The final of the Ten Commandments is the prohibition of “Lo Tahmod” – “You shall not covet” (Shemot 20:14). This command forbids desiring somebody’s else’s possession, or even his wife, to the point where he applies pressure until he ultimately obtains the item in question. Even if one paid full price for the item, he violates this prohibition if the owner sold it under duress, due to the pressure that was applied. The Sefer Ha’hinuch explains that coveting another person’s possession or wife is inherently inappropriate, and also may lead to other transgressions such as theft or even murder. Simply experiencing a desire for somebody else’s possession does not constitute a violation of “Lo Tahmod”; this prohibition is transgressed only if one acts upon his desire by applying pressure on the owner. In the case of desiring somebody’s wife, one violates “Lo Tahmod” by trying to convince the husband to divorce his wife so that he can then marry her. One violates this prohibition regardless of whether he personally badgers the owner to give or sell the item, or if he sends other people to pressure the owner. This prohibition applies only to tangible possessions which the owner loses if he capitulates and sells or gives it due to the pressure applied. It would not apply to sharing knowledge, since the “owner” does not lose his knowledge by sharing it. And thus one who pressures his fellow to teach him some skill or some information is not in violation of “Lo Tahmod.” The Rambam (Hilchot Gezela Va’abeda 1:9) writes that one who violates the prohibition of “Lo Tahmod” is not liable to Malkut, because this prohibition falls under the category of “Lav She’en Bo Ma’aseh” – a prohibition which is violated without performing an action. A famous principle establishes that one who transgresses a Biblical prohibition is liable to Malkut only if the command is violated through an action, and thus, the Rambam writes, Malkut are not administered in the case of a violation of “Lo Tahmod.” The Ra’abad (Rav Avraham Ben David of Posquieres, d. 1198), in his critique of the Rambam’s Mishneh Torah, challenges the Rambam’s remark, in light of the Rambam’s own comment in that very same passage, that one does not violate “Lo Tahmod” unless he pressures the owner until he succeeds in obtaining it. Clearly, this prohibition entails a “Ma’aseh” (“action”), as it cannot be violated simply by desiring somebody else’s possession, and instead requires proactively pressuring the owner to sell or give the item. How, then, can the Rambam claim that “Lo Tahmod” falls under the category of “Lav She’en Bo Ma’aseh”? The Maggid Mishneh commentary (by Rav Vidal of Tolosa, Spain, 14 th century) explains the Rambam’s position, asserting that in truth, one violates the prohibition of “Lo Tahmod” by coveting the item in question. Although it is true that one violates this prohibition only if he exerts effort until he obtains this item, this condition is the “Shiur” (“amount”) of coveting that is needed for the prohibition to be violated. Just as one must eat a certain quantity of non-kosher food to be in violation of that prohibition, similarly, one violates “Lo Tahmod” by desiring another person’s possession only if he desires the item to the extent that he ultimately succeeds in obtaining it. Hence, the prohibition is violated through the desire to obtain the object, and obtaining the object is merely the condition that needs to be met for the desire to constitute a violation of “Lo Tahmod.” Although the Ra’abad disputes the Rambam’s classification of “Lo Tahmod” as a “Lav She’en Bo Ma’aseh,” he concurs that one does not receive Malkot for violating this prohibition, for a different reason. He explains that this violation is “Nitan Le’hishabon” – it can be rectified by paying the victim. One who violates “Lo Tahmod” by obtaining somebody else’s possession can “undo” his offense by simply returning the item. There is a rule that one who violates a “Lav Ha’nitan Le’hishabon”