שֶׁלָּהֶם כְּלוּם

Someone who finds fruit on the path under a tree that is planted along the path, if the fruit is of the sort that normally falls from the tree and when they fall they become disgusting, or even if not disgusting, but most of those who pass there are non-Jews, or they are fruit that it is normal for animals to eat and they [often] travel this path, then the owners already gave up on them and they are permitted.

However, if they are fruit that do not become disgusting when they fall, and most of those who pass there are Jews, they are prohibited because of theft.

If they belong to young orphans, they are prohibited in every way, since the giving up on [something] or their forgiving has no [halachic import; being minors, their intent doesn't have legal weight].

טז: דִּינָא דְּמַלְכוּתָא דִּינָא

The law of the kingdom [ie the civil authorities of your country] is law.


Dina demalkhusa dina is a complicated topic, with long discussion by many rishonim as to its full scope. It is enigmatic that R’ Shelomo Ganzfried just quotes the idiom, rather than spelling out its details — it would could easily take an entire se’if (chapter)!

From its placement, we can deduce that the QSA considers dina demalkhusa to be primarily related to fiscal law and theft. But I can’t tell if he’s referring to stealing from the government, i.e. limiting the concept to taxation. Or if he is saying that property can be set by the customs defined by civil law and thus something someone else legally owns by local law may not be taken or used even if they wouldn’t have otherwise owned it according to halakhah.

Qitzur Shulchan Arukh – 182:14

יד: וּמִכָּל מָקוֹם מֻתָּר לְבֶן-בֵּיתוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם לִתֵּן פְּרוּסָה לְעָנִי אוֹ לִבְנוֹ שֶׁל אוֹהֲבוֹ שֶׁל בַּעַל-הַבַּיִת שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעְתּוֹ, לְפִי שֶׁכָּךְ נָהֲגוּ בַּעֲלֵי הַבָּתִּים. וְאֵין זֶה נִקְרָא שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעַת הַבְּעָלִים, כֵּיוָן שֶׁכָּךְ נָהֲגוּ, וְהַבְּעָלִים יוֹדְעִין מִזֶּה הַמִּנְהָג. וּמִטַּעַם זֶה, מֻתָּר לְקַבֵּל צְדָקָה מִן הַנָּשִׁים דָּבָר מֻעָט שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעַת הַבְּעָלִים, הוֹאִיל וְדַרְכָּן בְּכָךְ, וְיוֹדְעִין הַבְּעָלִים שֶׁדַּרְכָּן בְּכָךְ. וְכֵן בְּפַרְדֵּס, אִם הוּא רָגִיל בּוֹ לֶאֱכֹל מִפֵּרוֹתָיו מִדַּעַת הַבְּעָלִים, מֻתָּר. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיוֹצֵא בָזֶה

But in any case, it is permitted for a member of someone’s household to give a slice [of food] to a poor person, or to the son of one of the homeowner’s beloved [friends or relation] without his knowledge because that is the custom of homeowners. It is not called “without the owners’ knowledge” since that is the custom and the owners know of this custom. For this reason, it is permissible to receive charity from women, a small thing, without knowledge of the owners [ie their husbands, assuming they didn't agree to communal property], since this is their usual way, and the owner knows that this is their way. Similarly in an orchard, if it is usual for him to eat from its fruits on the general knowledge of the owners [without this specific incidence discussed] it is permitted. Similarly anything like this.


Related to this halakhah of being able to assume the owner agrees to customary practice, R’ Daniel Eidensohn pointed me to an answer to a question I asked about 182:12:

This situation comes up in shul pretty often. There aren’t that many different styles of men coat, and it sometimes happens that someone looks through the coat room and realizes that the only remaining coat was one similar to theirs. Someone who left already took with the wrong coat.

I hadn’t heard, though, of a rabbi telling the person stuck in this situation that he is not permitted to wear the accidentally exchanged coat home.

