Mishneh Torah, Inheritances 11

Alright, partner, let's dive into some Rambam. We're in Hilkhot Nahalot, the Laws of Inheritances, and it's a fascinating window into how Jewish law meticulously protects the most vulnerable. Forget what you think you know about guardians; the Rambam here throws an immediate curveball, then builds a truly intricate system.

Hook

Ever wonder how the most vulnerable in society, like orphans, are financially protected in Jewish law? The Rambam kicks off by stating that orphans' money doesn't need a guardian, only to then present an incredibly detailed and surprisingly modern-sounding investment strategy. It's a non-obvious entry point into a world of profound legal and ethical responsibility.

Context

Before we jump into the text, let's set the stage. We're looking at a passage from the Mishneh Torah (Repetition of the Torah), the monumental legal code compiled by Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon, famously known as Maimonides or the Rambam (1138-1204 CE). Written in Egypt in the late 12th century, the Mishneh Torah was revolutionary for its time. Unlike earlier legal compilations or the Talmud itself, which are replete with debates, differing opinions, and the sources from which laws are derived, the Rambam's work presents only the final, decided halakha. He organized the entirety of Jewish law into fourteen books, covering every conceivable area, from prayer and festivals to civil law, ritual purity, and even ethics and philosophy. His goal was to create a comprehensive, clear, and accessible guide, so that "a person should first read the Written Torah, then read this book and know from it the entire Oral Torah, without needing to read any other book between them" (Introduction to Mishneh Torah). This aspiration for clarity and self-sufficiency means that when we read the Rambam, we are engaging directly with the final legal outcome, stripped of its dialectical journey. This makes it a powerful tool for understanding practical halakha, but it also means we often have to infer the underlying reasoning and the preceding debates that led to his conclusions.

The specific section we're exploring, Hilkhot Nahalot (Laws of Inheritances), falls within the broader category of Nezikin (Damages/Civil Law) in the Mishneh Torah. It deals with the transfer of property after death, the rights of heirs, and, crucially for our passage, the protection of minors and orphans. The status of orphans (y'tomim) in Jewish tradition is unique. From the Torah itself, which commands "You shall not afflict any widow or orphan" (Exodus 22:21), to countless rabbinic injunctions and aggadic teachings, the protection of orphans is considered a paramount communal and individual responsibility. God Himself is frequently referred to as "Father of orphans" (Psalm 68:6). This divine concern translates into extremely stringent legal requirements for safeguarding their well-being, both physical and financial. The community, through its Beit Din (rabbinic court), effectively assumes a parental role, ensuring that the orphans' inheritance is not squandered, stolen, or mismanaged. The meticulous detail in our passage is a testament to this profound obligation, demonstrating how abstract ethical principles are translated into concrete, actionable legal procedures. The Rambam’s systematic approach here is not merely about asset management; it’s about upholding a divine mandate to protect the vulnerable through rigorous, practical halakha.

Text Snapshot

The Rambam opens Mishneh Torah, Inheritances 11 with a striking declaration and immediate follow-up:

"Money belonging to orphans that was left to them by their father does not require a guardian. What, instead, is done with it? We search for a person who owns property that can be expropriated by a creditor and that is of high quality. This person should be trustworthy, one who heeds the laws of the Torah, and who was never placed under a ban of ostracism. He is given the money in the presence of the court to invest in a manner that will most likely lead to a profit and will not likely lead to loss. Thus, the orphans will derive benefit from the investment of the money." (Mishneh Torah, Inheritances 11:1-2)

Close Reading

Insight 1: The Paradox of Guardianship and Investment – Money's Unique Status

The opening line of our passage immediately grabs our attention: "Money belonging to orphans that was left to them by their father does not require a guardian." This statement seems counter-intuitive. If orphans are vulnerable and need protection, why would their money not require a guardian, especially when the text later details how other forms of property (like land purchased with orphans' money) are entrusted to a guardian? This initial declaration sets up a crucial distinction and reveals a sophisticated understanding of asset management within Jewish law.

Steinsaltz's commentary on this line clarifies the nuance: "שלא כשאר נכסים שבית דין מעמידים להם אפוטרופוס לטפל בהם" (Unlike other assets for which the court appoints a guardian to manage them). This indicates that the "guardian" being avoided here is a formal, ongoing administrator tasked with broad oversight of all assets. The Rambam is not saying orphans' money is left unprotected, but rather that it's handled differently from, say, a field or a house.

So, what makes money different? Unlike real estate or tangible movable property, money is fungible and, paradoxically, both liquid and static. If left idle, it doesn't grow; it can even depreciate with inflation. It's also highly susceptible to theft if merely stored. Land, by contrast, is a more stable asset, often appreciating over time, and requires a guardian for its active management (e.g., farming, renting, maintenance). Movable property (like animals or goods) also requires active management or, as the Rambam later states, should be sold. Money, however, presents a unique challenge: it needs to be put to work to benefit the orphans, but without exposing it to undue risk.

The Rambam's solution is not to appoint a passive guardian to merely hold the money, but to actively seek out a specific type of investor. The court's role shifts from appointing a general manager to meticulously vetting a highly qualified financial steward. This chosen individual isn't called an "אפוטרופוס" (guardian) in the context of the initial investment of the money, but rather a "מתעסק" (investor/manager). This distinction is critical. The "מתעסק" has a very specific, limited mandate: to invest the money under strict conditions, ensuring profit for the orphans. It's a proactive, risk-managed investment rather than a reactive, protective guardianship of a static asset.

This approach reflects a deep legal philosophy: for liquid assets like money, passive storage is insufficient. The aim is not merely preservation, but growth for the orphans' future. The court, acting as the ultimate protector, must therefore facilitate this growth while simultaneously establishing stringent safeguards. The "no guardian" rule for money is thus a prelude to a more dynamic and intricate system of financial management, emphasizing prudent investment over static custodianship. It's a pragmatic recognition that different types of assets require different legal and managerial strategies to best serve the interests of the vulnerable.

Insight 2: Key Term – "קָרוֹב לְשָׂכָר וְרָחוֹק לְהֶפְסֵד" (Likely to lead to profit and not likely to lead to loss) and the Avak Ribbit Exemption

The core principle guiding the investment of orphans' money is encapsulated in the phrase "to invest in a manner that will most likely lead to a profit and will not likely lead to loss." This isn't just a general aspiration for good returns; it's a specific, legally defined risk profile that carries profound implications, particularly concerning the prohibition of interest (ribbit).

