Why do we trust him when he swears? You got a raya that even if a person's suspected that he's stealing, we don't suspect he's going to swear false. The Gemara answers, \"No raya. It's not because משום דאמר דמי קא יהיב ליה, that a person doesn't think that he's really stealing. After all, I'm giving money. I'm paying for it.\" And then the Gemara says, אמר ליה רב אחא מדפתי לרבינא, so Rav Acha said to רבינא, והא קעבר על לא תחמוד. There's another lav. The lav says, in the Torah, לא תחמוד, do not desire your things of your friend. So, by him keeping it, if we suspect him keeping it, is over on this lav of לא תחמוד. So, then it should be the same thing. If we're over on the lav of לא תחמוד, then we should suspect he's going to swear false, too. And the fact that he doesn't, that that we do make him swear, shows that even though we suspect him in trying to take someone's things, he's still trusted with a shvuah. So, the Gemara says, \"No raya.\" And this is the main thing we're going to get to: לא תחמוד? לאינשי בלא דמי משמע להו. People think, I'm quoting the Gemara's lashon, people think that you're only over on לא תחמוד if you didn't pay. And this guy is paying. So, in his mind, he's not over on לא תחמוד. Mimaila, you can't bring a raya from here that if a person is suspected to be over on לא תחמוד, he'll also swear false. This guy, he thinks that he's not over on לא תחמוד. Okay, we'll get to it, we have to get to it.

Technically, is לא תחמוד a subcategory of theft or is it We're we're We're just starting We just started the inyan. Comes Tosafos, and Tosafos asks a kashya: אם תאמר, basically, if לא תגזול If לא תחמוד is only if you didn't pay, then why do we need לא תחמוד? Then you're over on לא תגזול! You're stealing! And Tosafos says, \"You're right. לעבור עליו בשני לאווין.\" That if you steal, you're over on two lavin. This is Tosafot. Tosafot makes another kashya, going to take too long to go into, which is נוגע to the inyan, but I'm not going to. There are two pshatim in the mefarshim on this Tosafot. When the Gemara says that לא תחמוד, for people, in their eyes, it's only if you don't pay, what is the truth? This is what they think, but what is really the truth? Are you over on לא תחמוד if you do pay? If you look at the wording of the Gemara, it's mashma that you are. The Gemara just says לאינשי. People think you're not over. But if that was the pshat, then what's Tosafot's kashya? Tosafot asks, \"Why do we need לא תחמוד if you're if לא תחמוד means without money only, so you're over on לא תגזול?\" But if we're saying that the emet is that you're over even with with money, then there's no kashya. לא תגזול is if you don't pay, and לא תחמוד is if you do pay. Yeah. No, also if you took. We just said if you got it without taking, no? לא תחמוד is if you took it and you didn't pay. Okay, but baTosafot, when you ever you take something from somebody and you don't pay, you're over on לא תגזול. So, what does לא תחמוד add? But if the pshat is that what it says in the Gemara is not the truth, the truth is that's what people think, but the truth is that you're over on לא תחמוד even if you pay, then Tosafot has no kashya. What's the kashya? Why do we need extra if we have a lav with גזל? Well, לא תגזול is if you steal it and you don't pay, and לא תחמוד is if you do take it and you do pay, you're over on לא תחמוד. So, what's Tosafot's kashya? It's a re'aya from Tosafot that Tosafot holds that the Gemara, when it says that people think לא תחמוד is without paying, it's not only what people think. It's the truth. That לא תחמוד is only if you don't pay. Huh? So, in Sanhedrin, דף כ\"ה, Tosafot speaks about it, and Tosafot asks that she'elah. And there in Tosafot, he has two two pshatim. One is that this is the truth. You're only over on לא תחמוד if you don't pay. Then Tosafot asks, \"ai, the lashon of the Gemara is that people think?\" So, yeah, people think so, and it's true! Yeah, people think people kulei alma. As if to say, people know this! And they're saying people know that לא תחמוד is only if you don't pay. But then there's another pshat in Tosafot there that לא תחמוד is even if you pay. There's two there's two two de'ot in Tosafot.

