The Torah demands that we give widows and orphans special treatment. What obligations and prohibitions do we have towards them? Do the Torah’s orders refer specifically to widows and orphans, or do they include all vulnerable elements in society? What happens when the widow or orphan are multi-millionaires, with a well-heeled support system -- does the prohibition still apply? Is a divorcée, agunah, or abandoned child also included in the prohibitions, or does the fact that the husband or father is still alive exclude them from this special status? Why is the Torah so stringent in this matter? These and other related questions are explored in our article this week.
Widows and Orphans in Halacha
In this week’s parasha, we learn of the prohibition to torment widows and orphans: "You shall not mistreat any widow or orphan. If you do mistreat them, and they cry out to Me, I will surely hear their cry. My anger will burn, and I will kill you with the sword, and your wives will become widows and your children orphans" (Shemos 22:21-23).
This passage stands out for its exceptionally severe language, unmatched by any other commandment in the Torah. The Torah not only prohibits harming these vulnerable individuals, but also warns of dire consequences for those who do. Why is the punishment for mistreating widows and orphans so severe? What specific obligations and prohibitions apply? And what deeper principles underpin this mitzva?
Torah References to Widows and Orphans
Widows and orphans appear throughout the Torah and Tanach in connection with five primary obligations:
- The prohibition against mistreating them.
- The obligation to uphold justice for them.
- The prohibition against seizure of their belongings as collateral.
- The obligation to provide for them through charity.
- The requirement to include them in celebrations of the festivals.
The prohibition against mistreating widows and orphans appears explicitly in this week's parasha: "You shall not mistreat any widow or orphan" (Shemos 22:21). The obligation to uphold justice for them is mentioned three times in Sefer Devarim (10:18, 24:17; 27:19).
The prohibition against seizing a widow’s property as collateral is mentioned once: "Nor shall you take a widow’s garment as collateral" (Devarim 24:17).
The obligation to provide charity for them is mentioned six times. In this mitzva, they are included with other vulnerable elements in society:
- "The Levite, since he has no portion or inheritance with you, and the stranger, the orphan, and the widow in your towns shall come and eat and be satisfied" (Devarim 14:29).
- "When you reap your harvest in your field and forget a sheaf, do not go back to get it; it shall be for the stranger, the orphan, and the widow" (Devarim 24:19).
- "When you beat your olive tree, do not go over the branches again; it shall be for the stranger, the orphan, and the widow" (Devarim 24:20).
- "When you gather the grapes of your vineyard, do not pick what is left behind; it shall be for the stranger, the orphan, and the widow" (Devarim 24:21).
- "When you have finished tithing all your produce in the third year, the year of the tithe, and have given it to the Levite, the stranger, the orphan, and the widow, so that they may eat in your towns and be satisfied" (Devarim 26:12).
- "Then you shall declare before the Lord your G-d: ‘I have removed the sacred portion from my house, and I have given it to the Levite, the stranger, the orphan, and the widow, according to all Your commandments that You have commanded me'" (Devarim 26:13).
The requirement to include widows and orphans in festival celebrations is mentioned twice in Sefer Devarim, alongside other vulnerable groups (16:11, 16:14).
Reasons for the Prohibition
The Rishonim explain why this prohibition is so severe:
- The Rambam (Hilchos De’os 6:10) explains that it is in order to protect widows and orphans, who are more vulnerable than others since they are lacking their natural support system: a woman without a husband, or a child without a parent has a weakened sense of security.
This applies even if the widow is a queen with an esteemed social standing, or the mother of the heir to the throne. Likewise, even if an orphan inherits great wealth and is raised by caring mentors, nothing can truly replace the security and emotional support of a father.
- Pesikta Zutarsa (Shemos 22:21) and Rashi (Shabbos 11a) attribute the Torah’s severe warning to the fact that “their tears are common” (i.e. they cry easily). Because they have already suffered great loss, they remain in constant emotional pain which can be easily aroused.
The Ramban expands on this idea, stating that even a wealthy widow has a broken spirit. The grief of losing a spouse or parent leaves a lasting imprint, making widows and orphans particularly susceptible to distress.
- Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 65) offers another perspective:
"Because they are weak and lack an advocate to argue on their behalf as a husband would for his wife or a father for his child, the Torah instructs us to cultivate within ourselves the traits of kindness and compassion. We must strive for fairness in all our dealings, as if a powerful defender were standing before us, ensuring justice for them. We should extend mercy towards them, seek their best interests, and show them favor even beyond what we would if their father were still present."
This explanation highlights a broader goal: The Torah is not only concerned with protecting widows and orphans from harm, but also with shaping our moral character. By commanding us to treat them as if their protector were standing before us demanding justice, the Torah fosters within us a deep sense of empathy and responsibility.
