Listening to Stories Without Losing Sight of the Context
A long while back, I wrote about a strange “gedolim story” found in the now-defunct Olumeinu magazine for kids. I have no way of knowing whether the event portrayed by the story ever took place, but taking a step back and thinking about the halachic context made it clear that it shouldn’t have.
I was recently reminded of an unrelated story of the same genre that involves a similar halachic problem. This story seems well known, although I was only able to find this video referencing it online. Again, I can’t know whether it actually happened, but the fact that people repeat it also says something.
The narrative concerns how the Ari encountered his first manuscript of the Zohar. While still living in Egypt, he is said to have run into a Jewish travelling merchant praying from an ancient manuscript that didn’t look anything like a siddur.
The Ari immediately recognized it as an important kabbalistic resource and offered to purchase it from the merchant. When the fellow refused - explaining how important it was to him even if he couldn’t understand a word of it - the Ari raised his offer until he found a satisfactory price.
The problem? Desiring property belonging to someone else is forbidden. And making even a generous offer (on something that’s not already for sale) transgresses a second prohibition. As the Rambam (גזילה ואבידה א:ט) has it:
כל החומד עבדו או אמתו או ביתו וכליו של חבירו או דבר שאפשר לו שיקנהו ממנו והכביד עליו ברעים והפציר בו עד שלקחו ממנו אף על פי שנתן לו דמים רבים הרי זה עובר בלא תעשה שנאמר לא תחמוד
Now it’s true that the Gemara (ב"ק סב) seems to suggest that there’s no problem as long as the “seller” clearly states that he agrees to the sale (and it’s possible that the Raavad understands it that way).
מה בין גזלן לחמסן א"ל חמסן יהיב דמי גזלן לא יהיב דמי א"ל אי יהיב דמי חמסן קרית ליה והאמר רב הונא תלוה וזבין זביניה זביני לא קשיא הא דאמר רוצה אני הא דלא אמר רוצה אני
But the simple reading of that Gemara (see תוס' מחסן) is that getting the seller to agree only means that the buyer isn’t invalidated as a witness because of his sinful act. As is clear from Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat 359:10-12, the actual Torah prohibitions are still in force.
Perhaps a good rule of thumb is that “amazing” elements from a story might be notable for the wrong reasons.
Yeah, I saw a different kids' comic on Shabbos and found it inappropriate for adults (or anyone with critical thinking skills).
I'm wondering whether the issur to covet someone else's property applies only to things that are in the material realm. The Torah's examples are your fellow's servant, donkey, etc. True, your fellow's wife is also mentioned, and a Ben Torah knows very well that she is anything but a material object. But we could argue that a person who is coveting someone else's wife is not doing so out of ruchnius. So, we might say that given that the Ari had an appreciation for the ruchnius of this object that nobody else would, maybe he was allowed to try to get it and put it to use in the service of Hashem in a way that nobody else could -- similar to the way we are allowed -- even on Shabbos -- to purchace a property in E.Y. if it is in the wrong hands.