Our Tosafot here, how did our Tosafot learn? So, there's a machloket here between the Maharam, first the Maharsha, Maharam Shif against the Maharam. Maharsha, Maharam Shif learn that Tosafot means that this is the truth. The fact that Tosafot asks the she'elah, \"Why do we need the פסוק לא תחמוד if you're over on לא תגזול anyways?\", shows that Tosafot Tosafot learns here that the truth is you're only over on לא תחמוד if you don't pay. The Maharam learns, no, Tosafot learns that you're over on לא תחמוד באמת, even if you pay. People think you're over if you don't pay, but be'emet you're over if you do pay. What we have to understand is according to the Maharam, what's Tosafos kushya? Because Tosafos asks: What do we need the pasuk for? What are we talking about, what the guy has in his mind, that the guy thinks that you're not, you're over only? So how did he learn peshat? We think that's what the Gemara means, his שיגעון in the mind? No, we're not talking about, Tosafos asks a kushya! So לכאורה the עומק of the kushya that shows that the דין is that you're only over if you don't pay, that's what Tosafos asked. So what does it mean to dismiss like this Tosafos? How does how will we answer according to the Maharam? But that we have to keep in mind this kushya. ולהלכה, the

Rambam פסק, now I went through to find the Rambam and I couldn't find, I mean the Rambam with the Raavad. The Rambam says clearly like this: anybody, I'm making this more or less quoting him, כל החומד, anybody who desires someone else's object, and he goes into details of objects, and pressures the guy to sell, sends sends sends friends to pressure him, yeah, I brought this up, yeah, and sends friends to to get it from him, and then gets it, even if he pays דמים הרבה, he pays a lot of money, he is over on לא תחמוד. Then the Rambam continues, but you don't get malkus for this לאו. לא תחמוד is a לאו, for every לאו you get malkus, because it's a לאו שאין בו מעשה. It's a לאו that has no מעשה, no action. Then the Rambam continues within one line, but you're not over unless you actually got it, took it. If you just want it in your heart and you never got it, you're not over on לא תחמוד. Comes the Raavad, and the Raavad, okay before we get to the Raavad let's ask a kushya, so this is the Rambam. Right, it says you're only עובר if you get it. Huh? Right, you just want it, that this you don't get. The

Alter Rebbe in הלכות פסח speaks about if you have chametz of a goy that's a פיקדון that you are a watchman over, it becomes the זמן of the איסור חמץ, you got a problem, because if you took אחריות you're going to be עובר. What should you do? Get rid of it before the זמן, or sell it to another goy. Kuntres Acharon, the Alter Rebbe says, how could I take it and sell it? I'm stealing, it's the other guy's thing, how could I sell it? So he says, but you takeh should let you sell it, plan to give the money to the goy, or if you destroy it you have to pay the goy, and the איסור of לא תגזול by a goy is only if you don't plan to pay. You know you're not allowed to steal from a goy, by a Yid even if you steal and you plan to pay, עובר on לא תגזול. But by a goy, he says, if you plan to pay you're not עובר. Therefore he says no problem in taking the chametz before the זמן, selling it or even destroying it because, ai, you're stealing it from the goy? Because you plan to pay. Then he says, but there's another problem: you'll be עובר on לא תחמוד even if you pay. A re'iyah, where do we see that you're עובר on לא תחמוד if you pay, what would you quote? I would quote the Rambam, our case doesn't say clearly. No, no. But he says there is no לא תחמוד because he's a goy. By a goy there is no לא תחמוד, because it says רעך. But otherwise he says if not for the פסוק of רעך, this would have been a case of לא תחמוד. And yeah, and he says and that's it, even if you plan to pay you're still עובר on לא תחמוד. And he says like it says in the Gemara Bava Metzia דף ה' עמוד ב', look in Tosafos and the mefarshim. I have a kushya: why didn't he quote the Rambam? The Gemara is not so clear, the Gemara never said it. Adraba, in the Gemara the lashon is that people think that it's without paying only, we have to learn that people think so and it's not and, and it's not so pashut. The Rambam makes it very clear, actually I'll tell you even better, the Alter Rebbe in Hilchos Geneivah paskent like the Rambam, brings himself a din that לא תחמוד is even if you pay. So the Alter Rebbe says here lichorah even if you're planning to pay to the goy, you're over on לא תחמוד. So he should have said כמו שכתב הרמב\"ם, according to the din, he quotes it, or at least he quotes the Tosafos in Sanhedrin where Tosafos clearly says so according to one of the two pshatim. Here we're trying to figure out. Now one thing is clear that the Alter Rebbe does not learn like the Maharsha, because we just said before the Maharsha learns in this Tosafos here that when the people think that it's always without paying, the emes is like that, and the re'ayah is from the kushya of Tosafos. Obviously the Alter Rebbe does learn like the Maharam, that Tosafos holds, because the Alter