Rav Moshe Feinstein (Igeros Moshe vol VII, Orach Chaim vol V, #9, sec 7, pg 15) opens by saying that use of the other person’s coas is prohibited. He cites Bava Metzi’ah 46a and Shulchan Arukh, Ch”M 136:3.

Then the Igeros Moshe cites the Arukh haShulchan (end of 136; hereafter AhS). The AhS rules that since wearing
the other person’s galoshes or coat is the customary response, one can assume that the owner implicitly gave permission.

Rav Moshe then sets limits. Like the fact that if the baal were to demand repayment for the value of coat rental, you would be obligated to pay it. (I wonder if that’s on Shabbos too, since that would imply a he leased you his coat on Shabbos.)

And Rav Moshe notes that since we only see this in the AhS means there must be communities where this is not the minhag. And therefore shuls that have this practice should announce it (and put up a sign, say so in the stickers in the front of shul siddurim, and things of that sort…)

Qitzur Shulchan Arukh – 182:13

יג:אָסוּר לֵהָנוֹת מִשׁוּם דָּבָר ֹשֶל חֲבֵרוֹ שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעְתּוֹ. אַף-עַל-פִּי שֶׁבָּרוּר לוֹ שֶׁכְּשֶיִוָּדַע לִבְעָלָיו יִשְׂמְחוּ וְיָגִילוּ מִפְנֵי אַהֲבָתָם אוֹתוֹ. מִכָּל מָקוֹם אָסוּר. לְפִיכָךְ הַנִּכְנָס לְפַרְדֵּס אוֹ לְגִנַּת חֲבֵרוֹ, אָסוּר לוֹ לִלְקֹט פֵּרוֹת שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעַת הַבְּעָלִים. אַף-עַל-פִּי שֶׁבַּעַל הַפַּרְדֵּס וּבַעַל הַגִּנָּה אוֹהֲבוֹ וְרֵעוֹ אֲשֶׁר כְּנַפְשוֹ, וּבְוַדַּאי יִשְׂמַח וְיָגִיל כְּשֶׁיִוָּדַע לוֹ ֹשֶנֶּהֱנָה זֶה מִפֵּרוֹתָיו, מִכָּל מָקוֹם כֵּיוָן שֶׁעַכְשָו אֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ מִזֶה, הֲרֵי הוּא נֶהֱנֶה בְּאִסּוּר. וְצָרִיךְ לְהַזְהִיר לָרַבִּים, שֶׁנִּכְשָׁלִין בָּזֶה מֵחֲמַת חֶסְרוֹן יְדִיעָה

It is prohited to get benefit from anything of a friend’s without his knowledge. Even if it is certain to him that when the owners would be informed, they would be happy and rejoice because of their love for him. In any case, it is prohibited.

Therefore, someone who enters his friend’s orchard or garden, he is not allowed to pick fruit without the knowledge of the owners. Even if the owner of the orchard and the owner of the garden love him and is his friend [as close] as his own soul, and would certainly be happy and rejoice when he is informed that this one benefited from his fruit, in any case since now he does not know about this, he is getting benefit in a prohibited manner.

We must warn the masses about this, who stumble in this because of lack of knowledge.