- The Rambam (Hilchos Nachalos 11:12) adds another dimension to this obligation: a guardian must be even more meticulous in managing the property of orphans than their own father would have been. The reason for this heightened responsibility appears in the pasuk: “A father of orphans and a judge of widows is G-d in His holy habitation” (Tehilim 68:6). Hashem Himself takes on the role of their protector and holds society accountable for their care. The Torah’s strict warnings serve as a reminder that neglecting the needs of widows and orphans is not merely a social failing—it is a violation of a Divine mandate.
Only Widows and Orphans?
An examination of the previously listed psukim reveals that in some cases, widows and orphans are mentioned alone, while in others, they appear alongside other vulnerable groups such as converts and Levites, who lack a nachala (hereditary portion) in the Land of Israel. This raises a fundamental question: Is the Torah’s prohibition against harming widows and orphans exclusive for them, or is it a broader directive that encompasses all those in need of assistance and protection, with widows and orphans serving as the most common and vulnerable examples?
Charity
When it comes to the obligation of tzedakah, all authorities agree that the obligation to provide for them applies to any person in financial distress, without prioritizing widows and orphans over others. Moreover, a widow or orphan who is not financially needy is not permitted to take charity, and there is no special requirement to provide them with support if they are self-sufficient.
Upholding Justice
The Torah repeatedly warns against perverting justice for any individual. It explicitly prohibits showing favoritism even to the poor in legal proceedings, as stated in this week’s parasha (Shemos 23:3): "Do not show deference to a poor man in his dispute."
Thus, the Torah’s specific mention of widows and orphans in the context of justice emphasizes their particular vulnerability. These individuals are at greater risk of being subjected to biased rulings—either due to undue sympathy, or for lack of proper representation. Dayanim must exercise extreme caution to ensure they do not distort justice in favor of or against them, especially in cases where there is little external oversight.
Nevertheless, there is a distinct obligation to advocate on behalf of an orphan when no one else is available to represent his interests, as will be discussed later.
There is a dispute among the Tanna’im regarding the specific parameters of the prohibition against mistreating a widow or orphan and taking their belongings as collateral. The precise parameters of these laws are subject to dispute, which will be discussed in detail below.
The Prohibition Against Oppression
The Tanna’im dispute whether the Torah's prohibition "You shall not oppress any widow or orphan" (Shemos 22:21) applies exclusively to widows and orphans, or extends to all vulnerable individuals. The Mechilta D’Rabbi Yishmael (Mishpatim, 18) presents the discussion:
"From where do we learn that the Torah prohibits oppressing any person? The pasuk states, ‘You shall not oppress’—these are the words of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: ‘The Torah speaks specifically about widows and orphans, as they are naturally prone to oppression’."
Rabbi Yishmael’s View
The Malbim (Shemos 22:21, §179) explains that Rabbi Yishmael interprets the pasuk as a general prohibition against oppressing all disadvantaged individuals. While the Torah specifically mentions widows and orphans, they serve as the archetype for anyone lacking protection or support. The phrase "any widow" intends to include those in similar situations, even if their spouses are still alive.
However, Rabbi Yishmael acknowledges a fundamental distinction between widows and orphans and other vulnerable individuals. While the Torah forbids oppressing anyone, and whoever does so will be punished severely, the Torah assigns a unique responsibility to the Beis Din regarding widows and orphans, designating it as their protector—acting as the "father of orphans and judge of widows." If the court fails in this role, the severe punishment mentioned in the Torah applies not only to the direct oppressor but also to the Beis Din for neglecting its duty. And the double expression "aneh te’aneh" teaches that even slight oppression warrants a severe punishment.
According to Rabbi Akiva, though, the prohibition applies exclusively to widows and orphans, and the phrase "any widow" includes even the widow of a king—someone of high social standing who seemingly does not need special protection. Rabbi Akiva also understands that double phrasing "aneh te’aneh" indicates that the severe punishment applies only to repeated oppression, and a single act of minor mistreatment does not incur the Torah’s extreme consequences.
The Malbim’s Interpretation and the Asara Harugei Malchus
The Malbim applies this dispute to the story recorded in the Mechilta (ibid.), Maseches Semachos (8:8), and Tanna D’vei Eliyahu Rabbah (28), regarding the Roman execution of two great sages: Rabbi Yishmael the High Priest and Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel, the Nasi.
As they faced their impending execution, the two sages pondered what sin might have warranted such a harsh fate. They reasoned that perhaps, at some point, a widow might have come to them with a halachic question, and their attendant dismissed her, saying the sage was asleep or unavailable. The Torah explicitly warns that oppressing a widow incurs punishment by the sword—a fate that was now being carried out against them. As leaders of the Beis Din, they bore direct responsibility for protecting widows and orphans, and even the slightest delay in assisting them might have made them liable for the Torah’s warning.