Rebbe quotes Tosafos and a re'ayah from this Tosafos that even if you pay you're over. But why would he bring from this Tosafos where it's not even clear and you have to figure out a pshat, when he could have brought from a clearer, clearer din? Then There's another Shayla. Why? Obviously, there must be something here. Another Shayla: what does the Alter Rebbe mean, there is like שכירות here? Why is it at least שכירות? If you take his chametz, because you don't want to be עובר בל יראה ובל ימצא, so right before Pesach you take his chametz, why is that called שכירות? That's called שכירות? Yeah. It's violent! שכירות has to be שכירות only says if you really want it, then you pressure him. He wants I don't want the chametz, I forgot, I don't need it, I'm going to destroy it! I want it, so I don't want it! Why is it called שכירות? It's According to the Rambam, he's חולק, it's not like שכירות. There must There must There must be something here, obviously, but what does Then I

want to, in passing, say a another little thing. The Rambam that I quoted before, there are two השגות Raavad, the Raavad on two pieces. When the Rambam says that if you pressured a guy, and this and finally you took it, you're over on לא תחמוד, so the Raavad says, but that's only if the end was, he never said 'רוצה אני', he never agreed. But if you pressure and pressure, and finally he says, 'Okay, I'll give it to I'll sell it to you,' you're not over on לא תחמוד. And why? Because the Rambam doesn't agree, so the Rambam doesn't make a difference. The Rambam says just as long as you get it. And the the Magid Mishneh explains: What's the reason for the Raavad? So he says, because there is a Gemara which we spoke about when we learned Bava Batra or Kiddushin: תלויה וזבין זביניה זביני. If you hang a guy and you tell him, 'If you're not going to sell me this and this object, I'm going to kill you,' and he says, 'Okay, I'll sell you. I don't want to get killed, I'll sell you, I want to sell you.' Then the the kinyan is a kinyan. So the Raavad learns, if the guy said 'רוצה אני', so the kinyan is a kinyan, how could you be over on לא תחמוד? If the king- if if the sale is a good sale, you shouldn't be over on לא תחמוד! That's why the Raavad says you're only over on לא תחמוד if the guy never said 'רוצה אני', he never said, 'I want it.' And he says, 'And what does the Rambam hold?' The Rambam holds, you're right, the kinyan is a kinyan, but since it came through this way, you're over. So what Yeah, but you have to understand, so what's the sevara of the Raavad, and and the Rambam then, so what's, you know. Then there's another piece. I quoted the Rambam, the Rambam says it's a לאו שאין בו מעשה. You don't get malkot because a lav has no maaseh. So the Raavad says, 'I never saw such a strange' He didn't say, but he always writes, he's very sharp. 'Never saw such a דבר תימה like this.' 'Maaseh was there! How can the other guy chime in?' 'No, he's not talking chime in, the Rambam says himself you're only over if you took it! You actually got it! That's a maaseh,' he says. 'Is that not a maaseh?' 'But he paid!' 'So, what's דא געהער?' So the Maggid Mishneh says that the Raavad goes with his shita. Since the Raavad holds you're only over if the guy never said 'רוצה אני', he never said, 'I want', so that's a מעשה איסור. Because if you took it without him agreeing, that's what the Raavad says, it's a לאו שיש בו מעשה. The Rambam holds that even if he said 'רוצה אני', even if, 'I want', you're also over, so the Raavad says that maaseh is not called a bad maaseh, because the maaseh was a maaseh that... So that's why it's a לאו שאין בו מעשה. So the Rambam says, 'לאו שאין בו מעשה', but the Raavad holds it's 'לאו שיש בו מעשה'. The Raavad is מודה that you don't get מלקות anyway, for a different reason, because it's a לאו שניתן לתשלומים, because you can pay for it, and any לאו that you can pay, you don't get מלקות. But he says it's בפירוש a לאו שיש בו מעשה! How does he say it's a לאו שאין בו מעשה? So we have to understand that itself: what is the מחלוקת? It's a מעשה of others, of asking other people to That's not called a מעשה. That's not called a מעשה, you didn't do anything to him. What if... Oh, I didn't do it, but the שליח has Right. Oh, they coaxed him, but that they don't have an עבירה, I mean they tried, but you, who wanted, they're trying to get it for you. So, you're saying they don't have the עבירה. Right, and you didn't do a מעשה, so then why is it a מעשה? That's what he said. So that is not a מעשה. The מעשה is the taking! So the Raavad says the מעשה is the taking. And he says, 'You, Rambam, you yourself wrote that you're only אינך- אינו עובר unless you לוקח, you quote the פסוק!' He says it's a פסוק, whatever, it says, that he's he wanted it and he took it, whatever, the Maggid Mishneh... Okay, to get to to get to the point, this is then: Here we have a case where in order to be עובר there are two things you have to do: a part of מחשבה and a part of מעשה, which the Rambam says. You have to desire and want it and and then, oh which is מחשבה, feeling, and then you're only חייב if you actually took it, there's a מעשה.