Qitzur Shulchan Arukh – 182:12

יב: מִי שֶׁנִּתְחַלְפוּ לוֹ כֵּלָיו בְּבֵית הַמִּשְׁתֶּה וְכַדּוֹמֶה, הַרֵי זֶה לֹא יִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בְּכֵלִים אֵלוּ שֶׁבָּאוּ לְיָדוֹ וְאֵינָם שֶׁלּוֹ. וִּכְשֶׁיָבוֹא בַּעַל הַחֵפֶץ, צָרִיךְ לְהַחֲזִירוֹ לוֹ, וְאַף-עַל-פִּי שֶׁהַחֵפֶץ שֶׁלּוֹ נֶאֱבָד. וְכֵן כּוֹבֶסֶת הַמְכַבֶּסֶת לְרַבִּים וְהֵבִיאָה לוֹ חָלוּק שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ, אָסוּר לְלָבְשוֹ, אֶלָּא צָרִיךְ לְהַחֲזִירוֹ לִבְעָלָיו, וְאַף-עַל-פִּי שֶׁשֶּׁלּוֹ נֶאֱבָד. אַךְ אִם מֻנָּח אֶצְלוֹ יָמִים רַבִּים, עַד שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁלֹּא חָקְרוּ הַבְּעָלִים בֵּינְתַיִם אַחַר שֶׁלָּהֶם, אָז מֻתָּר לוֹ לְלָבְשוֹ, כִּי מִסְּתָמָא סִלְּקָה הַכּוֹבֶסֶת אֶת בְּעָלָיו וְשִׁלְּמָה בְּעַד הֶחָלוּק הַזֶה

Someone whose utensils were switched in the pub or the like, he should not use the utensils that came to his hand that weren’t his. When the owner of the item comes, he must return it — even if his own item is lost. Similarly a washer-woman who washes [clothes] for the community and brings him a shirt which is not his, it is prohibited to wear it. Rather, he must return it to its owners — even if his own was lost.

However, if it rests with him many days, until it is impossible that the owners didn’t search in the meantime for their own, then it is permitted for him to wear it. Because by default [you may assume that] the washer-woman cleared [the matter] with its owners and paid for this shirt.


This situation comes up in shul pretty often. There aren’t that many different styles of men coat, and it sometimes happens that someone looks through the coat room and realizes that the only remaining coat was one similar to theirs. Someone who left already took with the wrong coat.

I hadn’t heard, though, of a rabbi telling the person stuck in this situation that he is not permitted to wear the accidentally exchanged coat home.

Qitzur Shulchan Arukh – 182:10-11

י: וְלָכֵן מִי שֶׁהוּא גַנָּב אוֹ גַזְלָן מְפֻרְסָם, שֶׁאֵין לוֹ מְלָאכָה אַחֶרֶת אֶלָּא זֹאת, וְכָל מְמוֹנוֹ בְּחֶזְקַת גָנוּב אוֹ גָזוּל, אָסוּר לֵהָנוֹת מִמֶּנוּ, וְאָסוּר לְעָנִי לָקַחַת מִמֶּנּוּ צְדָקָה

[Continuing the topic of buying or getting benefit from stolen merchandise...] Therefore, anyone who is a known robber or thief, who has no job other than this, and [therefore] all his money is presumed to be robbed or stolen, it is prohibited to get any benefit from him, and a poor person may not take charity from him.

יא: וְכֵן אִם אֶחָד רוצֶה לִמְכֹּר אֵיזֶה חֵפֶץ שֶׁנִּרְאֶה שֶׁהוּא גָנוּב, כְּגוֹן שׁוֹמְרֵי פֵּרוֹת שֶׁמּוֹכְרִים פֵּרוֹת בְּמָקוֹם צָנוּעַ, אוֹ מוֹכֵר אַחֵר שֶׁנּוֹשֵׂא אֵיזֶה דָבָר בְּהַצְנֵעַ לְמָכְרוֹ, אוֹ שֶׁאוֹמֵר לְהַקּוֹנֶה, הַטְמֵן, אָסוּר לִקְנוֹת. וַאֲפִלּוּ לִקְנוֹת מֵאִשָּׁה אֵיזֶה דָבָר שֶׁיֵשׁ לָחוּשׁ שֶׁהִיא מוֹכֶרֶת שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעַת בַּעְלָּה, אוֹ לִקְנוֹת מֵאִישׁ דָּבָר מִתַּכְשִׁיטֵי הָאִשָּׁה וּמַלְבּוּשֶׁיהָ, שֶׁיֵשׁ לָחוּשׁ שֶׁהוּא מוֹכְרוֹ שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעַת אִשְׁתּוֹ, אָסוּר

Similarly, anyone who wants to sell any item that appears to be stolen, such as the guardians of fruit who are selling fruit in some hidden place, or another seller who carries an item into a hidden place to sell it, or who tells the buyer “wait [for someone to pass by]“, it is prohibited to buy. Even buying from a woman some item that there is reason to suspect she is selling it without her husband’s knowledge, or to buy from a man an item of his wife’s jewelry or clothing that there is reason to suspect that he sells it without his wife’s knowledge, is prohibited.