Rabbi Akiva later eulogized them, stating that they had been executed despite being completely free of sin, and their deaths were not a result of personal wrongdoing but part of a Divine decree due to an impending catastrophe. As the pasuk states: "The righteous perish because of impending evil" (Yeshayahu 57:1)
This episode directly reflects the dispute between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva regarding whom the prohibition applies to:
Rabbi Yishmael understood that the severe punishment applied not only to those who directly oppressed widows and orphans but also to the Beis Din, if it failed in its duty to support them. Since even the greatest sages might have inadvertently delayed assisting a widow, they were still held accountable under the Torah’s warning. This perspective explains why the sages attributed their fate to this prohibition.
Rabbi Akiva, however, maintained that the Torah’s punishment does not apply to the Beis Din as an institution. Since these sages had not personally committed any offense, their deaths could not have been a consequence of this prohibition. Instead, he understood their execution as a Divine act to spare them from witnessing the impending devastation that was about to befall the Jewish people.
Practical Halacha
The Rambam (Hilchos De’os 6:10; Sefer HaMitzvos, Negative Commandment 256), Yereim (§182), Rabbeinu Yonah (Shaarei Teshuvah 3:24), Ramban (On Sefer HaMitzvos, regarding the inclusion of widows and orphans in the 32 negative commandments), and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 65) rule in accordance with Rabbi Akiva. They maintain that the Torah's prohibition applies specifically to widows and orphans, and not to other individuals who may be disadvantaged or in distress.
On the other hand, Rashi (Shemos 22:21; Sotah 47b) rules in accordance with Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, asserting that the prohibition extends to all people who are vulnerable or disadvantaged, not just widows and orphans.
The Sefer Mitzvos Gadol (Negative Commandment 8) rules that the prohibition applies even to a wealthy widow and cites Rashi’s position. He emphasized that the Torah establishes a unique Divine covenant concerning widows and orphans: If they cry out due to their suffering, Hashem immediately responds, and the severe punishment described in the pasuk is carried out upon their oppressors.
However, the Maharshal and Rabbenu Peretz (Glosses on Sefer Mitzvos Katan, §86-87) understand that halacha follows Rashi, and the prohibition applies to all vulnerable individuals, not just widows and orphans. However, according to the Sefer Mitzvos Gadol, even if the prohibition extends broadly, the specific Divine retribution described in the Torah applies only to widows and orphans because of their special covenant.
However, the Chafetz Chaim (Introduction to Negative Commandment 15) rules that the prohibition applies only to widows and orphans, even if they are wealthy.
The Retribution
The Torah delivers a harrowing warning to those who oppress widows and orphans:
“My anger shall burn, and I will kill you with the sword; your wives shall become widows, and your children orphans” (Shemos 22:23). The Gemara (Bava Metzia 38b) elaborates that this punishment is measure-for-measure—the oppressors will be killed by the sword, yet their fate will remain unknown. As a result, their wives will become agunos—"living widows," unable to remarry, and their children will be denied their rightful inheritance. Their families will thus endure the same suffering they inflicted upon others, left in a permanent state of widowhood and orphanhood (Rabbenu Yonah, Shaarei Teshuvah 303:24; Ramban, Shemos 22:21; Sefer HaChinuch, Mitzvah 65).
Chazal further emphasize (Mechilta D’Rabbi Yishmael; Mechilta D’Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, Shemos 21:22; Sifrei, Devarim 11:17; Midrash HaGadol) that oppressing widows and orphans does not merely bring misfortune upon the perpetrator—it provokes Divine wrath upon the entire world. This results in droughts, exile, and national catastrophe. The Midrash HaGadol adds pestilence and wild animal attacks to the list.
The Ramban (Shemos 22:21) clarifies that this transgression is not formally classified as a sin punishable by misa b’idei Shomayim (heavenly death penalty). Rather, it is the severity of this sin that grants power and permission to the enemies of the transgressor to strike him down with the sword. This is why the prohibition is not included in the list of sins that incur heavenly death penalties (Sanhedrin 83a).
The Divine Covenant: Immediate Retribution
The Rambam (Hilchos De’os 6:10) and Sefer Mitzvos Gadol (Negative Commandment 8) explain that Hashem has an established covenant for widows and orphans—their cries of distress are answered immediately. When they suffer, their outcry arouses Divine wrath, which leads to swift and severe consequences for their oppressors.
Despite its severity, the Rishonim (Rambam, Hilchos De’os 6:10; Rabbenu Yonah, Shaarei Teshuvah 303:24; Sefer HaChinuch, Mitzvah 65, and others) clarify that this is a negative commandment that does not carry the punishment of lashes. Several explanations are given for this:
- The transgressor often can justify his actions—he may claim his intentions were good, making this a sin that can only be judged by Hashem rather than in earthly courts.
- When the Torah specifies a punishment, Batei Din do not administer further penalties.
- The prohibition often occurs through speech rather than action. Prohibitions that lack physical expression generally do not incur lashes.
In next week’s article, we will explore the practical application of these laws.
