לא תחמוד

(14) You shall not covet your neighbor’s house: you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female slave, or his ox or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor’s.

(18) You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife. You shall not crave your neighbor’s house, or his field, or his male or female slave, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor’s.

The Gemara answers: There too, the bailee is not suspected of outright robbery, as even if he took the deposited item for himself, he could rationalize his behavior, saying to himself: Since I gave him money for the item, I did nothing wrong. Therefore, his oath is deemed credible and an oath can be administered to him.

Rav Aḥa of Difti said to Ravina: But by paying for the deposit instead of returning it, doesn’t the bailee violate the prohibition of: “You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his slave, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s” (Exodus 20:14)? One transgresses this prohibition by taking an item from another by force or deceit, even if one pays for it.

The Gemara answers: The prohibition “You shall not covet” is understood by most people as referring to taking an item without paying money. Since the bailee may have been unaware that he was acting criminally, his testimony and his oath are deemed credible.

(on the words "for a high price, You shall not covet") : As long as he (the seller) did not say "I want (to sell it)".

(9) Anyone who covets the male or female servant or the house or goods of his neighbor, or anything that he can buy from him, and he exerts friendly pressure and annoys him until he buys it from him, even for a high price, breaks the prohibition: "You shall not covet" (Exodus 20:17).

One does not receive lashes for this transgression, for there is no action involved. One does not transgress this sin until he takes the object he coveted, similar to the verse stating: "Do not covet silver or gold of theirs and take for yourself", thus we see that the word covet requires an action.

On the words "he does not receive lashes etc."

I have not seen a bigger absurdity than this! Is there a bigger action than taking an object?! Rather, he should have said (that he does not receive lashes) because he must return it, as a thief who must return his stolen objects and thus not liable for lashes, so too he must return it and therefore not liable.