Steinsaltz's commentary on this phrase is illuminating: "באופן שיש סיכוי גבוה שהיתומים ירוויחו ולא יפסידו. שמסכמים אתו שאם יהיה רווח במעות יקבלו אותו היתומים ואם יהיה הפסד ישלם להם אותו מכיסו. ואף על פי שהלוואה באופן זה אסורה מדברי חכמים משום אבק ריבית, בנכסי יתומים לא אסרו זאת (הלכות מלווה ולווה ד,יד)." (In a way that there is a high chance the orphans will profit and not lose. That it is agreed with him that if there is a profit, the orphans will receive it, and if there is a loss, he will pay it from his pocket. And even though a loan in this manner is forbidden by the Sages due to avak ribbit (dust of interest), it is not forbidden for orphans' property).

This commentary reveals a truly remarkable halakhic concession. For adults, an arrangement where one party (the investor) guarantees the principal and absorbs any loss, while the other party (the orphans) takes the profit, would typically fall under the rabbinic prohibition of avak ribbit. Ribbit (interest) is a severe biblical prohibition against taking or giving interest on a loan between Jews. Avak ribbit (literally "dust of interest") refers to rabbinically prohibited arrangements that, while not directly biblical ribbit, resemble it or create an atmosphere conducive to it. The key element here is the guarantee against loss combined with the potential for profit. If the investor is essentially guaranteeing the principal, the "investment" starts to look very much like a loan, and the orphans' "profit" begins to resemble interest on that loan, as they bear no risk.

However, the Rambam, as explained by Steinsaltz, explicitly permits this arrangement for orphans' money. Why? Because the paramount concern for the orphans' financial security overrides the rabbinic prohibition of avak ribbit. The Sages, in their wisdom, recognized that the vulnerability of orphans necessitates an extraordinary measure to protect their inheritance from depletion. To ensure that suitable individuals would be willing to undertake the responsibility of investing orphans' funds, an incentive was needed, and a guarantee against loss for the orphans was deemed essential. Without this exemption, potential investors would be unwilling to take on the risk, or the orphans' funds would remain idle and unproductive, ultimately harming their long-term well-being.

This exemption highlights a crucial hierarchy of halakhic values. While prohibitions against ribbit are fundamental to Jewish economic ethics, the protection and sustenance of orphans are even more foundational, rising to the level of a divine imperative. The Sages were willing to create a legal mechanism that bends a rabbinic fence around a biblical prohibition in order to uphold a higher ethical responsibility. This isn't a loophole; it's a deliberate legal innovation reflecting a profound commitment to social welfare.

Furthermore, this special arrangement places an enormous burden and responsibility on the investor. He must be "trustworthy, one who heeds the laws of the Torah, and who was never placed under a ban of ostracism." These are not just general pieties. These qualities are directly relevant to the unique financial and ethical demands of this investment. An investor who guarantees against loss needs unimpeachable integrity, not only to honor the agreement but also to manage the funds with the utmost care, knowing that any loss comes directly from his own pocket. The stringent vetting process (property for security, good character, unblemished reputation) is therefore not merely a recommendation, but a critical prerequisite for entrusting such a sensitive and high-stakes financial responsibility. The entire system is designed to ensure maximum benefit and minimal risk for the orphans, even if it requires stretching the conventional boundaries of financial law.

Insight 3: Tension – Balancing Profit, Risk, and Moral Imperatives in Orphan Management

The passage is replete with fascinating tensions that underscore the complexities of managing an orphan's estate. The Rambam, in his characteristic style, lays out a system that is both idealistic in its goals (protecting the vulnerable) and profoundly pragmatic in its execution.

Profit vs. Security: The Case of Unmarked Gold

The first tension we observe is the constant interplay between the desire for profit and the absolute necessity of security. The court seeks an investor who will invest "most likely lead to a profit and will not likely lead to loss." Yet, this pursuit of profit is immediately tempered by stringent security requirements. The investor must either own "high quality" landed property that can be expropriated, or provide "bars of gold that do not have any identifying marks as security." The Rambam then explains the unusual specificity regarding unmarked gold: "Why does he not give golden utensils or golden jewelry as security? For perhaps these articles belong to another person. We fear that in the event of the investor's death, that other person will claim these articles by identifying them with signs. They will then be given to him if the judge knows that the investor was unlikely to possess such articles."

This detail reveals an extreme level of caution. The court isn't just worried about the investor defaulting; it's worried about the security itself being compromised by third-party claims, even posthumously. Jewelry or utensils, with their unique designs and markings, could be easily claimed by someone else, leaving the orphans' investment unsecured. Unmarked gold bars, being fungible and lacking unique identifiers, are far less susceptible to such claims. This shows that the priority for orphans' funds isn't merely to get any security, but ironclad security that minimizes all conceivable legal and financial risks, even those that might seem remote. The pursuit of profit is always secondary to the absolute assurance of asset protection.

Active Investment vs. Conservative Preservation: The Land Purchase

Another tension arises when an ideal investor cannot be found. If "the court cannot find a person to give the money to invest in a manner that will not likely lead to loss and will most likely lead to a profit," the strategy shifts dramatically. Instead of indefinitely seeking an investor, the court is instructed to "use a small amount of the money to provide the orphans with their livelihood until they use the money to purchase land that they entrust to a guardian whom they appoint."

Here, we see a clear pivot from active, risk-managed investment (even with its unique avak ribbit exemption) to conservative, passive asset preservation. Land is historically considered the most stable and reliable form of wealth. It doesn't typically disappear, and while its value can fluctuate, it's generally less volatile than other investments. When an optimal investment opportunity (with a risk-bearing investor) isn't available, the priority reverts to safeguarding the principal in the most secure way possible, even if it means foregoing potential high returns. This highlights a pragmatic hierarchy: proactive growth is desirable, but secure preservation is essential. Once land is purchased, a formal guardian (אפוטרופוס) is appointed, as land requires ongoing management (renting, farming, maintenance), contrasting with the initial "no guardian" rule for liquid money.

Specific Mitzvot vs. Unlimited Charity: The Limits of Obligation

Perhaps the most striking tension appears later in the passage, concerning the orphans' obligations for mitzvot and tzedakah. The Rambam explicitly states that guardians "must make a lulav, a sukkah, tzitzit, a shofar, a Torah scroll, tefillin, mezuzot and a megillah on behalf of the orphans. The general principle is: All mitzvot that have a fixed measure - whether of Scriptural or Rabbinic origin - should be made available for them, although they are obligated in these mitzvot only as part of their education." This shows a clear commitment to ensuring the orphans' religious upbringing and their ability to fulfill core, measurable mitzvot.