Qitzur Shulchan Arukh – 182:9

ט: אֲפִלוּ לֵהָנוֹת שׁוּם הֲנָאָה מִן הַגְּנֵבָה אוֹ מִן הַגְּזֵלָה כָּל זְמַן שֶׁהִיא בְּיַד הַגַּנָב אוֹ הַגַּזְלָן, אָסוּר. וַאֲפִלּוּ הֲנָאָה מֻעֶטֶת שֶׁגַּם בְּעָלֶיהָ לֹא הָיוּ מַקְפִּידִים עָלֶיהָ, כְּגוֹן חִלּוּף מַטְבְּעוֹת בְּשָׁוְיָן, אָסוּר בְּמָעוֹת גְּנוּבוֹת אוֹ גְּזוּלוֹת. וְכֵן לִכָּנֵס לְבַיִת גָּזוּל, בַּחַמָּה מִפְנֵי הַחַמָּה וּבַגְשָׁמִים מִפְּנֵי הַגְשָׁמִים, אוֹ לַעֲבוֹר בְּשָׂדֶה גְזוּלָה, אָסוּר

Even getting any benefit from something robbed or stolen, as long as it is in the possession of the robber or thief, is prohibited. Even a tiny benefit, that the owners also would not care about, such as exchanging coins of equal value, it is prohibited with robbed or stolen money. Similarly entering a stolen house, in the sun [i.e. on a sunny day] because of the sun or in the rain because of the rain, or to cross a stolen field, is prohibited.

Qitzur Shulchan Arukh – 182:8

ח: אָסוּר לִקְנוֹת מֵהַגַנָּב אוֹ מֵהַגַּזְלָן אֶת הַחֵפֶץ שֶׁגָּנַב אוֹ גָזָל. וְאֵין חִלּוּק בֵּין שֶׁהוּא יִשְׂרָאֵל אוֹ נָכְרִי, כִּי גַם הַנָּכְרִי נִצְטַוֶּה עַל אִסּוּר גְּנֵבָה וּגְזֵלָה אֲפִלּוּ מִנָּכְרִי חֲבֵרוֹ, וְהוּא מִשֶּׁבַע מִצְוֹת שֶׁנִּצְטַוּוּ עֲלֵיהֶם. וְעָוֹן גָּדוֹל הוּא לִקְנוֹת מִן הַגַּנָּב אוֹ מִן הַגַּזְלָן, שֶׁהֲרֵי הוּא מַחֲזִיק יְדֵי עוֹבְרֵי עֲבֵרָה. וְעַל זֶה נֶאֱמַר, “חוֹלֵ֣ק עִם־גַּ֭נָּב שׂוֹנֵ֣א נַפְשׁ֑וֹ”, וְגוֹרֵם לַגַּנָּב שֶׁיִגְנוֹב עוֹד גַּם גְּנֵבוֹת אֲחֵרוֹת, וְאִם לֹא יִמְצָא לוֹקֵחַ, לֹא יִגְנוֹב. וְאַף-עַל-פִּי שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר לוֹ לְהוֹלִיךְ אֶת הַגְּנֵבָה לְמָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין מַכִּירִין אוֹתוֹ, אֵין זֶה מָצוּי לוֹ כָּל-כָּךְ. וְאִם הַקּוֹנֶה מִתְכַּוֵּן לְטוֹבַת הַבְּעָלִים לְהַחֲזִירוֹ לָהֶם כְּשֶׁיַחֲזִירוּ לוֹ מְעוֹתָיו, מֻתָּר. וְדַוְקָא כְּשֶׁלֹּא הָיָה אֶפְשָׁרִי לַבְּעָלִים בְּעַצְמָם לְהַצִיל. וְכֵן אָסוּר לְקַבֵּל בְּפִקָּדוֹן דָּבָר שֶׁנִּרְאֶה שֶׁהוּא גָנוּב אן גָזוּל