When it comes to these ענינים of any thing which is a made up of a combination of מחשבה and מעשה, the רבי here, on the one of the letters of the first years, the רבי has a long הערה here, where he puts it into four categories, the ענין of what He says that the letter actually talks about חזרת משניות בעל פה. And he says even if you're חזרינג in your mind, it has a השפעה on on on the air, it purifies the air. Around you, watch. And then he says in that in the נגלה, concerning how much מחשבה could have an effect on the outside of you, there are four categories. Huh? תשי\"ד, I think. The air is even if it's only in your mind, but when you speak it, it surrounds. No, that's מגלה, so it's a different issue. But, yeah, that's he's just saying that you have hashpa'ah on the outside, at the outside of you, even though something in you, you have hashpa'ah. So he says there are four categories. Number one, the first category is some things that you only need machshavah. Machshavah at its own affects. ביטול חמץ. Well, that's because that because hefker. Is that a good example? מה שכתוב ברש״י. What do you say? Yeah. It says if you hefker something and you מבטל חמץ, it says the ikar is in the mind, but it says the פירוש Rashi says you have to say the dibbur. No, but he gives an example by קדשים. He says that if you look at a בהמה and in your mind you think this should be הקדש or a קרבן, it becomes a קרבן. And he says not the פשט that if you look at it and you want it to be a קרבן, it obligates you to make it into a קרבן, but it becomes a קרבן then. And why does the Rabbi say not the other way? Because he had an argument with his father. There's a letter from the Rabbi's father to the Rabbi, which we don't know the Rabbi's letter, but you can see the answer. He writes to the Rabbi, you wrote me in your letter בנוגע קדשים that if מחשבה, it makes the קדשים. He says, I'm surprised at you to say such a thing, he wrote to the Rabbi, because the פשט that you're quoting, that's not the פשט. He says, the פשט is that if you have מחשבה that this should be קדשים, it makes you obligated that now you have to make it קדשים, but not that just מחשבה in the helps. Now, when they printed the letter from the רבי's father, there's some at the end of the letter, there's like a line that the Rabbi added. After the letter, the Rabbi added, not so. Er halt bei zayns, that's, no, it take makes this. And here, this is written much later after the letter. The Rabbi says I'll read you the letter. He says, פעולה נעשית על ידי מחשבה אף שאין שם דיבור מעשה כלל דיבור, כמו נתפס קדשים דמוכח, he quotes different places, שהבהמה נתקדשה על ידי מחשבתו, the בהמה becomes קודש, ולא רק שעל האדם חל חיוב לקדש הבהמה בדיבור או במעשה, not only the person now has an obligation, which means not like my father means, okay. Interesting. But the first category is machshavah itself. Then he says there are certain categories, certain things, that it's machshavah that does the job. He brings, yeah, he says מוכח from he says the Gemara in שבועות דף כ״ו ע״ב, the Rambam הלכות מעשה הקרבנות פרק י״ד הלכה ב׳, so yeah. Can we call it כח הפועל or something? Whatever it is, it's called a pe'ulah. In this case, the machshavah is called a pe'ulah. Yeah. So how you make it kodashim? You have to say? Normally you come over and you say הרי זו עולה, הרי זו קרבן. The second thing, he says, is certain things that the machshavah works, only the machshavah, but the machshavah does not work unless there is a ma'aseh connected to it. But the ma'aseh is not part of the thing. But the machshavah, as a condition, when does the machshavah work, if you have a ma'aseh connected? And he gives an example. He says, pigul. Maybe we'll see, he's talking about it also. What's pigul? If a kohen has in mind בשעת he's makriv the korban that machshavah which is asur, it makes the korban pigul, pasul. So it's only the machshavah that makes it pasul, nothing else. But when does the machshavah make it pasul? If you're thinking it when you're doing the ma'aseh avodah, when you're שחט'ינג it or when you're Yeah. And he says, anything that's a lav that is in this category is called a לאו שאין בו מעשה. He says it. He says אין לוקין עליו, why? Because even though it has to come with the ma'aseh, but the ma'aseh is only a way the machshavah expresses itself, but it's not that machshavah isn't the ma'aseh is not part of it. And the first avodah, the first you don't even have to talk about a korban, there is no ma'aseh to begin with. The third, then it'd be the third category, certain things need, in order to have to accomplish or, needs machshavah and a machshavah and ma'aseh. Some things, machshavah and ma'aseh together make up the aveirah. Now this would be called a לאו שיש בו מעשה, he says. Why? Because in order to do it, you've got to do a ma'aseh. You got to have machshavah also, but you got to have a ma'aseh. What does he say here? I'll read it inside. דוגמא מזה כלאים, כלאי הכרם. כלאים, when in you have in your vineyard, you have wheat grows together. So there you're not allowed to do it. What happens if by itself it grows, fella it grows? It doesn't become asur unless in your mind you look at it and you're happy about it. So it has to be the ma'aseh, it has to grow together, but if you're not happy, then it doesn't work. If you're happy and it doesn't grow together It has to be a ma'aseh and machshavah together, and these two make up the problem, make up Is is tamei, but the the kohen has to