However, this is immediately followed by a crucial limitation: "We do not, however, levy charitable assessments against their property, even for the sake of the redemption of captives. The rationale is that such mitzvot have no limit to them." This creates a profound ethical tension. Pidyon shvuyim (redemption of captives) is considered one of the highest forms of tzedakah, often overriding other mitzvot. Yet, the Rambam explicitly prohibits using orphans' funds for it. Why? Because it's an "unlimited" obligation. The potential demands for charity, especially for rescuing captives, could be immense and continuous, potentially depleting the orphans' entire estate.

This legal boundary underscores a fundamental principle in the management of orphans' funds: their financial future, their basic sustenance, and the preservation of their inheritance take precedence over even the most compelling, but open-ended, charitable appeals. While their spiritual education and participation in fixed mitzvot are crucial, their financial security cannot be indefinitely jeopardized by unbounded communal obligations. The court's role is not to turn the orphans' estate into a communal charity fund, but to protect it as their personal patrimony, ensuring their long-term self-sufficiency. This tension highlights the delicate balance between fostering communal responsibility and safeguarding individual rights, particularly for the most vulnerable.

Two Angles

Angle 1: Rambam's Legal Prudence and the Paramountcy of Orphan Protection

The Rambam's approach to orphans' inheritances in this chapter is a masterclass in legal prudence, meticulous risk management, and what might be termed "pragmatic paternalism." His primary concern is the absolute safeguarding of the orphans' financial future, translating the biblical injunction to protect the orphan into a robust, detailed, and often financially savvy legal framework. Every instruction, from the initial vetting of an investor to the specific types of security and the strict limits on asset sales, is geared towards minimizing risk and maximizing the long-term benefit for the orphaned children.

The Rambam’s halakhic reasoning here is deeply rooted in a cautious, almost conservative, philosophy when it comes to the assets of minors. His detailed instructions regarding the investor’s character ("trustworthy, one who heeds the laws of the Torah, and who was never placed under a ban of ostracism") and financial standing ("owns property that can be expropriated by a creditor and that is of high quality") are not mere suggestions. They are foundational requirements for ensuring the integrity of the investment. The explicit fear of third-party claims on golden jewelry, leading to the preference for "bars of gold that do not have any identifying marks," exemplifies this extreme caution. He anticipates potential legal challenges and constructs a system designed to preempt them, prioritizing clear, undisputed ownership and reclaimability of security. This is characteristic of the Rambam's systematic codification, where every detail serves to eliminate ambiguity and potential pitfalls.

Furthermore, the Rambam's willingness to make an exception to the prohibition of avak ribbit for the benefit of orphans is a powerful illustration of his prioritization. As Steinsaltz highlights, the agreement where the investor absorbs all losses while the orphans take the profits would ordinarily be rabbinically forbidden. Yet, for orphans, this is not only permitted but prescribed as the ideal method. This isn't a casual dispensation; it's a calculated legal decision that weighs the general ethical concern about usury against the specific, existential need to secure the livelihood of vulnerable children. The financial viability and growth of the orphans' estate are seen as so critical that they warrant an adjustment to standard commercial law. This shows a pragmatic legal realism: sometimes, to achieve a higher good, the "letter" of a rabbinic law must bend to the "spirit" of protecting the most vulnerable, especially when that protection is a divine mandate. The Rambam’s system is thus not just about following rules, but about designing rules that effectively achieve the ultimate ethical and legal objective: the comprehensive care of the orphan.

Angle 2: The Call of Communal Charity vs. Individual Asset Protection

While the Rambam’s halakha in this chapter is undeniably focused on protecting the individual orphan's assets, another angle of Jewish thought, often found in aggadic (homiletic) texts or broader discussions of tzedakah (charity) and communal responsibility, might present a tension with some of his strict limitations. This alternative perspective often emphasizes the expansive nature of communal responsibility and the idea that all Jewish wealth is, in a sense, a trust for the collective good, particularly for those in need.

This contrasting perspective would likely focus on the Rambam’s ruling that orphans' property should not be used for general charitable assessments, "even for the sake of the redemption of captives," because "such mitzvot have no limit to them." From a purely legal and asset-protection standpoint, the Rambam's logic is impeccable: an open-ended charitable obligation could indeed deplete the estate. However, a more expansive ethical-theological perspective might grapple with the implications of this limitation. Pidyon shvuyim is often described as a mitzvah that carries the weight of saving lives, and the community is generally expected to go to great lengths to fulfill it. To explicitly exclude orphans' funds, even with the rationale of financial preservation, could be seen by some as a stark demarcation between individual property rights and communal ethical obligations, perhaps too sharply drawn.

This alternative "angle" is not necessarily a direct refutation of the Rambam's halakha (which is authoritative), but rather an exploration of the ethical tension it presents. It would highlight the idea that Jewish tradition often calls for radical acts of communal solidarity, sometimes blurring the lines between private wealth and public good for the sake of higher ethical imperatives. For example, some rabbinic discussions emphasize that tzedakah is not merely an act of kindness but a form of justice, a fulfillment of a divine command that transcends individual ownership. While the Rambam carefully balances the orphan's individual future with their participation in fixed mitzvot, a contrasting view might argue for a more integrated approach, where even vulnerable populations contribute to the broader communal good, perhaps seeing their participation in pidyon shvuyim as an essential part of their integration into the community and their spiritual development, despite the financial cost. This perspective would push us to consider whether the "limitless" nature of a mitzvah should always preclude an orphan's participation, or if there's a communal mechanism to ensure both their financial safety and their ethical inclusion in the most pressing communal needs. Ultimately, the Rambam's ruling serves as a powerful reminder that even the loftiest ethical ideals must be tempered by pragmatic legal boundaries, especially when protecting the most vulnerable.

Practice Implication

Let's consider a practical implication of the Rambam's intricate rulings, specifically the allowance of an avak ribbit-like arrangement for orphans' funds and the strict criteria for asset management. Imagine a modern Beit Din (rabbinic court) in a vibrant Jewish community.

Scenario: Mrs. Cohen tragically passes away, leaving behind three young children and a substantial inheritance, primarily liquid assets (cash, investments, etc.). Her husband passed away years earlier. The Beit Din is entrusted with managing these funds until the children come of age. They understand their profound responsibility as "Father of orphans."

