(14) You shall not move your countryman’s landmarks, set up by previous generations, in the property that will be allotted to you in the land that the LORD your God is giving you to possess.
The simple meaning refers to moving the marker between two adjacent fields, essentially as a way of permanent trespass or “stealing” that land. But, inasmuch as theft is already prohibited as part of the Ten Commandments, that particular verse could be considered otiose. Therefore, later rabbinic law applied it generally to every attempt to encroach unfairly on a neighbor’s property, or even his means of earning a livelihood.[1] (From David Nimmer, Lessons from Maharam Banet’s Clash With the Ḥatam Sofer Over Copyright in the Roedelheim Maḥzor )
[1] See Menaḥem Elon, at 1462, 1464 (tracing early right of attribution, in nature of copyright, to Sifrei Deut. 188 and Tosef. Bava Kamma 7:13); Louis Jacobs, The Jewish Religion: A Companion (Oxford Univ. Press 1995).
ומשלך יתנו לך אין אדם נוגע במוכן לחבירו ואין מלכות נוגעת בחברתה אפי' כמלא נימא
"From yours shall be given to you": No person may touch that which is prepared for another by God; everyone receives what is designated for him. And one reign does not overlap with another and deduct from the time allotted it even a hairbreadth. When the time comes for one kingdom to fall, its successor takes over immediately, as no king rules during the time designated for another.
בא דוד והעמידן על אחת עשרה דכתיב (תהלים טו, א) מזמור לדוד [ה'] מי יגור באהלך מי ישכון בהר קדשך הולך תמים ופועל צדק ודובר אמת בלבבו לא רגל על לשונו לא עשה לרעהו רעה וחרפה לא נשא על קרובו נבזה בעיניו נמאס ואת יראי ה' יכבד נשבע להרע ולא ימיר כספו לא נתן בנשך ושוחד על נקי לא לקח עושה אלה לא ימוט לעולם
ודובר אמת בלבבו כגון רב ספרא
לא רגל על לשונו זה יעקב אבינו דכתיב (בראשית כז, יב) אולי ימושני אבי והייתי בעיניו כמתעתע
לא עשה לרעהו רעה שלא ירד לאומנות חבירו
Rabbi Simlai continued: King David came and established the 613 mitzvot upon eleven mitzvot, as it is written: “A Psalm of David. Lord, who shall sojourn in Your Tabernacle? Who shall dwell upon Your sacred mountain? He who walks wholeheartedly, and works righteousness, and speaks truth in his heart. Who has no slander upon his tongue, nor does evil to his neighbor, nor takes up reproach against his relative. In whose eyes a vile person is despised, and he honors those who fear the Lord; he takes an oath to his own detriment, and changes not. He neither gives his money with interest, nor takes a bribe against the innocent. He who performs these shall never be moved” (Psalms, chapter 15). ....
“And speaks truth in his heart”; this is referring to one such as Rav Safra, who was reciting Shema when a person approached him to purchase an item. He intended to accept the man’s offer, but he was unable to respond because it is prohibited to interrupt the recitation of Shema. The buyer misinterpreted Rav Safra’s silence and concluded that Rav Safra demanded a higher price, so he raised his offer. Rav Safra insisted on selling him the item for the sum that he was offered initially. “Who has no slander upon his tongue”; this is referring to one who conducts himself like our forefather Jacob, who did not want to mislead his father in order to receive his blessings, as it is written: “Perhaps my father will feel me, and I will be in his eyes like a fraud” (Genesis 27:12). “Nor does evil to his neighbor”; this is referring to one who did not infringe upon another’s trade,
§ Rav Huna said: There was a certain resident of an alleyway who set up a mill in the alleyway and earned his living grinding grain for people. And subsequently another resident of the alleyway came and set up a mill next to his. The halakha is that the first one may prevent him from doing so if he wishes, as he can say to him: You are disrupting my livelihood by taking my customers. The Gemara suggests: Let us say that a baraita supports his opinion: One must distance fish traps from fish, i.e., from other fish traps, as far as the fish travels, i.e., the distance from which the fish will travel. The Gemara asks: And how much is this distance? Rabba bar Rav Huna says: Up to a parasang [parsa]. This indicates that one must distance himself from the place where another has established his business. The Gemara responds that this is no proof: Perhaps fish are different, as they look around. One fish explores the area ahead of the others, indicating to them where to go. Once they encounter the first trap they will not approach the second. Ravina said to Rava: Shall we say that Rav Huna spoke in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? As we learned in a mishna (Bava Metzia 60a): Rabbi Yehuda says: A storekeeper may not hand out toasted grain and nuts to children who patronize his store, due to the fact that he thereby accustoms them to come to him at the expense of competing storekeepers. And the Rabbis permit doing so. This indicates that according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, all forms of competition are prohibited, which would include the scenario concerning the mill. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: You may even say that Rav Huna holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. The Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Yehuda only there, as the storekeeper can say to his competitor: If I distribute walnuts, you can distribute almonds [shiyuskei]. But here, with regard to a resident of an alleyway who sets up a mill in that alleyway where another mill already exists, even the Rabbis concede that the owner of the first mill can say to him: You are disrupting my livelihood, as beforehand whoever required grinding came to me, and you have provided them with another option. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: A man may establish a shop alongside the shop of another, and a bathhouse alongside the bathhouse of another, and the other cannot protest, because the newcomer can say to him: You operate in your space, and I operate in my space. The Gemara answers: This entire matter is a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita: The residents of an alleyway can compel one another to agree not to allow among them in that alleyway a tailor, a tanner, a teacher of children, nor any type of craftsman. They can bar outside craftsmen from plying their trade in that alleyway. But one cannot compel his neighbor, i.e., one who already lives in the alleyway, to refrain from practicing a particular occupation there. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: One can even compel his neighbor not to conduct such work in the alleyway. Rav Huna holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, says: It is obvious to me that a resident of one town can prevent a resident of another town from establishing a similar business in the locale of the first individual. But if he pays the tax of that first town, he cannot prevent him from doing business there, as he too is considered a resident of the town. The resident of an alleyway cannot prevent a resident of his alleyway from practicing a particular trade there, in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis in the baraita, and contrary to the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.