see it and think that he he can't say it, he can't just say it. No, what a kohen has to do is look at it. What about הכשר לזרעים? Same thing, that's the same thing. This is they're just dugma'ot only. And there's a fourth category, he says, where the ikar is only the ma'aseh. But the ma'aseh does not work unless there's a machshavah to it. Like any aveirah that you do b'mezid. The aveirah is not the mezid, mezid is because if he wouldn't be a mezid, the aveirah wouldn't be chayav, he wouldn't be chayav for the aveirah. But the aveirah is the ma'aseh. You're not allowed to eat חזיר, the aveirah is eating חזיר, it's not the machshavah that's makes the aveirah. But if you didn't have the machshavah, it was by mistake, you didn't think of it, then you're not over, but that ikar is the ma'aseh. Whenever we have a case where we see that there's a combination of machshavah and ma'aseh, we always could come to a she'eilah under which category does it fall. And basically, I'm getting back to our case. We know the Rambam says concerning לא תחמוד. לא תחמוד you're over if there's a combination of machshavah and maaseh. The Rambam says clearly: you have to have the feeling, so machshavah, the chemdah, but you're not over unless there's a maaseh, unless you actually take it. So, under which category does it fall? One thing is for sure, it doesn't fall in the first category. According to according to the Rambam it's the third, according to the Raavad it's the fourth? Oh, we'll see. The first, of course, is not because the first doesn't need a maaseh. The she'eilah is is it the second, the third, or the fourth? So

what I want to say is, according to the Rambam it's the second, according to the Raavad it's the third, and vadai not the fourth, and I'll explain why. The Rambam says it's a לאו שאין בו מעשה. So this is what the Rambam learned. It can't be the third, because the Rabbi says the third means that you need both together, and that's called a לאו שיש בו מעשה. Because you need a maaseh, the Rambam is לאו שאין בו מעשה. And the Raavad asks, \"What do you need a maaseh? How do you say a לאו שאין בו מעשה?\" Very pashut! The Rambam holds the issur of לא תחמוד is the feeling, the heart, is the machshavah. אלא מאי, you tell me maaseh, it's like this, like the second category, that when are you over? If it comes on with a maaseh. And therefore, the Rambam is לאו שאין בו מעשה. The Raavad? The Raavad says no, the Raavad says it's the third category, and the third category means you both both. So he agrees to the Rambam that how are you over? Exactly like you say, Rambam: if you want it and you pressure, and then you take it. But I hold that the two together are both part of the aveirah. And that's a לאו שיש בו מעשה. So he says to the Rambam, \"So why do you say it's? I hold it's a לאו שיש בו מעשה.\" This explains also the other machloket: whether you have to say, whether it's only if you don't say \"רצוני\". Since according to the Rambam, it's a combination of the machshavah and the maaseh, that means the machshavah is bad, and the maaseh is bad, and when you have two, these two bad things together, you're over on לא תחמוד. If the guy said \"רצוני\", the Raavad says the מחש- maaseh is not bad, like we said from the Magid Mishnah. But the Rambam would hold the maaseh is not part of the aveirah. The ikar is the maaseh is how your machshavah comes into action. So what's the chiluk? As long as it came to a maaseh, what should mean if he said if the maaseh doesn't have to be maaseh, because the maaseh is not part of this. So I think this is machloket of the Rambam and the Raavad. Now,

why did I not say that for sure it's not the fourth? Maybe the Raavad holds it's the fourth? That's what, that the ikar is the maaseh, and the machshavah is like you have to have it. I'll tell you why. Because this is what I think, I have re'ayot to it, but I'm not going to go into it, that if it would fall in the fourth category, you don't need the feeling of the heart in a in a active way. The difference of what's the fourth? The fourth is that the machshavah is not part of the aveirah. So what is the pshat? I want to put it in different words: as long as you don't have, not the machshavah, shogeg, yeah, as long as you don't have the not, the missing of the machshavah, if you don't have against the machshavah, then you're over. So what should be the din by לא תחמוד if it would be the fourth category? In the fourth category, the din should be that even if you don't pressure, every time someone walks over to someone and steals something, didn't you want it? You didn't want it? There's no חמדה בלב? But you can't say you didn't have a chemdah. If I wouldn't want it, I wouldn't take it. So if the Raavad or anybody would hold it's the fourth category, the din should be that every time I walk over without all the preparation of wanting it and sending, and I take it from you, there was a maaseh, because the third category, the main thing is the maaseh, and you took it, and there was no not having חמדה, because actually, you didn't not want it. The only time you wouldn't be over on לא תחמוד, according to this, I would think, is that someone forced you to go and take it from him, pay him, but take it from him. Then, you really didn't want it, and nevertheless, you took it. Then, there is the opposite of חמדה, then פקע ליה. But as long as no You