Mishneh Torah, Inheritances 11

Hook

The silence of vulnerability echoes loudest in our society. It is the silence of the orphan, the elder losing their grip on finances, the person with disabilities navigating complex systems, the family struggling to keep their modest inheritance from predatory schemes. We witness the erosion of trust when those meant to protect exploit, when hard-earned assets vanish due to negligence, or when the very structures designed for security become instruments of loss. The core injustice is not merely financial, but the systemic betrayal of trust that leaves the most defenseless exposed. It is a profound moral failing when we, as a community, allow the vulnerable to be stripped of their dignity and their future, failing to uphold the sacred trust of care. This ancient text speaks not just to orphans, but to all who are, in essence, without a clear, strong voice and protection in the face of economic forces. It calls us to build robust, ethical safeguards for those whose inherent vulnerability demands our most vigilant and compassionate attention.

Historical Context

The plight of the orphan and widow is a recurring theme throughout Jewish history, symbolizing the ultimate expression of societal vulnerability. From the earliest biblical injunctions, the community was commanded to safeguard their rights and provide for their welfare. Deuteronomy 10:18 declares, "He [God] executes justice for the orphan and widow, and loves the stranger, providing him with food and clothing." This divine imperative became a foundational principle for Jewish legal and social structures, establishing a clear mandate for communal responsibility.

In the rabbinic period, this abstract commandment was translated into concrete legal and social mechanisms. The Mishnah and Talmud extensively discuss the laws pertaining to orphans' property, guardianships (אפוטרופוס, apotropos), and the unique protections afforded to them. The very concept of beit din (rabbinic court) acting as "the father of orphans" (אביהם של יתומים) underscores the community's role as a surrogate family and protector. This was not merely charity; it was a matter of justice, ensuring that those who had lost their primary protectors would not also lose their inheritance or their means of sustenance. The community would step in to manage their affairs, often through designated officials or trusted individuals, to prevent their exploitation and ensure their future. This historical precedent highlights a proactive, institutionalized approach to safeguarding vulnerable assets, recognizing that passive concern is insufficient.

Throughout the diaspora, Jewish communities developed intricate systems of social welfare that often prioritized orphans and widows. Community chests (kupot tzedakah) and formal guardianship appointments were common. During periods of persecution or economic instability, these communal safeguards became even more critical. They provided a lifeline, ensuring that even amidst chaos, the most vulnerable members had a measure of security. The meticulous rules laid out in texts like the Mishneh Torah were not abstract legal exercises but practical guidelines born from centuries of experience in protecting communal trust and individual dignity. They reflect a deep understanding of human nature—both its capacity for exploitation and its potential for profound responsibility and care. The enduring challenge, then as now, is to translate this ancient wisdom into contemporary structures that uphold these values in a complex, modern world. The call to protect the orphan's inheritance is a timeless echo, demanding that we confront economic injustice wherever vulnerability is exploited, and build structures that embody the divine command of justice with compassion.

Text Snapshot

The Mishneh Torah, Inheritances 11, lays bare a meticulous system for protecting the assets of orphans. It instructs: "We search for a person who owns property... trustworthy, one who heeds the laws of the Torah... to invest in a manner that will most likely lead to a profit and will not likely lead to loss." If no such investor is found, "they should 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." The guardian's role is expansive, yet bound by a singular principle: "He does whatever he thinks is in the best interests of the orphans." Ultimately, the text reminds us of the divine oversight: the guardian "must keep a personal account... so as not to incur the wrath of the Father of these orphans, He who rides upon the heavens, as Psalms 68:5-6 states: 'Make a path for He who rides upon the heavens... the Father of orphans.'"

Halakhic Counterweight

The Permissibility of "Dust of Interest" for Orphans' Funds

A critical halakhic detail, illuminated by Steinsaltz, underscores the unique protective stance towards orphans' property: "And they agree with him that if there is a profit in the money, the orphans will receive it, and if there is a loss, he will pay them from his own pocket. And even though a loan in this manner is forbidden by the Sages due to 'dust of interest,' concerning orphans' property, they did not forbid it (Laws of Lender and Borrower 4:14)." This leniency, allowing for a profit-sharing arrangement that would otherwise be considered a subtle form of interest (avak ribbit), highlights the paramount importance of safeguarding orphans' capital and ensuring its growth. The Sages recognized that strict adherence to anti-interest laws, while generally vital for ethical financial dealings, could inadvertently harm orphans by making it difficult to find investors willing to take on risk. Therefore, for the sake of the orphans' financial well-being, the standard prohibition was relaxed, allowing for innovative, protective investment structures that prioritize their benefit above all else. This exception demonstrates a profound compassion and flexibility within the law, designed to proactively mitigate financial vulnerability.

