Does it mean that you are not 'Oyver Lo Sigzal' even if you occupy someones land?
Could you also explain the reasoning behind "Karka Eynah Nigzeles" in a way that will fit in with:
a) "Eved Hukshu L'Karkaos" which makes an 'Eved" also 'Eynah Nigzeles'. and that it will not contradict with:
b)"Lo Signov" in the 'Aseres Hadibros' which seems to imply that a person could be stolen?!
Thank you and Have a Good Yom Tov.
alex lebovits, Toronto, Canada
This is an argument among the Rishonim. Most opinions side with the Rambam (Hilchos Geneivah 7:11) that he does transgress Lo Sigzol. According to them, this rule merely means that the theif cannot acquire the land. However, Tosfos in Bava Metzia (61a, DH "Ela") seems to hold that one does not transgress Lo Sigzol.
This same Tosfos above explicitly says that despite the fact that slaves are usually compared to land, here that is clearly not the case. This is because the fact that land is not stolen is logical; the land does not move and therefore cannot be stolen. However, slaves do move, and therefore they can be stolen. This also answers your last question.
However, the Rambam and most Poskim argue on this, and say that they cannot be stolen because they are like land (see Rambam and Magid Mishnah in Hilchos Gezeilah 3:4). However, this does not have to do with "Lo Signov" in the Aseres ha'Dibros according to them, as while a person can be stolen, a slave is always compared to land.
All the best,
Yaakov Montrose