take it for another reason, maybe? You don't really want the object, you just want to hurt the person? But you want it. They wanted to take a loss. So that's not it's not the thing. But it's not, you need a ratzon, so that's split the ratzon, but you want it. If you don't, if you didn't want it, you wouldn't take it, unless someone pushes you to do it, but otherwise, you can't say you didn't want it. I don't say I wanted it because I other intentions, but you can't say you didn't want, so you should be over. So, the Raavad should have argued on the Rambam. When the Rambam says you're over when you have the חמדה בלב, the Raavad would hold that this is really mainly the maaseh and the machshavah that the fourth category. And the machshavah is just, just not to have not machshavah, he would have said on the Rambam, just like he argues in those two points, like he has to נתינת כסף, and it's a לאו שאין בו מעשה, he should have argued there too. He should have said... didn't have that. It's a re'ayah that the Raavad agrees with the Rambam, ממילא the Raavad can't hold it's the fourth category. But the Raavad holds it's a third category. So here we have the second and the third, the Rambam and the Raavad. Okay. Now, this

will explain to answer the pshat in the Alter Rebbe and also in the Shas and Tosafot. The Alter Rebbe says, when you take the chametz of the goy, and you burn it before Pesach, take it, and you burn it before Pesach, you're over on לא תחמוד. But it wouldn't be a goy, you would be over on לא תגזול. And since it's a goy, you're not over on לא תחמוד. What kind of... So we asked the kashya in the beginning. What kind of a לא תחמוד is it? Do you want it? And now, the kashya that I said before is going to be more explained, oisgeshmuest. If you would learn that this would be the fourth category, לא תחמוד is a fourth category, then ein hachi nami, because you take, you want it. הלמאי? The reason you want it, it's a goy and you want to get rid of it before Pesach. But you can't say you didn't want it. But since we're saying that no one holds like that, the fourth about it's or the second or the third, so you have to want it. So how does the Alter Rebbe say you're עובר on לא תחמוד? And therefore he says because if it's a goy, you're not, it's only לא תחמוד, not that you have... like that the Rambam said you went and you you got involved in it, so how does the Alter Rebbe be חולק on it? That's the kashya that I had before, and now the kashya is stronger. So I'll explain what. א סימן the Alter Rebbe holds that there is an opinion, no, not like the Ravad, the Ravad holds it's the third, that there is an opinion that it's in the fourth. But the Alter Rebbe says by taking this chametz, you'll be עובר on לא תחמוד if it wouldn't be a goy, even though there is no, no active חמדה, must be the Alter Rebbe holds that there is such an opinion. And he wants to say that even according to that opinion, you're not עובר because it's a goy. Where do we have such an opinion? I'll tell you what. The Rambam... we ask the kashya, why doesn't he, he says that you're chayav on לא תחמוד even if you pay, why doesn't he bring the Rambam? Because I'll tell you the Rambam doesn't fit, because the Rambam says clearly that you have to be חומד it. So maybe the Ravad? The Ravad also. Because the Ravad agrees with the Rambam, we said, that it's... Yeah, but he agrees only, but he still says that the maaseh is the bigger act. Not the bigger, they're equal. The third means it's the equal. The second is that they're only machshavah, and maaseh is when you do it, the third is they're both equal, but you have to have both. So this case of the Alter Rebbe's case of the chametz, you don't have both. You only have the maaseh. You just don't have not חמדה, but you don't have חמדה. Well, you you can say you have a little bit of No, you don't. Why? You want it you want to get rid of it You want to get rid of it, so you don't want it. So I'm saying, so it's no חמדה, no positive חמדה. Ela mai? So why is the How could the Alter Rebbe, when he says you should be עובר on לא תחמוד, so I ask even though you pay. In לא תגזול you're עובר You're not עובר because you're paying, and when you pay, you're not עובר by a goy. But then you're still עובר on לא תחמוד even if you pay. So it can't be, he can't bring from the from the Rambam. He can't bring from Tosafos, from Tosafos Sanhedrin, because there it's talking about a regular case of לא תחמוד, which בפשטות means that you have a לא תחמוד. When the Alter Rebbe says that this is under the category of לא תחמוד, the Alter Rebbe has to find a one place where he found that is an opinion that לא תחמוד is even if you don't have the positive חמדה, and that is this Tosafos. And that's why we're going to see how the this Tosafos. We

said before that the Maharam, the Alter Rebbe learned peshat in this Tosafos which say Tosafos holds that even if you pay, you're עובר on לא תחמוד. So then we ask, what's Tosafos's kashya? If you're עובר on לא תחמוד even if you pay, Tosafos asks, why do we need לא תחמוד? We have לא תגזול. So we said, what's the problem? לא תגזול is if you don't pay, and לא תחמוד is even if you do pay. Right? If you hold that you're עובר even if you pay, what's Tosafos's kashya? So I want to say, and the Alter Rebbe learns like that, because the Alter Rebbe quotes from here that you're עובר even if you pay. So kashya that we ask on the Maharam is on the Alter Rebbe. How does the Alter Rebbe learn peshat in Tosafot, if the Alter Rebbe says that even if you pay, when Tosafot asks the kashya that לכאורה לא תחמוד and לא תגזול are the same? So I think the Alter Rebbe learns peshat in Tosafot the opposite of what we just said. The kashya is not since we have לא תגזול, why do we need לא תחמוד? It's farkert. We're saying לא תחמוד is even if you pay. The Alter Rebbe says the kashya is, לא תגזול is also even if you pay. We see it in the Gemara. The Gemara says, חשוד אממונא... So how could he swear when we're suspecting this guy, who the shomer, who's wanting to pay for it, who's making swear that he didn't keep it? It's a re'ayah we suspect he's stealing. But how do we suspect he's stealing? The case is where he's paying for it. Because if you steal something, and you pay you still haven't like gezel. Comes Tosafot, according to the Alter Rebbe, he says Tosafot has a different kashya. לא תחמוד is takeh also if you pay. לא תחמוד is if you pay. But like gezel is also if you pay, so why do we need two? Tosafot's teirutz is: לעבור על שני לאוין, to have two la'avin. Okay. This answers the she'eilah that how does the Maharam learn peshat in Tosafot's kashya? The Maharam learns that לא תחמוד is even if you pay money. We ask, so what's Tosafot's kashya? Why do we need לא תחמוד if we have gezel? So the kashya was, what do you mean, they're two different things. Like gezel is if you didn't pay, and לא תחמוד... Now I'm saying the Maharam and the Alter Rebbe will learn a pshat like this, on the contrary: we know that gezel is even if you pay, and לא תחמוד is also even if you pay, so they're the same things. So mimela, like Tosafos asked the kashya, why do we need both? And the answer is to two lavin. But I have a problem with this pshat: Why didn't Tosafos answer very simple? לא תחמוד, you're also over on the חמדה בלב. Gezel, there is no חמדה בלב. There's no gezel we go and take it, so there's no wanting it בדוקא. And לא תחמוד is even the wanting is part of the aveirah. Why not? Why didn't you, you know, when you stole it, why wouldn't you... One second. There's... Like gezel, when you steal something, you want it. But you want it in in a passive way. Not that you want it, obviously if you wouldn't want it you wouldn't steal it, but it doesn't have the the the inyan of that you want it and like the Rambam says, and you're pressuring... So if לא תחמוד, if Tosafos learns that לא תחמוד is like the Rambam and the Raavad, that you have to have a the only aveirah you have to have that, so Tosafos could have answered that. Tosafos asked, what's the difference between לא תחמוד and gezel, both you're over if you pay. Tosafos should have answered: לא תחמוד is different, because with לא תחמוד even your feeling is an aveirah. By the gezel there is no feeling. Is that a raayah that Tosafos learns that לא תחמוד and gezel is exactly the same? That you don't have to have that feeling. As long as you don't have an opposite feeling, you're over on לא תחמוד. Mimela that answers the kashya: every gezel has that. Every time I steal, I want it. I know I don't have the the, but this also doesn't need. And since Tosafos asked the kashya, and the only terutz Tosafos was able to give because it's two lavin, is that a re'aya that Tosafos learns that לא תחמוד you don't have to have a real feeling? So Tosafos learns that לא תחמוד is a fourth category. So the Rambam doesn't learn like that, and the Raavad doesn't learn... Without feeling. Without the actually, yeah, the positive feeling that you have, the feeling that you want to do that's how we see in Tosafos. That's why when the Alter Rebbe asks, you're over on לא תחמוד even if you pay, so mimela this guy who's going to sell the chametz over on לא תחמוד. So we ask, we kind of have a safek in this. The only one according to the only one that can over on לא תחמוד is according to Tosafos, we can learn like this. According to the Rambam, you can't say that this is לא תחמוד. You're paying money, but it's not לא תחמוד because you looked for you had a chametz. And we said the Raavad holds the same way, the Raavad holds like the second or the third, not like the fourth. So according to the Rambam, according to the Raavad, the Alter Rebbe couldn't bring that they are the ones that I'm going to prove that in this case he would be over on לא תחמוד, and you have to answer because it's a goy, so you're not over. Because that's not a re'aya. So, the Alter Rebbe wants to bring that there is a possibility of לא תחמוד according in a case like this, and the case of חמץ לא תחמוד is without a positive feeling, where could he bring it from? He says: I have a re'aya from Tosafos in Bava Metzia. And the fact that Tosafos asks: לא תחמוד and gezel are the same, and if לא תחמוד would have this extra דין that you're only over if it's yours, so it's not the same. How does Tosafos say it's the same? Tosafos says למסקנא, Tosafos answers it's not got the same, because you need two לאוין. It's not the same. לא תחמוד is you have a feeling. Is that a ra'ayah that Tosafos learns to be over on לא תחמוד you don't have to have that feeling? What's the That's exactly the whole point. What's the Gemara's hava amina to think that by a goy, aside from the fact that in that case, aside from the fact that it was a goy so it takes it away? The Alter Rebbe you mean? Yeah, the yeah. What's the Alter Rebbe... What's the