Dilemma: The Beit Din consults with financial advisors. One advisor, Mr. Goldstein, a respected member of the community known for his integrity and business acumen, proposes an investment opportunity. He has a stable, profitable business (e.g., a well-established real estate development firm with significant existing assets). He suggests that the orphans' funds be invested in his next project. Critically, he offers an agreement: the orphans will receive a fixed percentage of the project's profits, but he personally guarantees the principal investment against any loss. If the project incurs losses, he will cover them from his own substantial assets (which include high-quality, unencumbered real estate). If there are profits beyond the agreed percentage for the orphans, he will keep them as his compensation for the management and risk.

Application of Rambam's Halakha: The Beit Din immediately recognizes that this arrangement, for adult investors, would likely fall under the category of avak ribbit – a rabbinically prohibited transaction because it resembles a loan with an interest-like return, as the investor (Mr. Goldstein) bears all the risk of loss while the "lender" (the orphans) is guaranteed principal and receives a share of profit. However, recalling the Rambam in Hilkhot Nahalot 11:1-2 and Steinsaltz's commentary, the Beit Din understands that this specific type of arrangement is not only permissible but prescribed for orphans' funds.

Decision-Making Process:

1. Vetting the Investor: The Beit Din must rigorously verify Mr. Goldstein's credentials. Is he "trustworthy, one who heeds the laws of the Torah, and who was never placed under a ban of ostracism"? They would check his reputation, his past business dealings, and his commitment to Jewish law. They would also confirm his financial stability, ensuring his "property that can be expropriated by a creditor and that is of high quality" is genuinely available and sufficient to cover the orphans' investment in case of loss. They might request a lien on specific properties as security, ensuring it's not jewelry or other items prone to ownership disputes.
2. Structuring the Agreement: The Beit Din would draw up a formal contract, explicit about the "קָרוֹב לְשָׂכָר וְרָחוֹק לְהֶפְסֵד" (likely to lead to profit and not likely to lead to loss) clause. It would clearly state Mr. Goldstein's obligation to cover any losses from his own pocket. The percentage of profit for the orphans would be determined "as the judges determine, a third of the profits, half of them, or even a fourth of them" (Inheritances 11:1:10), ensuring it's "in the best interests of the orphans." This means carefully evaluating the market, the project's potential, and a fair return for the orphans, not just a minimal amount.
3. Ethical Consideration: The Beit Din would reflect on the ethical implications. While permitted for orphans, the underlying principle of ribbit (avoiding exploitation of one's need for capital) remains. They would ensure that this is truly an investment for the orphans' benefit, not a way for Mr. Goldstein to secure cheap capital with minimal risk to himself, leveraging the halakhic allowance. The investor's willingness to absorb all loss is key to this distinction.

By meticulously following the Rambam's guidelines, the Beit Din navigates a complex financial and halakhic landscape. They fulfill their divine mandate to protect the orphans' inheritance, not merely by preserving it, but by actively seeking its growth through a structure that, while exceptional, is specifically designed to minimize risk for the vulnerable and maximize their long-term financial stability. This decision empowers the orphans' funds to be productive, securing their future in a way that passive storage never could, all while adhering to the highest standards of halakhic and ethical responsibility.

Chevruta Mini

1. The Rambam explicitly permits an investment arrangement for orphans' funds that would typically be considered avak ribbit for adults, where the investor bears all loss and the orphans take the profit, because it is "קָרוֹב לְשָׂכָר וְרָחוֹק לְהֶפְסֵד." What does this unique halakhic concession tell us about the hierarchy of values in Jewish law? When is the financial security of a vulnerable population permitted to override a rabbinic prohibition designed to uphold ethical financial dealings, and what are the potential tradeoffs in such a decision?
2. The Rambam mandates that guardians provide for fixed mitzvot (like lulav or tzitzit) for orphans but strictly forbids levying charitable assessments against their property, "even for the sake of the redemption of captives," because such mitzvot "have no limit to them." How do we balance the imperative to integrate orphans fully into Jewish life (spiritually and communally) with the paramount need to strictly protect their financial future? Where should the line be drawn between ensuring their basic religious observance and exposing their estate to potentially unlimited communal obligations, and what are the ethical implications of this distinction?

Takeaway + Citations

The Rambam's meticulous laws for orphans' inheritances reveal a profound legal and ethical commitment to safeguarding the vulnerable, employing sophisticated risk management and even halakhic concessions to ensure their financial security and well-being.

Citations:

• Mishneh Torah, Inheritances 11:1: https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah%2C_Inheritances.11.1?lang=en&with=Steinsaltz&lang2=en
• Steinsaltz on Mishneh Torah, Inheritances 11:1:1: https://www.sefaria.org/Steinsaltz_on_Mishneh_Torah%2C_Inheritances.11.1.1?lang=en
• Steinsaltz on Mishneh Torah, Inheritances 11:1:2: https://www.sefaria.org/Steinsaltz_on_Mishneh_Torah%2C_Inheritances.11.1.2?lang=en
• Steinsaltz on Mishneh Torah, Inheritances 11:1:3: https://www.sefaria.org/Steinsaltz_on_Mishneh_Torah%2C_Inheritances.11.1.3?lang=en
• Steinsaltz on Mishneh Torah, Inheritances 11:1:4: https://www.sefaria.org/Steinsaltz_on_Mishneh_Torah%2C_Inheritances.11.1.4?lang=en
• Steinsaltz on Mishneh Torah, Inheritances 11:1:5: https://www.sefaria.org/Steinsaltz_on_Mishneh_Torah%2C_Inheritances.11.1.5?lang=en
• Steinsaltz on Mishneh Torah, Inheritances 11:1:10: https://www.sefaria.org/Steinsaltz_on_Mishneh_Torah%2C_Inheritances.11.1.10?lang=en
• Steinsaltz on Mishneh Torah, Inheritances 11:1:11: https://www.sefaria.org/Steinsaltz_on_Mishneh_Torah%2C_Inheritances.11.1.11?lang=en
• Steinsaltz on Mishneh Torah, Inheritances 11:1:12: https://www.sefaria.org/Steinsaltz_on_Mishneh_Torah%2C_Inheritances.11.1.12?lang=en
• Mishneh Torah, Inheritances 11:10: https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah%2C_Inheritances.11.10?lang=en&with=all&lang2=en
• Mishneh Torah, Inheritances 11:12: https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah%2C_Inheritances.11.12?lang=en&with=all&lang2=en
• Exodus 22:21: https://www.sefaria.org/Exodus.22.21?lang=en&with=all&lang2=en
• Psalms 68:6: https://www.sefaria.org/Psalms.68.6?lang=en&with=all&lang2=en## Hook Ever wonder how the most vulnerable in society, like orphans, are financially protected in Jewish law? The Rambam kicks off by stating that orphans' money doesn't need a guardian, only to then present an incredibly detailed and surprisingly modern-sounding investment strategy. It's a non-obvious entry point into a world of profound legal and ethical responsibility.

