I'm looking for the place in Mishneh Torah, I believe in Hilchot Avoda Zara V'Chukot Goyim, where it lists the prohibition on stealing ( genivah ) from a non-Jew, but I can't seem find it.

2 Answers 2


It appears in Mishneh Torah, Sefer Nezikin, Hilchot Gezeilah v'Aveidah, Chapter 1.

In the Frankel edition (with almost an identical version appearing on the Mechon Mamre website) this appears in Halacha 1.

כל הגונב ממון משוה פרוטה ומעלה עובר על לא תעשה שנ' לא תגנבו. ואין לוקין על לאו זה שהרי ניתן לתשלומין שהגנב חייבה אותו תורה לשלם. ואחד הגונב ממון ישראל או הגונב ממון גוי עובד עבודה זרה ואחד הגונב את הגדול או את הקטן.‏

My rough translation: Anyone who steals money or something that is worth more than a perutah has transgressed the negative commandment of: "Do not steal". And one does not receive lashes because of this since it is a transgression that one may pay back, since the Torah has obligated (the thief) to pay (back the money or stolen property). And this applies equally to one who steals the money of a Jew, or one who steals the money of an idolatrous gentile, or to one who steals the money of an adult or of a child.

In the Vilna edition this appears in Halacha 2:

ואסור לגזול כל שהוא דין תורה, אפילו עכו"ם אסור לגזלו או לעשקו. ואם גזלו או עשקו יחזיר.‏

My rough translation: "It is forbidden from the Torah to steal, and one may not even steal from a non-Jew. And if one steals, one must return (the stolen property)."

As Robert points out below, the above translations are not completely accurate, since they all translate the verbs גונב, גוזל, and עושק as "to steal", when really each one refers to a different manner of theft (the differences are discussed in other later halachot in Chapter 1).

The Magid Mishnah cites the primary source for this (among others) as being in Bava Kama 113b.

  • That's strange, I was sure I had seen it in Chukot Goyim, but maybe I was mistaken? Commented Feb 12, 2014 at 9:28
  • By the way, you should never use the Vilna version, it's got thousands of mistakes in it, many very serious. Try the Mechon Mamre version, or one of the other corrected version which are available. Commented Feb 12, 2014 at 9:40
  • 4
    @RobertS.Barnes I realize that newer versions exist. But I don't accept it as a matter of established fact this makes the Vilna edition an inappropriate source to quote from. The opposite: I think that it is quite legitimate to quote sources from the Vilna edition (which is the "standard" edition for the masses over the past few centuries). Each have their place. Commented Feb 12, 2014 at 10:34
  • While related, gozel and oshek are distinct from genivah, and for that reason are listed as separate halachot. It list's here who is a gonev: mechon-mamre.org/i/b201.htm#3 and here it lists who is a gozel: mechon-mamre.org/i/b301.htm#2 and who is an oshek: mechon-mamre.org/i/b301.htm#3 Commented Feb 12, 2014 at 17:58
  • 1
    @Yaakov Do you mean to say that OLDER editions exist? The misprints of the vilna edition are what is new on the scene. The vilna edition is useful for intellectual history, not for determining the Rambam's position. So yes, each have their place.
    – Double AA
    Commented Feb 12, 2014 at 22:40

Actually, thanks to Yaakov, I just ran across it in the following chapter, Hilchot Genivah chapter A paragraph A:

כל הגונב ממון משווה פרוטה ומעלה--עובר על לא תעשה, שנאמר "לא, תגנובו" (ויקרא יט,יא). ואין לוקין על לאו זה, שהרי ניתן לתשלומין, שהגנב, חייבה אותו תורה לשלם. ואחד הגונב ממון ישראל, או הגונב ממון גוי עובד עבודה זרה; ואחד הגונב את הגדול, או את הקטן.‏

Any who steals an item worth a pruta or more -- violates a negative commandment, as it is said "don't steal" (Vayikra 19:11). And one does not get lashes on this, since it can be repaid, as the torah has required the thief to pay it. And they are the same, one who steals the property of a Israelite, and one who steals the property of a gentile idol worshiper, and one who steals from an adult, and one who steals from a minor.

Any suggestions on improving my translation are welcome.

  • I think that Mechon Mamre's version took out the relevant section that I quoted in halacha 2 from the Vilna edition and moved it into halacha 1. But it is the same line. Commented Feb 12, 2014 at 10:30
  • No, it's in there, it's just part of halacha 1, instead of being broken out as a separate halacha: mechon-mamre.org/i/b301.htm Commented Feb 12, 2014 at 17:54
  • Yes, as I said, Mechon Mamre split it up differently (but for example, they begin halacha ב in the same way) Commented Feb 12, 2014 at 18:11

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .