Do not harass a widow or orphan
Verse: כל אלמנה ויתום לא תענון
Command: Do not harass a widow or orphan
Shemos 22:21
SMG
[there is a negative Mitzva prohibiting] harassing an orphan or widow, since their souls are absolutely meek, and their spirits are downtrodden. And even if they are rich, even if they are the widows of the king, and orphans of the king as it says in the verse[i] כל אלמנה ויתום לא תענון [it is still forbidden to harass them].
And even though Rabeinu Shlomo (Rashi) explained there [α] that this law applies to everyone, and the Torah only provided the most common example because [widows and orphans] are those who are weak and it is relatively simple to harass them – nevertheless, I [the SMG disagree and] say [β] that the reason widows and orphans were specified in the Torah is because there is a [separate] covenant made with them; any time they cry out regarding those who oppress them, they are answered. About which the Torah states[ii] כי אם צעק יצעק אלי שמע אשמע צעקתו, and as [G‑d describes himself] in the verse[iii] אבי יתומים ודין אלמנות. [%]
The above applies when a person harasses them for his own reasons, but if he is harassing them to encourage them to follow the right and good path, that is permitted. Nevertheless, he should treat them with more compassion than any other person. This applies whether orphaned from one’s father, or from one’s mother. An orphan is considered an orphan until becoming an adult who does not need anyone taking care of him but is capable of doing everything[1] [γ] required like any other adult.
[1] Including holding down a job and providing for himself or herself.
[i] Shemos 22:21
[ii] Shemos 22:22
[iii] Tehillim 68:6
AMUDAY SHLOMO
[α] [The Maharshal is explaining why the SMG felt the need to disagree with Rashi] Meaning why else would the Torah add the word כל if not to include [others who are not mentioned in the verse]. And the answer is [the word כל] is added in reference to the extra covenant [described by the SMG].
Alternatively, Rashi himself implies that the verse is talking about only those who are weak, which is why there is no mention in Rashi of a queen whose husband the king dies, as being subject to this Mitzva, since she is not weak. [Which means it cannot be talking about all widows.]
[β] [in continuation to the above] Meaning since we find that G‑d has made a separate covenant with them, that means the verse is specific in identifying widows and orphans and was not providing an example of weak people.
[γ] [The Maharshal corrects the SMG who used the term כל צרכיו (which implies things like food and being potty trained) to the term כל עסקיו (which implies things like business and holding down a job). He also notes that the Rambam also uses this revised term.]
RASHI
Although as noted, Rashi extends this prohibition to include harassment for anyone – the SMG presumably does not do so because there already is another verse that admonishes against harassment. As noted with regard to negative Mitzva 171. Why then is Rashi extending the prohibition here beyond that identified in the verse.
Presumably, the reason he does so is because here the Torah does not only provide the admonishment against committing the sin, but also provides the stated punishment, which the SMG notes as a separate ‘covenant’.
What is the covenant that the SMG and the Maharshal mention, but do not elaborate on: The verse there continues אם ענה תענה אתו, שמוע אשמע צעקתו. וחרה אפי והרגתי אתכם, והיו נשיכם אלמנות ובניכם יתמים. – if you surely harass him, I will surely hear his cry. My anger will be kindled, and I will kill you, and your wives will be widows, and your children orphans.
Rashi adds that the duplication in the verse, by stating that the person committing the harassment will be killed, and his wife will be widowed [which is the automatic result of the husband being killed and need not be specified] implies that there are two (2) punishments that can be assessed. Sometimes there are women whose husbands die, but there are no witnesses found to this fact, leaving the widow in a state of limbo, an Aguna, unable to remarry and move on. And the children will be orphaned, but unable to inherit their father’s estate[1].
This explains why Rashi notes the financial aspects that a modification of the punishment can bring about – since G‑d Almighty punishes in measure-for-measure, and since Rashi is establishing that admonishment against harassment (both verbal and financial) is derived here applicable to all people, that would mean there must be a punishment listed here which corresponds to harassing an individual who is not a widow and orphan, one whose crime is financial in nature, and therefore the punishment is financial in nature.
[1] See Gem. Bava Metzia 38b. The Gemara discusses there regarding the case of someone who was kidnapped by non-Jews, and such evil doers refuse to provide proof of life – but there is also no testimony / evidence that the person was killed by their kidnappers. In that case, a relative who is first in line to inherit is allowed to take control of the estate according to Shmuel, though Rav disagrees. Although normally the Halaĉa follows Shmuel with regard to financial rulings, here the Gemara notes a story in Neharda’ah in which Rav Sheshes ruled like Rav. Furthermore, when questioned by Rav Amram that perhaps Rav only meant that the relative could not sell off the assets of the estate, Rav Sheshes dismissed that possibility (he called him a student of Pumpedissa, where students were capable of passing an ‘elephant through the eye of a needle’).
Perhaps we can possibly say the reason why the Halaĉa follows Rav in this case is because although the result is financial for the heirs, the situation is one of violating the prohibition of negative Mitzva against harassment.
Discussion by SMS
[%] Why does the SMG add the notation that G‑d Almighty considers himself the father of orphans and the judge for widows. On the verse quoted by the SMG, Rashi notes that orphans and widows are euphemisms for the Jewish people – based on the verse[i] יתומים היינו and is a euphemism for Yerushalayim – based on the verse[ii] היתה כאלמנה.
[i] Ayĉa 5:3
[ii] Ayĉa 1:1