Context

Before we jump into the text, let's set the stage. We're looking at a passage from the Mishneh Torah (Repetition of the Torah), the monumental legal code compiled by Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon, famously known as Maimonides or the Rambam (1138-1204 CE). Written in Egypt in the late 12th century, the Mishneh Torah was revolutionary for its time. Unlike earlier legal compilations or the Talmud itself, which are replete with debates, differing opinions, and the sources from which laws are derived, the Rambam's work presents only the final, decided halakha. He organized the entirety of Jewish law into fourteen books, covering every conceivable area, from prayer and festivals to civil law, ritual purity, and even ethics and philosophy. His goal was to create a comprehensive, clear, and accessible guide, so that "a person should first read the Written Torah, then read this book and know from it the entire Oral Torah, without needing to read any other book between them" (Introduction to Mishneh Torah). This aspiration for clarity and self-sufficiency means that when we read the Rambam, we are engaging directly with the final legal outcome, stripped of its dialectical journey. This makes it a powerful tool for understanding practical halakha, but it also means we often have to infer the underlying reasoning and the preceding debates that led to his conclusions.

The specific section we're exploring, Hilkhot Nahalot (Laws of Inheritances), falls within the broader category of Nezikin (Damages/Civil Law) in the Mishneh Torah. It deals with the transfer of property after death, the rights of heirs, and, crucially for our passage, the protection of minors and orphans. The status of orphans (y'tomim) in Jewish tradition is unique. From the Torah itself, which commands "You shall not afflict any widow or orphan" (Exodus 22:21), to countless rabbinic injunctions and aggadic teachings, the protection of orphans is considered a paramount communal and individual responsibility. God Himself is frequently referred to as "Father of orphans" (Psalm 68:6). This divine concern translates into extremely stringent legal requirements for safeguarding their well-being, both physical and financial. The community, through its Beit Din (rabbinic court), effectively assumes a parental role, ensuring that the orphans' inheritance is not squandered, stolen, or mismanaged. The meticulous detail in our passage is a testament to this profound obligation, demonstrating how abstract ethical principles are translated into concrete, actionable legal procedures. The Rambam’s systematic approach here is not merely about asset management; it’s about upholding a divine mandate to protect the vulnerable through rigorous, practical halakha.

Text Snapshot

The Rambam opens Mishneh Torah, Inheritances 11 with a striking declaration and immediate follow-up:

"Money belonging to orphans that was left to them by their father does not require a guardian. What, instead, is done with it? We search for a person who owns property that can be expropriated by a creditor and that is of high quality. This person should be trustworthy, one who heeds the laws of the Torah, and who was never placed under a ban of ostracism. He is given the money in the presence of the court to invest in a manner that will most likely lead to a profit and will not likely lead to loss. Thus, the orphans will derive benefit from the investment of the money." (Mishneh Torah, Inheritances 11:1-2)

Close Reading

Insight 1: The Paradox of Guardianship and Investment – Money's Unique Status

The opening line of our passage immediately grabs our attention: "Money belonging to orphans that was left to them by their father does not require a guardian." This statement seems counter-intuitive. If orphans are vulnerable and need protection, why would their money not require a guardian, especially when the text later details how other forms of property (like land purchased with orphans' money) are entrusted to a guardian? This initial declaration sets up a crucial distinction and reveals a sophisticated understanding of asset management within Jewish law.

Steinsaltz's commentary on this line clarifies the nuance: "שלא כשאר נכסים שבית דין מעמידים להם אפוטרופוס לטפל בהם" (Unlike other assets for which the court appoints a guardian to manage them). This indicates that the "guardian" being avoided here is a formal, ongoing administrator tasked with broad oversight of all assets. The Rambam is not saying orphans' money is left unprotected, but rather that it's handled differently from, say, a field or a house.

So, what makes money different? Unlike real estate or tangible movable property, money is fungible and, paradoxically, both liquid and static. If left idle, it doesn't grow; it can even depreciate with inflation. It's also highly susceptible to theft if merely stored. Land, by contrast, is a more stable asset, often appreciating over time, and requires a guardian for its active management (e.g., farming, renting, maintenance). Movable property (like animals or goods) also requires active management or, as the Rambam later states, should be sold. Money, however, presents a unique challenge: it needs to be put to work to benefit the orphans, but without exposing it to undue risk.

The Rambam's solution is not to appoint a passive guardian to merely hold the money, but to actively seek out a specific type of investor. The court's role shifts from appointing a general manager to meticulously vetting a highly qualified financial steward. This chosen individual isn't called an "אפוטרופוס" (guardian) in the context of the initial investment of the money, but rather a "מתעסק" (investor/manager). This distinction is critical. The "מתעסק" has a very specific, limited mandate: to invest the money under strict conditions, ensuring profit for the orphans. It's a proactive, risk-managed investment rather than a reactive, protective guardianship of a static asset.

This approach reflects a deep legal philosophy: for liquid assets like money, passive storage is insufficient. The aim is not merely preservation, but growth for the orphans' future. The court, acting as the ultimate protector, must therefore facilitate this growth while simultaneously establishing stringent safeguards. The "no guardian" rule for money is thus a prelude to a more dynamic and intricate system of financial management, emphasizing prudent investment over static custodianship. It's a pragmatic recognition that different types of assets require different legal and managerial strategies to best serve the interests of the vulnerable.

Insight 2: Key Term – "קָרוֹב לְשָׂכָר וְרָחוֹק לְהֶפְסֵד" (Likely to lead to profit and not likely to lead to loss) and the Avak Ribbit Exemption

The core principle guiding the investment of orphans' money is encapsulated in the phrase "to invest in a manner that will most likely lead to a profit and will not likely lead to loss." This isn't just a general aspiration for good returns; it's a specific, legally defined risk profile that carries profound implications, particularly concerning the prohibition of interest (ribbit).

