Mishneh Torah, Human Dispositions 6

Sugya Map

• Issue: The precise count of lavin (negative commandments) inherent in the prohibition against oppressing widows and orphans.
• Nafka Mina: Determines whether oppressing both a widow and an orphan simultaneously constitutes one transgression or two (or more).
• Primary Sources: Mishneh Torah, Hilchot De'ot 6:10; Sefer HaMitzvot, Lo Ta'aseh 256; Ramban, Hassagot al Sefer HaMitzvot, Lo Ta'aseh 256; Sefer HaChinuch, Mitzvah 65; Keritot 5a.

Text Snapshot

"חייב אדם להזהר ביתומים ואלמנות וכו' שנאמר כל אלמנה ויתום לא תענון."^1 (Mishneh Torah, Human Dispositions 6:10)

Dikduk/Leshon Nuance

The Rambam quotes Shemot 22:21, "כל אלמנה ויתום לא תענון" (Do not mistreat any widow or orphan). The singular verb "תענון" (you shall mistreat him/it) rather than a plural form, is key to the machloket.

Readings

Rambam's Chiddush

The Rambam, in Sefer HaMitzvot, counts this as a single lav (Lo Ta'aseh 256), viewing the prohibition against oppressing "any widow or orphan" as one encompassing command, despite the mention of two distinct groups.^2

Ramban's Chiddush

The Ramban, in his Hassagot, sharply disagrees, arguing that the Torah's separate mention of "widow" and "orphan" and the subsequent phrase "אם ענה תענה אותו" (if you afflict, you shall afflict him/it) implies two distinct prohibitions – one for widows and one for orphans. To him, the Rambam's count is deficient.^3

Friction

Kushya

Why does the Rambam consolidate "widow" and "orphan" into a single lav when the Torah seems to distinguish them, and the singular "אותו" could easily refer to each individual category, thereby yielding two prohibitions? This is the core of the Ramban's kushya cited by Nachal Eitan.^4

Terutz

The Lev Sameach, as cited by Nachal Eitan, explains that while "אותו" indeed refers to each, the categories are "כלולים יחד" (included together) under a singular, overarching prohibition. Nachal Eitan adduces support from Keritot 5a, where the Gemara debates whether "לא תוכל לאכול בשעריך מעשר דגנך תירושך ויצהרך" (You may not eat within your gates the tithe of your grain, wine, or oil) constitutes three lavin or one, ultimately concluding that multiple specified items can fall under a single prohibitive statement if the phrasing indicates a unified prohibition.^5

Intertext

The sugya in Keritot 5a, concerning the lav of ma'aser, serves as a powerful parallel. It demonstrates the halachic parsing of verses listing multiple items within a single prohibitive clause, mirroring the Rambam-Ramban debate on the count of lavin for almanah v'yatom.

Psak/Practice

The machloket between Rambam and Ramban primarily concerns the methodology of Sefer HaMitzvot and the theoretical count of lavin. Practically, halacha maintains extreme stringency in protecting orphans and widows, irrespective of whether the transgression violates one or two lavin.

Takeaway

The meticulous exegesis required for Sefer HaMitzvot authorship reveals how subtle linguistic nuances in Torah verses can lead to fundamental disagreements in halachic categorization.

---

1. Mishneh Torah, Human Dispositions 6:10.
2. Sefer HaMitzvot, Lo Ta'aseh 256. See also Sefer HaChinuch, Mitzvah 65.
3. Ramban, Hassagot al Sefer HaMitzvot, Lo Ta'aseh 256.
4. Nachal Eitan on Mishneh Torah, Human Dispositions 6:10:1: "ודע דהרמב"ן בספר המצות השיג על רבינו שמנאן רק ללאו אחד דהיה לו למנותן לאלמנה ויתום לשני לאווין שהרי חלקן הכתוב באומרו אם ענה תענה אותו."
5. Nachal Eitan on Mishneh Torah, Human Dispositions 6:10:1: "ובס' לב שמח כתב לתרץ דעת רבינו דאותו חוזר לכל אחד ואחד משניהן ועדיין כלולים יחד. ונראה להביא ראיה לזה מסוגיא דפ"ק דכריתות (דף ה') גבי אכל מעשר דגן תירוש ויצהר דעבר על שלש לאווין דכתיב לא תוכל לאכול בשעריך מעשר דגנך תירושך ויצהרך. ... אלא ש"מ דזה לא הוי פרט וחילוק כיון שחוזר לכל אחד וכלולים יחד."