Strategy

The wisdom of Mishneh Torah, Inheritances 11, offers a profound blueprint for safeguarding the assets of the vulnerable, extending far beyond literal orphans to encompass all those who lack the full capacity or agency to manage their financial well-being. It calls for a dual approach: building robust, trustworthy local infrastructures and advocating for systemic changes that embed these protective principles into the broader societal fabric.

Move 1: Local - Building Trustworthy Community Infrastructure

Our first strategic move is to translate the halakhic ideal of the "trustworthy person who owns property" into actionable, local community-based models. This involves creating transparent, accountable, and compassionate systems for managing the assets of vulnerable individuals, ensuring their financial security and growth.

Goal:

To establish local, community-driven "Guardianship Trusts" or "Community Asset Protection Funds" that provide ethical, low-risk, and growth-oriented management of financial assets for vulnerable individuals (e.g., minors, the elderly, those with disabilities, individuals experiencing severe economic distress without family support). This infrastructure will mirror the Mishneh Torah's emphasis on trustworthy individuals, collateral, and prioritizing the beneficiary's best interest.

Potential Partners:

• Local Religious Institutions: Synagogues, churches, mosques, and other faith-based organizations often possess deep community trust, volunteer networks, and a moral imperative for social welfare. They can serve as anchors for identifying needs, recruiting volunteers, and providing meeting spaces.
• Community Foundations & Non-Profits: Existing community foundations, United Way chapters, or non-profits focused on elder care, disability advocacy, or financial literacy can offer administrative support, grant funding, and expertise in trust management.
• Legal Aid Societies & Pro Bono Attorneys: Essential for establishing legal frameworks (trust documents, power of attorney, guardianship petitions), ensuring compliance, and providing legal counsel.
• Certified Financial Planners (CFPs) & Accountants (CPAs): Professionals willing to offer pro bono or low-cost services for investment advice, asset management, and financial oversight, embodying the "trustworthy person" with expertise.
• Social Workers & Case Managers: Crucial for identifying vulnerable individuals, assessing their needs, and providing holistic support beyond just financial management.
• Local Banks & Credit Unions: Can provide secure accounts, low-fee services, and potentially even seed funding or administrative support as part of their community reinvestment initiatives.

First Steps:

1. Community Needs Assessment (Months 1-3):

   • Objective: Identify the specific vulnerable populations in our local area who could benefit from such a service and understand the existing gaps in support.
   • Methodology: Partner with local social service agencies, senior centers, disability advocacy groups, and schools to conduct surveys and focus groups. Quantify the number of individuals (e.g., unaccompanied minors receiving inheritances, elders at risk of financial exploitation, adults with developmental disabilities) who lack adequate financial guardianship or support.
   • Output: A detailed report outlining the scope of need, types of assets requiring management, and potential beneficiaries.

2. Pilot Program Design & Legal Framework (Months 4-6):

   • Objective: Develop a small-scale, legally sound "Community Asset Protection Fund" (CAPF) pilot program.
   • Methodology:
     • Legal Structure: Engage pro bono legal counsel to establish the CAPF as a non-profit entity (e.g., 501(c)(3) in the US) with clear articles of incorporation, bylaws, and a robust trust agreement template. This framework must delineate fiduciary duties, investment guidelines, and beneficiary protections, explicitly incorporating the spirit of "close to profit and far from loss."
     • Investment Policy: Work with pro bono CFPs to draft a conservative, ethical investment policy focused on capital preservation and modest, consistent growth. This might include low-cost index funds, government bonds, and investments in community development financial institutions (CDFIs) that also align with local social good. Avoid speculative investments, mirroring the Mishneh Torah's caution against "unsuccessful" ventures.
     • Operational Procedures: Define clear processes for intake, asset assessment, decision-making, disbursement, and reporting, ensuring maximum transparency and accountability.

3. Recruitment, Vetting, and Training (Months 7-9):

   • Objective: Assemble a core team of highly trustworthy individuals to serve as "Guardianship Committee" members and volunteer financial advisors.
   • Methodology:
     • Criteria: Recruit individuals who embody the Mishneh Torah's "trustworthy, one who heeds the laws of the Torah, and who was never placed under a ban of ostracism." In modern terms, this means individuals with impeccable ethical reputations, clean background checks (financial, criminal), demonstrated financial literacy or professional qualifications (e.g., retired bankers, accountants, lawyers), and a genuine commitment to community service. Emphasize the "landed property" aspect by seeking individuals with stable financial backgrounds, implying less personal incentive for malfeasance.
     • Vetting: Implement a rigorous vetting process including multiple interviews, reference checks, and financial disclosures (within legal and privacy limits).
     • Training: Provide comprehensive training on fiduciary responsibilities, the CAPF's investment policy, ethical guidelines, sensitivity to vulnerable populations, and legal compliance. Regular continuing education will be mandatory.