Steinsaltz's commentary on this phrase is illuminating: "באופן שיש סיכוי גבוה שהיתומים ירוויחו ולא יפסידו. שמסכמים אתו שאם יהיה רווח במעות יקבלו אותו היתומים ואם יהיה הפסד ישלם להם אותו מכיסו. ואף על פי שהלוואה באופן זה אסורה מדברי חכמים משום אבק ריבית, בנכסי יתומים לא אסרו זאת (הלכות מלווה ולווה ד,יד)." (In a way that there is a high chance the orphans will profit and not lose. That it is agreed with him that if there is a profit, the orphans will receive it, and if there is a loss, he will pay it from his pocket. And even though a loan in this manner is forbidden by the Sages due to avak ribbit (dust of interest), it is not forbidden for orphans' property).

This commentary reveals a truly remarkable halakhic concession. For adults, an arrangement where one party (the investor) guarantees the principal and absorbs any loss, while the other party (the orphans) takes the profit, would typically fall under the rabbinic prohibition of avak ribbit. Ribbit (interest) is a severe biblical prohibition against taking or giving interest on a loan between Jews. Avak ribbit (literally "dust of interest") refers to rabbinically prohibited arrangements that, while not directly biblical ribbit, resemble it or create an atmosphere conducive to it. The key element here is the guarantee against loss combined with the potential for profit. If the investor is essentially guaranteeing the principal, the "investment" starts to look very much like a loan, and the orphans' "profit" begins to resemble interest on that loan, as they bear no risk.

However, the Rambam, as explained by Steinsaltz, explicitly permits this arrangement for orphans' money. Why? Because the paramount concern for the orphans' financial security overrides the rabbinic prohibition of avak ribbit. The Sages, in their wisdom, recognized that the vulnerability of orphans necessitates an extraordinary measure to protect their inheritance from depletion. To ensure that suitable individuals would be willing to undertake the responsibility of investing orphans' funds, an incentive was needed, and a guarantee against loss for the orphans was deemed essential. Without this exemption, potential investors would be unwilling to take on the risk, or the orphans' funds would remain idle and unproductive, ultimately harming their long-term well-being.

This exemption highlights a crucial hierarchy of halakhic values. While prohibitions against ribbit are fundamental to Jewish economic ethics, the protection and sustenance of orphans are even more foundational, rising to the level of a divine imperative. The Sages were willing to create a legal mechanism that bends a rabbinic fence around a biblical prohibition in order to uphold a higher ethical responsibility. This isn't a loophole; it's a deliberate legal innovation reflecting a profound commitment to social welfare.

Furthermore, this special arrangement places an enormous burden and responsibility on the investor. He must be "trustworthy, one who heeds the laws of the Torah, and who was never placed under a ban of ostracism." These are not just general pieties. These qualities are directly relevant to the unique financial and ethical demands of this investment. An investor who guarantees against loss needs unimpeachable integrity, not only to honor the agreement but also to manage the funds with the utmost care, knowing that any loss comes directly from his own pocket. The stringent vetting process (property for security, good character, unblemished reputation) is therefore not merely a recommendation, but a critical prerequisite for entrusting such a sensitive and high-stakes financial responsibility. The entire system is designed to ensure maximum benefit and minimal risk for the orphans, even if it requires stretching the conventional boundaries of financial law.

Insight 3: Tension – Balancing Profit, Risk, and Moral Imperatives in Orphan Management

The passage is replete with fascinating tensions that underscore the complexities of managing an orphan's estate. The Rambam, in his characteristic style, lays out a system that is both idealistic in its goals (protecting the vulnerable) and profoundly pragmatic in its execution.

Profit vs. Security: The Case of Unmarked Gold

The first tension we observe is the constant interplay between the desire for profit and the absolute necessity of security. The court seeks an investor who will invest "most likely lead to a profit and will not likely lead to loss." Yet, this pursuit of profit is immediately tempered by stringent security requirements. The investor must either own "high quality" landed property that can be expropriated, or provide "bars of gold that do not have any identifying marks as security." The Rambam then explains the unusual specificity regarding unmarked gold: "Why does he not give golden utensils or golden jewelry as security? For perhaps these articles belong to another person. We fear that in the event of the investor's death, that other person will claim these articles by identifying them with signs. They will then be given to him if the judge knows that the investor was unlikely to possess such articles."

This detail reveals an extreme level of caution. The court isn't just worried about the investor defaulting; it's worried about the security itself being compromised by third-party claims, even posthumously. Jewelry or utensils, with their unique designs and markings, could be easily claimed by someone else, leaving the orphans' investment unsecured. Unmarked gold bars, being fungible and lacking unique identifiers, are far less susceptible to such claims. This shows that the priority for orphans' funds isn't merely to get any security, but ironclad security that minimizes all conceivable legal and financial risks, even those that might seem remote. The pursuit of profit is always secondary to the absolute assurance of asset protection.

Active Investment vs. Conservative Preservation: The Land Purchase

Another tension arises when an ideal investor cannot be found. If "the court cannot find a person to give the money to invest in a manner that will not likely lead to loss and will most likely lead to a profit," the strategy shifts dramatically. Instead of indefinitely seeking an investor, the court is instructed to "use a small amount of the money to provide the orphans with their livelihood until they use the money to purchase land that they entrust to a guardian whom they appoint."

Here, we see a clear pivot from active, risk-managed investment (even with its unique avak ribbit exemption) to conservative, passive asset preservation. Land is historically considered the most stable and reliable form of wealth. It doesn't typically disappear, and while its value can fluctuate, it's generally less volatile than other investments. When an optimal investment opportunity (with a risk-bearing investor) isn't available, the priority reverts to safeguarding the principal in the most secure way possible, even if it means foregoing potential high returns. This highlights a pragmatic hierarchy: proactive growth is desirable, but secure preservation is essential. Once land is purchased, a formal guardian (אפוטרופוס) is appointed, as land requires ongoing management (renting, farming, maintenance), contrasting with the initial "no guardian" rule for liquid money.

Specific Mitzvot vs. Unlimited Charity: The Limits of Obligation

Perhaps the most striking tension appears later in the passage, concerning the orphans' obligations for mitzvot and tzedakah. The Rambam explicitly states that guardians "must make a lulav, a sukkah, tzitzit, a shofar, a Torah scroll, tefillin, mezuzot and a megillah on behalf of the orphans. The general principle is: All mitzvot that have a fixed measure - whether of Scriptural or Rabbinic origin - should be made available for them, although they are obligated in these mitzvot only as part of their education." This shows a clear commitment to ensuring the orphans' religious upbringing and their ability to fulfill core, measurable mitzvot.