It is prohibited to buy from a robber or a thief the merchandise which he robbed or stole. And there is no difference [in this between]  Jew or non-Jew, for also the non-Jew has the prohibition of robbery and theft even from his fellow non-Jew and it is one of the seven mitzvos that were commanded to them. It is a great sin to buy from the robber or from the thief, for it strengthens the hands of sinners. About this it is said, “One who partners with a thief hates his own soul; [he hears the rebuke and tells nothing.]” It cayses the robber to rob more [items] and also more robberies, but if he didn’t find a buyer he wouldn’t steal. Even though that it’s possible for him to go with the stolen [merchandise] to a place where they do not know him [and sell it there], it is not all that common.

If the buyer intend for the good of the owners, to return to them when they repay him his money, it is permitted. [Presumably replacing the old item at pawn rates is preferred by them over buying a new item at full price.] But specifically when it is impossible for the owners themselves to save the item.

Similarly, it is prohibited to accept as collateral something which appears to be robbed or stolen.

Qitzur Shulchan Arukh – 182:7

ז: הַגּוֹזֵל אֶת הָרַבִּים, כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיָה חֶנְוָנִי וּמָדַד בְּמִדָּה חֲסֵרָה אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁקַל בְּמִשְׁקָל חָסֵר וְכַדּוֹמֶה, אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה מְמֻנֶּה בַּקָּהָל וְהֵקֵל עַל קְרוֹבָיו וְהִכְבִּיד עַל אֲחֵרִים, וְכֵן מִי שֶׁנָטַל רִבִּית מֵרַבִּים, תְּשׁוּבָתוֹ קָשָה. לְפִיכָךְ יַעֲשֶׂה צָרְכֵי רַבִּים, שֶׁגַּם הַנִּגְזָלִים יֵהָנוּ מֵהֶם. וּמִכָּל מָקוֹם לָאֵלֶּה שֶׁהוּא יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁגָּזַל מֵהֶם, מְחֻיָב לְהַחֲזִיר לָהֶם, וְאֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ בְּמַה שֶׁעָשָׂה צָרְכֵי רַבִּים

Someone who robbed from the masses, such as if he was a shopkeeper and measured [his merchandise] with a deficient measure or he weighed with a deficient counter-weight or the like, or he was appointed for communal work and he made things easy for his relatives and hared on others, likewise someone who took interest from the masses, his teshuvah is difficult [since it would require reparations and forgiveness from many victims]. Therefore, he should do things the masses need so that those who were bobbed would also benefit from them. In any case, to those that he knows he stole from them, he is obligated to return it to them, and he does not fulfill his obligation by doing things for the masses.

Qitzur Shulchan Arukh – 182:6

ו: מִצְוַת-עֲשֵׂה עַל הַגּוֹזֵל לְהַחֲזִיר אֶת הַגְּזֵלָה עַצְמָהּ אִם הִיא בְעֵינָהּ וְלֹא נִשְּׁתַּנֵית, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר, “וְהֵשִׁ֨יב אֶת־הַגְּזֵלָ֜ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר גָּזָ֗ל”. וְהוּא הַדִין לְגַנָּב. וְאֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ בִּנְתִינַת דָּמִים, אֲפִלּוּ אִם כְּבָר נִתְיָאֲשׁוּ הַבְּעָלִים. אֲבָל אִם אָבְדָה אוֹ שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּנִית בְּשִׁנוּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר לִבְרִיָתוֹ אוֹ שֶׁשִקְעָהּ בַּבִנְיָן, שֶׁיִהְיֶה לוֹ הֶפְסֵד גָּדוֹל לִסְתֹּר אֶת הַבִּנְיָן, יוֹצֵא יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ בִּנְתִינַת דָּמִים, כְּמוֹ שֶׁהָיְתָה שָוֶה בִּשְׁעַת הַגְּזֵלָּה. וְאִם הַנִּגְזָה הוּא בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר, אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לִשְׁלוֹחַ אֶת הַמָּעוֹת לִמְקוֹמוֹ, אֶלָּא מוֹדִיעוֹ שֶׁיָבוֹא וִישַׁלֵּם לוֹ. אִם מֵת הַנִּגְזָל, יַחֲזִיר לְיוֹרְשָׁיו

