פירוש על דברים 5:18

ולא תתאוה — The Targum renders this by ולא תירוג which, too, is an expression denoting “desiring” (חמד the word used in the preceding part of this verse), just as (Genesis 2:9) “נחמד to the eyes”, we render in the Targum by “desirable (רגג) to behold”.

ולא תחמוד , “and you shall not covet, etc.” In Parshat Yitro the commandment employs only the verb תמד, whereas here Moses added an additional phrase commencing with the verb אוה, to desire (in the reflexive mode). From the wording in Yitro we would have thought that only when steps are taken to translate one’s burning desire into practice does one transgress this prohibition. If Moses had not added the dimension of merely “desiring” a field, or an ox, we might have thought, that only when one engages in translating one’s desire into practice is this prohibited, but that “daydreaming” about it is not objectionable. Hence, he restated part of the original version to make the point we just mentioned.

ולא תתאוה בית רעיך, “and do not covet the house of your fellow.” In the first version of the Ten Commandments the Torah described this coveting of one’s fellow’s house with the verb לא תחמוד. The difference is whether one is planning to pay for it or wants it even without contemplating paying for it i.e. not planning to translate his craving into action. Here Moses reminds us that even the mere thought of wanting it makes one liable for violating this commandment. The reason is that ultimately the desire to own what belongs to someone else (who has not offered it for sale) will lead to one offering money and pressuring the owner to part with it (compare Maimonides Hilchot Gezeilah 1,9).

Which is also an expression of desiring, etc. I.e., one should not ask: [Why] over there (Shmos 20:14) is it written לא תחמוד (do not covet), but here it is written לא תתאוה (lit., do not desire)? Rashi explains: Which is also, etc. And therefore the Targum says לא תירוג, which is an expression of desiring.

He added an explanation in the commandment Neither shalt thou covet in that he mentioned first the [neighbor’s] wife [whereas in the Book of Exodus the neighbor’s house is stated first] for the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth¹⁷³Genesis 8:21. with respect to women more than anything else. He further explained, that included in the term “coveting” is even mere “desire” [as stated here, Neither shalt thou ‘desire’ thy neighbor’s house etc.]. Thus if he desires to rob anything from his neighbor, but is unable to do so because his neighbor is stronger than he, or because in his locality there is fear of the government, he transgresses this commandment.¹⁷⁴Thus, if a person really desires something but does nothing to obtain it, he transgresses the prohibition, neither shalt thou desire. If his desire for the object is so strong that he obtains it through some scheme, he additionally transgresses the commandment, Thou shalt not covet. But if the owner refuses under all circumstances to sell it and he takes it by force, he also transgresses the commandment, Nor shalt thou rob him (Leviticus 19:13). See “The Commandments,” Vol. II, pp. 251-252. He added here his field, wherefrom the Rabbis have interpreted in the Mechilta:¹⁷⁵Mechilta, Yithro 5. “Perhaps I may reason: Just as the specific examples [mentioned in the Decalogue in Exodus, namely, his manservant, his maidservant, his ox, or his ass] are movable property which may not be seized from customers in case of non-payment by the creditor, so also, I can include [in the prohibition not to covet] only movable property which may not be resorted to for non-payment. But when it says in Deuteronomy his field [which is immovable property and may be resorted to for non-payment] you must perforce interpret the verse as follows: Just as the specific matters deal with things one can buy and sell, so all things one can buy and sell [are included in this prohibition].”

ולא תתאוה, “and you shall not covet.” The expression “to covet” is used only when it describes the desire of one’s heart, not when one plans to act upon that desire. (Ibn Ezra) As soon as someone becomes aware, that his neighbour, due to various kinds of pressure is known to consider selling it and instead of financially supporting his neighbour exploits his reduced circumstances, and decides in his mind to buy it from him, he has violated this commandment. When he expressed his intention by mouth, he has violated the commandment of לא תחמד, as written at the beginning of verse 18. All the last five commandments are introduced with the connective letter ו except for the first one in that string, the warning not to commit murder, i.e. לא תרצח. In all the Ten Commandments, commencing with the word: אנכי, until the words: ולשומרי מצותו at the end of verse 10, there is no difference between the wording of the first set of the Ten Commandments and the wording of the second set, as G-d repeated the wording, and therefore their meaning is identical in both instances. Moses had not intended to introduce any changes either. However, in the second version in our chapter, the changes that Moses did introduce did not change the meaning of the commandment. There is a general rule concerning when something in the Torah has been repeated, you will always find a minor change in the wording or spelling. The change you see was part of the original Torah scroll and has not been introduced subsequently. The Ten Commandments on the first set of the Tablets, which Moses had smashed and the Commandments on the second Tablets quoted in the Book of Deuteronomy are identical with the exception of that addition for the reason given for the commandment to honour one’s parents. What we see written down in the Book of Deuteronomy is the version of the second set of Tablets Moses received from G-d. Basically, the text in the Torah scroll Moses handed down to us is the one that represents Moses’ words. Here Moses arranged the order of the examples quoted in the tenth commandment, according to how people develop desires as they grow older. First they desire a better house, one that that they could not afford previously. Next, they desire a woman who they feel has more to offer them than the one they had married when relatively young and inexperienced. Next they also desire such assets as make life more comfortable, even if they have to acquire them by making someone who owns them part with theirs.

שדהו, “his field,” here Moses introduces a possession, other than chattels, i.e. real estate, something that is sold with אחריות, with certain guarantees by the vendor to reimburse the purchaser if his title will be challenged. Adding this dimension to the list of matters one must not covet closes the circle, i.e. all possessions that are subject to being sold and bought must not be coveted, even if one is willing to pay more than the market price for it in order to satisfy one’s craving for certain possessions. [I have slightly amended the wording in the interest of readers not thoroughly familiar with Jewish civil law. Ed.]