However, this is immediately followed by a crucial limitation: "We do not, however, levy charitable assessments against their property, even for the sake of the redemption of captives. The rationale is that such mitzvot have no limit to them." This creates a profound ethical tension. Pidyon shvuyim (redemption of captives) is considered one of the highest forms of tzedakah, often overriding other mitzvot. Yet, the Rambam explicitly prohibits using orphans' funds for it. Why? Because it's an "unlimited" obligation. The potential demands for charity, especially for rescuing captives, could be immense and continuous, potentially depleting the orphans' entire estate.

This legal boundary underscores a fundamental principle in the management of orphans' funds: their financial future, their basic sustenance, and the preservation of their inheritance take precedence over even the most compelling, but open-ended, charitable appeals. While their spiritual education and participation in fixed mitzvot are crucial, their financial security cannot be indefinitely jeopardized by unbounded communal obligations. The court's role is not to turn the orphans' estate into a communal charity fund, but to protect it as their personal patrimony, ensuring their long-term self-sufficiency. This tension highlights the delicate balance between fostering communal responsibility and safeguarding individual rights, particularly for the most vulnerable.

Two Angles

Angle 1: Rambam's Legal Prudence and the Paramountcy of Orphan Protection

The Rambam's approach to orphans' inheritances in this chapter is a masterclass in legal prudence, meticulous risk management, and what might be termed "pragmatic paternalism." His primary concern is the absolute safeguarding of the orphans' financial future, translating the biblical injunction to protect the orphan into a robust, detailed, and often financially savvy legal framework. Every instruction, from the initial vetting of an investor to the specific types of security and the strict limits on asset sales, is geared towards minimizing risk and maximizing the long-term benefit for the orphaned children.

The Rambam’s halakhic reasoning here is deeply rooted in a cautious, almost conservative, philosophy when it comes to the assets of minors. His detailed instructions regarding the investor’s character ("trustworthy, one who heeds the laws of the Torah, and who was never placed under a ban of ostracism") and financial standing ("owns property that can be expropriated by a creditor and that is of high quality") are not mere suggestions. They are foundational requirements for ensuring the integrity of the investment. The explicit fear of third-party claims on golden jewelry, leading to the preference for "bars of gold that do not have any identifying marks," exemplifies this extreme caution. He anticipates potential legal challenges and constructs a system designed to preempt them, prioritizing clear, undisputed ownership and reclaimability of security. This is characteristic of the Rambam's systematic codification, where every detail serves to eliminate ambiguity and potential pitfalls.

Furthermore, the Rambam's willingness to make an exception to the prohibition of avak ribbit for the benefit of orphans is a powerful illustration of his prioritization. As Steinsaltz highlights, the agreement where the investor absorbs all losses while the orphans take the profits would ordinarily be rabbinically forbidden. Yet, for orphans, this is not only permitted but prescribed as the ideal method. This isn't a casual dispensation; it's a calculated legal decision that weighs the general ethical concern about usury against the specific, existential need to secure the livelihood of vulnerable children. The financial viability and growth of the orphans' estate are seen as so critical that they warrant an adjustment to standard commercial law. This shows a pragmatic legal realism: sometimes, to achieve a higher good, the "letter" of a rabbinic law must bend to the "spirit" of protecting the most vulnerable, especially when that protection is a divine mandate. The Rambam’s system is thus not just about following rules, but about designing rules that effectively achieve the ultimate ethical and legal objective: the comprehensive care of the orphan.

Angle 2: The Call of Communal Charity vs. Individual Asset Protection

While the Rambam’s halakha in this chapter is undeniably focused on protecting the individual orphan's assets, another angle of Jewish thought, often found in aggadic (homiletic) texts or broader discussions of tzedakah (charity) and communal responsibility, might present a tension with some of his strict limitations. This alternative perspective often emphasizes the expansive nature of communal responsibility and the idea that all Jewish wealth is, in a sense, a trust for the collective good, particularly for those in need.

This contrasting perspective would likely focus on the Rambam’s ruling that orphans' property should not be used for general charitable assessments, "even for the sake of the redemption of captives," because "such mitzvot have no limit to them." From a purely legal and asset-protection standpoint, the Rambam's logic is impeccable: an open-ended charitable obligation could indeed deplete the estate. However, a more expansive ethical-theological perspective might grapple with the implications of this limitation. Pidyon shvuyim is often described as a mitzvah that carries the weight of saving lives, and the community is generally expected to go to great lengths to fulfill it. To explicitly exclude orphans' funds, even with the rationale of financial preservation, could be seen by some as a stark demarcation between individual property rights and communal ethical obligations, perhaps too sharply drawn.

This alternative "angle" is not necessarily a direct refutation of the Rambam's halakha (which is authoritative), but rather an exploration of the ethical tension it presents. It would highlight the idea that Jewish tradition often calls for radical acts of communal solidarity, sometimes blurring the lines between private wealth and public good for the sake of higher ethical imperatives. For example, some rabbinic discussions emphasize that tzedakah is not merely an act of kindness but a form of justice, a fulfillment of a divine command that transcends individual ownership. While the Rambam carefully balances the orphan's individual future with their participation in fixed mitzvot, a contrasting view might argue for a more integrated approach, where even vulnerable populations contribute to the broader communal good, perhaps seeing their participation in pidyon shvuyim as an essential part of their integration into the community and their spiritual development, despite the financial cost. This perspective would push us to consider whether the "limitless" nature of a mitzvah should always preclude an orphan's participation, or if there's a communal mechanism to ensure both their financial safety and their ethical inclusion in the most pressing communal needs. Ultimately, the Rambam's ruling serves as a powerful reminder that even the loftiest ethical ideals must be tempered by pragmatic legal boundaries, especially when protecting the most vulnerable.

Practice Implication

Let's consider a practical implication of the Rambam's intricate rulings, specifically the allowance of an avak ribbit-like arrangement for orphans' funds and the strict criteria for asset management. Imagine a modern Beit Din (rabbinic court) in a vibrant Jewish community.

Scenario: Mrs. Cohen tragically passes away, leaving behind three young children and a substantial inheritance, primarily liquid assets (cash, investments, etc.). Her husband passed away years earlier. The Beit Din is entrusted with managing these funds until the children come of age. They understand their profound responsibility as "Father of orphans."