It is an obligation on the thief to return the stolen item itself if it still has its appearance and is not changed, as it says “[It shall be if he sinned and is guilty,] that he will return the stolen item which he took by robbery[, or confiscated item that he got by oppression, or the deposited item that was deposited with him, or the lost thing which he found.]” (Devarim 5:23) This is [also] the law for a robber [see below for the difference between the two]. He does not fulfill his obligation by giving money, even if the owners have given up [on ever receiving compensation].

However, if the item is lost, or was altered in a change that can not be restored to its original, or was built into a building so that [the thief or robber] would incur a great loss to destroy the building, then he could fulfill his obligation by giving money, whatever [the stolen item] was worth at the time of the theft. If the one who was robbed is in another place, he does not have to send the money to his place, rather [just] tell him that he could come and he would repay him.

And if the theft victim died, he should return [it] to his heirs.


Gezeilah is taking an item from its owner. I have been translating it is “theft” or “stealing”. Geneivah is more like robbery; the item is removed from the owner’s domain (e.g. robbing a home), but without the owner’s knowledge.

The leniencies in the second paragraph dates back to a ruling by Beis Hillel (Gittin 58a). They were concerned that if returning the item itself were too onerous, thieves would avoid coming clean altogether. The obligations associated with teshuvah would become a barrier to doing it. Therefore if someone stole a beam and built it into his house, or returning the item would be too difficult, we allow the thief to repay the value of the item.

Qitzur Shulchan Arukh – 182:5

ה: כָּל הַחוֹמֵד בֵּיתוֹ אוֹ כֵּילָיו ֹשֶל חֲבֵרוֹ, אוֹ כָּל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין בְּדַעַת חֲבֵרוֹ לְמָכְרוֹ, וְהוּא הִרְבָּה עָלָיו רֵעִים אוֹ שֶׁהִפְצִיר בּוֹ בְעַצְמוֹ עַד שֶׁמְּכָרוֹ לוֹ, הֲרֵי זֶה עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַחְמֹד. וּמִשָּׁעָה שֶׁנִּפְתָּה בְּלִבּוֹ וְחָשַׁב אֵיךְ יִקְנֶה חֵפֶץ זֶה, עָבַר בְּלֹא תִתְאַוֶּה, כִּי אֵין תַּאֲוָה אֶלָּא בַלֵּב בִּלְבָד, וְהַתַּאֲוָה מְבִיאָה לִידֵי חִמּוּד. וְהַקּוֹנֶה אֶת הַדָּבָר שֶׁהִתְאַוָּה לוֹ, עוֹבֵר בִּשְׁנֵי לָאוִין. וּלְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר, לֹא תַחְמֹד וְלֹא תִתְאַוֶּה

Anyone who desires his friends home or utensils, or anything that is not on his friend’s mind to sell, and send him a lot of friends or pleads him personally until he sells it to him, this person is violating “do not covet”. From the time that his heart is enticed and he thinks ‘how can I buy this property?’ he violated “do not desire”. For desire is only in the heart alone, and desire brings to coveting. So, someone who buys something he has a desire for [when they are still someone else's] violates two prohibitions. Therefore it says, “Do not covet [your friend's wife] and do not desire [your neighbor’s house or land, his servant or maid, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.]” (Devarim 5:17).