R. Joseph said: R. Huna agrees that a teacher cannot prevent [another teacher from setting up in the same alley], for the reason mentioned,
that 'the jealousy of scribes increaseth wisdom'.
R. Nahman b. Isaac said: R. Huna the son of R. Joshuah also agrees that itinerant spice-sellers cannot prevent one another from going to any given town, because, as a Master has stated, Ezra made a rule for Israel that spice-sellers should go about from town to town so that the daughters of Israel should be able to obtain finery. This, however, only means that they are at liberty to go from house to house [in the strange town], but not to settle there. If, however, the seller is a student, he may settle also, a precedent having been set by Raba in allowing R. Josiah and R. Obadiah to settle, in despite of the rule. The reason he gave was that, as they were Rabbis, they would be disturbed in their studies [if they had to return to their own town].
Certain basket-sellers brought baskets to Babylon [to sell]. The townspeople came and stopped them, so they appealed to Rabina. He said, 'They have come from outside and they can sell to the people from outside.'1 This restriction, however, applied only to the market day, but not to other days; and even on the market day only for selling in the market, but not for going round to the houses.
(ח) כּוֹפִין בְּנֵי מָבוֹי זֶה אֶת זֶה שֶׁלֹּא לְהוֹשִׁיב בֵּינֵיהֶן לֹא חַיָּט וְלֹא בּוּרְסִי וְלֹא אֶחָד מִבַּעֲלֵי אֻמָּנֻיּוֹת. הָיָה שָׁם בַּמָּבוֹי אֶחָד מִבְּנֵי מָבוֹי אֻמָּן וְלֹא מִחוּ בּוֹ. אוֹ שֶׁהָיְתָה שָׁם מֶרְחָץ אוֹ חֲנוּת אוֹ רֵחַיִם וּבָא חֲבֵרוֹ וְעָשָׂה מֶרְחָץ אַחֶרֶת כְּנֶגְדּוֹ אוֹ טָחוֹן אַחֶרֶת. אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְמָנְעוֹ וְלוֹמַר לוֹ אַתָּה פּוֹסֵק חַיַּי. וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה מִבְּנֵי מָבוֹי אַחֵר אֵינָן יְכוֹלִין לְמָנְעוֹ שֶׁהֲרֵי יֵשׁ בֵּינֵיהֶם אוֹתָהּ אֻמָּנוּת. אֲבָל גֵּר מִמְּדִינָה אַחֶרֶת שֶׁבָּא לַעֲשׂוֹת חֲנוּת בְּצַד חֲנוּתוֹ שֶׁל זֶה. אוֹ מֶרְחָץ מִצַּד מֶרְחָץ שֶׁל זֶה. יֵשׁ לָהֶן לְמָנְעוֹ. וְאִם הָיָה נוֹתֵן עִמָּהֶם מְנַת הַמֶּלֶךְ אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְמָנְעוֹ:
The inhabitants of a alley can compel each other to prevent a tailor, a leather craftsman or any other craftsman from opening a business in the alley.
If a craftsman lived in the alley, and no protest was lodged against his practice of his craft, or there was a bathhouse, a store or a mill in the lane, and another person came and built another bathhouse opposite it or built another mill, the owner of the first establishment cannot prevent him, claiming: "You are destroying my livelihood."This applies even if he comes from another alley, for this trade is already practiced in this alley.
If, however, a stranger from another city comes to establish a store next to a person's store, or a bathhouse next to this person's bathhouse, they can prevent him from doing so. If, however, he pays the head-tax of the king together with them, they cannot prevent him from establishing his business.
The Aviasaf defines unfair competition in a most broad manner. He forbids opening a store at the entrance to a dead-end alley if a similar establishment is already located farther within the dead-end alley. Such competition is unfair, for it will definitely ruin the original shopkeeper's business. Potential customers will see the new store upon entering the dead-end alley without ever noticing the other establishment farther in.
In a responsum (10), the Rama adjudicates a famous sixteenth-century dispute between two Italian publishers who both printed editions of the Rambam's Mishneh Torah. The one who published it first objected to the existence of a rival edition of the Mishneh Torah. The Rama rules against the second publisher, reasoning (based on the Aviasaf's ruling) that all Amoraim forbid opening a store if it will clearly ruin the original entrepreneur's business. The Rama thus concludes that the second publisher should not be patronized, as he was unfairly ruining the original publisher's livelihood.
Mas'at Binyamin addresses a town that was permitted to have only one store of a particular type. One such store already existed, and someone wanted to start an identical one. The Mas'at Binyamin writes that even the lenient Talmudic opinion of Rav Huna the son of Rav Yehoshua forbids the new competitor from opening. Since the law prohibits 2 stores of one type in the same town there is not even a theoretical chance of both stores surviving, the new storeowner was clearly damaging the incumbent (bari hezeika).
The Rashba (Teshuvot 3:83) also sets limits on free enterprise. He extrapolates from the Gemara's case of the fishing nets that, while one may open a rival business, he may not actively pursue people who are known to be regular customers of the first proprietor. Just as one who places his net in front of the first net swipes fish that were heading straight toward it, this type of advertising steals customers who would have undoubtedly bought from the original proprietor.
See JLawe article at:
http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/hasagatgevul.html