hava amina that there should be a So I'm saying, that's what the Alter Rebbe says. Only according to one opinion is the hava amina that is לא תחמוד. The Alter Rebbe wants to say that the only possible aveirah here is לא תחמוד, but he says לא תחמוד is not here either, because you don't you don't have the חמדה בלב. But he says, if you look in Tosafos, you'll find an opinion that the way I understand Tosafos, he says, that Tosafos holds that in a case like that you're also over. Where do we see? From the Rambam, you don't see it. So he couldn't bring the Rambam, because like you said, according to the Rambam there is no hava amina that that there should be לא תחמוד. The only one as a hava amina of לא תחמוד is if you learn that you don't need a חמדה בלב. Because that's the case! The case is where he's taking the chametz without a חמדה בלב. So where do we see that without a חמדה בלב you're also over on לא תחמוד? Not in the Rambam, not in the Raavad. Tosafos, you see. How do you see it in Tosafos? Like said, because Tosafot says that לא תחמוד and גזל is the same. And Tosafot said takeh it's the same. And with the reason we need both, not because they're two different ענינים. Because when you do it, you're עובר on שתי לאוין. So Tosafot learns that when a person steals, he's עובר on לא תחמוד. Every time. Every time! But the שאלה of it, you don't have to have חמדה בלב. א סימן תוספות learns that you don't have to have a חמדה בלב. Ay, it's called לא תחמוד? As long as he you can't say you didn't want it, obviously you wanted it, and that's enough. So that's the case of the חמץ, there takeh you can't say he doesn't want it, he wants to take it. But he needs it, doesn't mean that so it's a case if it would be לא תחמוד if it would be like the fourth category. And the Alter Rebbe says, if you hold it's the fourth category, a לא תחמוד, so then you would be עובר לא תחמוד. But the Alter Rebbe has to bring who holds like that. He says, look in Tosafot, look in Gemara בבא מציעא דף ה׳, look in Tosafot, you'll see in the מפרשים. So ממילא, that's how the Alter Rebbe learns, ממילא, then he says, this could be a case of a Ay, the Alter Rebbe himself doesn't פסקן. The Alter Rebbe in הלכות גזילה, like I said before, says that you have to only if you're חומד the חפץ. But he's not saying this is the הלכה. He wants to explain that if you take the חמץ from the גוי and you sell it before Pesach or you destroy it, according to every opinion, there won't be anything wrong. You're not עובר on גזל because you're paying money. Ay, if you're paying on לא תחמוד, so according to both פוסקים you wouldn't be עובר on לא תחמוד because it's not you don't want it. But according to one opinion, you might be over on לא תחמוד. So he's asking: but according according you're over on לא תחמוד, why? Because Tosafot, according to Tosafot. So he says, don't worry, he's a goy, and by a goy there is no לא תחמוד. Now we understand everything. We understand the machloket between the Rambam and the Raavad, that the machloket is which category לא תחמוד falls in, the second or the third. The case of the Alter Rebbe is a case of לא תחמוד, it's not a real חמדה, and that לא תחמוד is only if it's like the fourth, that you don't really need a חמדה. And that is only if you learn the way you learn Tosafot. And that answers how Tosafot, according to Alter Rebbe, how you learn Tosafot's kushya. How How does how does Tosafot hold then? According to Alter Rebbe, Tosafot holds that לא תחמוד is a fourth category. But but then he has to hold that in all cases of לא תחמוד like that. No, Tosafot in Sanhedrin has two opinions bichlal, whether it's with money or without money, that's something else. There one opinion says it's only

without money, one says with money. But in the inyan of with money itself, over there it's no ראיה that it's even if you don't really have a חמדה. So you can't bring a ראיה from Tosafot that even if you don't have a חמדה בלב you're over on לא תחמוד. So you couldn't bring. From Rambam you can't bring for sure, because the Rambam explicitly it's not! Rambam did Tosafot over there doesn't say. Tosafot just says over there that you're over on לא תחמוד even if you pay. But maybe it's only if you have a חמדה? So how could the Alter Rebbe bring that as a sevara that you should be over on לא תחמוד by the chametz, because there is no חמדה בלב? So in order to say that there is a sevara that you're over on לא תחמוד without a חמדה בלב, you have to find someplace where it is. Cuz if not, there is no hava amina that you're over, you shouldn't be over at all, for sure not. So he says, but according to Tosafos, you are over. So he asks, so how come you can sell the chametz and take it? He says, because by a goy there is no לא תחמוד. There's no חמדה בלב, no, because to do Hashem's will, to do that to do the ratzon of Hashem, to burn it, he wants to take it. To burn it, not to take it, to burn it. That's the ratzon of Hashem, yeah! If you can do Hashem's will without taking it, have it burned by You can't do that. Make a שריפה. A goy, but that's not Hashem's will. He wants he wants to have חמדה to eat. I got it. Yeah, yeah. Whatever you want. Because it was only 30 No, it's not what comes to mind. I also It's going to come in two parts. Also that you're not over on it. Yeah. The beginning of that page. Oh, yes, yeah, you do. I

would have held that it's not. Shouldn't even try. Roy says that's something else.