Dilemma: The Beit Din consults with financial advisors. One advisor, Mr. Goldstein, a respected member of the community known for his integrity and business acumen, proposes an investment opportunity. He has a stable, profitable business (e.g., a well-established real estate development firm with significant existing assets). He suggests that the orphans' funds be invested in his next project. Critically, he offers an agreement: the orphans will receive a fixed percentage of the project's profits, but he personally guarantees the principal investment against any loss. If the project incurs losses, he will cover them from his own substantial assets (which include high-quality, unencumbered real estate). If there are profits beyond the agreed percentage for the orphans, he will keep them as his compensation for the management and risk.

Application of Rambam's Halakha: The Beit Din immediately recognizes that this arrangement, for adult investors, would likely fall under the category of avak ribbit – a rabbinically prohibited transaction because it resembles a loan with an interest-like return, as the investor (Mr. Goldstein) bears all the risk of loss while the "lender" (the orphans) is guaranteed principal and receives a share of profit. However, recalling the Rambam in Hilkhot Nahalot 11:1-2 and Steinsaltz's commentary, the Beit Din understands that this specific type of arrangement is not only permissible but prescribed for orphans' funds.

Decision-Making Process:

1. Vetting the Investor: The Beit Din must rigorously verify Mr. Goldstein's credentials. Is he "trustworthy, one who heeds the laws of the Torah, and who was never placed under a ban of ostracism"? They would check his reputation, his past business dealings, and his commitment to Jewish law. They would also confirm his financial stability, ensuring his "property that can be expropriated by a creditor and that is of high quality" is genuinely available and sufficient to cover the orphans' investment in case of loss. They might request a lien on specific properties as security, ensuring it's not jewelry or other items prone to ownership disputes.
2. Structuring the Agreement: The Beit Din would draw up a formal contract, explicit about the "קָרוֹב לְשָׂכָר וְרָחוֹק לְהֶפְסֵד" (likely to lead to profit and not likely to lead to loss) clause. It would clearly state Mr. Goldstein's obligation to cover any losses from his own pocket. The percentage of profit for the orphans would be determined "as the judges determine, a third of the profits, half of them, or even a fourth of them" (Inheritances 11:1:10), ensuring it's "in the best interests of the orphans." This means carefully evaluating the market, the project's potential, and a fair return for the orphans, not just a minimal amount.
3. Ethical Consideration: The Beit Din would reflect on the ethical implications. While permitted for orphans, the underlying principle of ribbit (avoiding exploitation of one's need for capital) remains. They would ensure that this is truly an investment for the orphans' benefit, not a way for Mr. Goldstein to secure cheap capital with minimal risk to himself, leveraging the halakhic allowance. The investor's willingness to absorb all loss is key to this distinction.

By meticulously following the Rambam's guidelines, the Beit Din navigates a complex financial and halakhic landscape. They fulfill their divine mandate to protect the orphans' inheritance, not merely by preserving it, but by actively seeking its growth through a structure that, while exceptional, is specifically designed to minimize risk for the vulnerable and maximize their long-term financial stability. This decision empowers the orphans' funds to be productive, securing their future in a way that passive storage never could, all while adhering to the highest standards of halakhic and ethical responsibility.

Chevruta Mini

1. The Rambam explicitly permits an investment arrangement for orphans' funds that would typically be considered avak ribbit for adults, where the investor bears all loss and the orphans take the profit, because it is "קָרוֹב לְשָׂכָר וְרָחוֹק לְהֶפְסֵד." What does this unique halakhic concession tell us about the hierarchy of values in Jewish law? When is the financial security of a vulnerable population permitted to override a rabbinic prohibition designed to uphold ethical financial dealings, and what are the potential tradeoffs in such a decision?
2. The Rambam mandates that guardians provide for fixed mitzvot (like lulav or tzitzit) for orphans but strictly forbids levying charitable assessments against their property, "even for the sake of the redemption of captives," because such mitzvot "have no limit to them." How do we balance the imperative to integrate orphans fully into Jewish life (spiritually and communally) with the paramount need to strictly protect their financial future? Where should the line be drawn between ensuring their basic religious observance and exposing their estate to potentially unlimited communal obligations, and what are the ethical implications of this distinction?

Takeaway + Citations

The Rambam's meticulous laws for orphans' inheritances reveal a profound legal and ethical commitment to safeguarding the vulnerable, employing sophisticated risk management and even halakhic concessions to ensure their financial security and well-being.

Citations:

• Mishneh Torah, Inheritances 11:1: https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah%2C_Inheritances.11.1?lang=en&with=Steinsaltz&lang2=en
• Steinsaltz on Mishneh Torah, Inheritances 11:1:1: https://www.sefaria.org/Steinsaltz_on_Mishneh_Torah%2C_Inheritances.11.1.1?lang=en
• Steinsaltz on Mishneh Torah, Inheritances 11:1:2: https://www.sefaria.org/Steinsaltz_on_Mishneh_Torah%2C_Inheritances.11.1.2?lang=en
• Steinsaltz on Mishneh Torah, Inheritances 11:1:3: https://www.sefaria.org/Steinsaltz_on_Mishneh_Torah%2C_Inheritances.11.1.3?lang=en
• Steinsaltz on Mishneh Torah, Inheritances 11:1:4: https://www.sefaria.org/Steinsaltz_on_Mishneh_Torah%2C_Inheritances.11.1.4?lang=en
• Steinsaltz on Mishneh Torah, Inheritances 11:1:5: https://www.sefaria.org/Steinsaltz_on_Mishneh_Torah%2C_Inheritances.11.1.5?lang=en
• Steinsaltz on Mishneh Torah, Inheritances 11:1:10: https://www.sefaria.org/Steinsaltz_on_Mishneh_Torah%2C_Inheritances.11.1.10?lang=en
• Steinsaltz on Mishneh Torah, Inheritances 11:1:11: https://www.sefaria.org/Steinsaltz_on_Mishneh_Torah%2C_Inheritances.11.1.11?lang=en
• Steinsaltz on Mishneh Torah, Inheritances 11:1:12: https://www.sefaria.org/Steinsaltz_on_Mishneh_Torah%2C_Inheritances.11.1.12?lang=en
• Mishneh Torah, Inheritances 11:10: https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah%2C_Inheritances.11.10?lang=en&with=all&lang2=en
• Mishneh Torah, Inheritances 11:12: https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah%2C_Inheritances.11.12?lang=en&with=all&lang2=en
• Exodus 22:21: https://www.sefaria.org/Exodus.22.21?lang=en&with=all&lang2=en
• Psalms 68:6: https://www.sefaria.org/Psalms.68.6?lang=en&with=all&lang2=en