4. Initial Case Intake & Management (Months 10-12):

   • Objective: Begin managing a small number of carefully selected pilot cases.
   • Methodology:
     • Intake: Develop a compassionate and thorough intake process that assesses the individual's needs, assets, and legal capacity.
     • Individualized Plans: For each beneficiary, create a personalized financial plan, outlining investment strategy, disbursement schedules (for living expenses, healthcare, education), and communication protocols with the beneficiary or their designated advocate.
     • Oversight: Establish a rotating oversight committee (similar to a court) to review all major decisions, ensuring adherence to the CAPF's mission and the beneficiary's best interest. This mirrors the court's role in approving investments and determining profit shares.

Overcoming Common Obstacles:

• Trust Deficit: Many vulnerable individuals have been exploited or are wary of institutions. Overcome this by emphasizing radical transparency, consistent communication, independent audits, and building relationships based on genuine care and respect. Public testimonials from satisfied beneficiaries (with consent) can help.
• Lack of Expertise: Not everyone has financial acumen. Address this by forming strong partnerships with pro bono professionals and investing in ongoing education for committee members and staff. Create clear, easy-to-understand guidelines.
• Funding & Sustainability: Initial funding can come from grants, community donations, and philanthropic organizations. For sustainability, consider a tiered administrative fee structure (e.g., a small percentage of managed assets, potentially waived for the poorest beneficiaries) or endowments. Emphasize the long-term societal benefit to attract funders.
• Legal Complexity & Liability: Work closely with legal professionals to ensure all operations are compliant with state and federal laws regarding trusts, guardianships, and non-profit management. Obtain appropriate liability insurance for the CAPF and its fiduciaries. Standardized legal templates can reduce costs.
• Resistance to Guardianship/Loss of Autonomy: Frame the service as support and protection, not control. Wherever possible, involve beneficiaries in decision-making proportionate to their capacity. Advocate for less restrictive alternatives to full guardianship when appropriate.

Tradeoffs:

Implementing such a local infrastructure demands significant time, volunteer commitment, and initial financial investment. There's a constant need for meticulous record-keeping and robust internal controls to prevent even the appearance of impropriety. The vetting process for volunteers must be stringent, potentially limiting the pool of available individuals. Furthermore, balancing conservative investment strategies (to avoid loss) with the need for growth (to ensure long-term sustenance) requires careful judgment and may mean foregoing higher, but riskier, returns. The emotional labor involved in working with vulnerable populations and their often complex family dynamics can also be substantial.

---

Move 2: Sustainable - Advocating for Systemic Safeguards & Ethical Investment

Our second strategic move is to leverage the spirit of Mishneh Torah, Inheritances 11, to advocate for broader systemic changes that enhance safeguards for vulnerable assets and promote ethical, low-risk investment practices across society. This involves influencing policy, regulation, and industry standards to create a more just and compassionate financial ecosystem.

Goal:

To influence financial regulatory bodies, legislative bodies, and industry practices to adopt policies that prioritize the protection of vulnerable individuals' assets, encourage low-risk yet beneficial investment strategies, and enhance transparency and accountability for fiduciaries, thereby creating a more robust "systemic guardianship."

Potential Partners:

• Consumer Protection Agencies: Government bodies (e.g., Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, state consumer affairs departments) are natural allies for advocating for stronger protections against financial exploitation.
• Financial Regulatory Bodies: Organizations like the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission), FINRA, and state banking commissions have the power to influence investment standards and fiduciary duties.
• Advocacy Groups: Organizations representing seniors, individuals with disabilities, children's rights, and low-income communities have existing platforms and expertise in policy advocacy.
• Ethical Investment Firms & CDFIs (Community Development Financial Institutions): These entities already operate with a dual bottom line (financial and social return) and can provide expertise on how to structure investments that are "close to profit and far from loss" while also serving community needs.
• Legal Reform Organizations: Groups focused on improving guardianship laws, trust administration, and elder abuse prevention.
• Academic Institutions: Universities with legal, economic, or social policy departments can provide research, data, and expert analysis to support advocacy efforts.
• Professional Associations: Groups like the Financial Planning Association or state bar associations can be engaged to promote ethical standards among their members.

First Steps:

1. Policy Research & Gap Analysis (Months 1-6):

   • Objective: Conduct in-depth research into existing federal and state laws and regulations concerning guardianship, conservatorship, financial exploitation of vulnerable adults, trust administration, and investment standards for fiduciaries. Identify key loopholes, enforcement gaps, and areas where protections are insufficient or non-existent.
   • Methodology: Collaborate with legal academics and advocacy groups to analyze legislative texts, court precedents, and enforcement data. Compare current regulations against the principles embedded in Mishneh Torah 11 (e.g., the need for robust vetting of fiduciaries, clear investment criteria for safety and profit, accountability mechanisms).
   • Output: A comprehensive policy brief outlining deficiencies and proposing initial areas for reform.

2. Coalition Building & Public Awareness Campaigns (Months 7-12):

   • Objective: Form a broad coalition of partner organizations to amplify advocacy efforts and launch public awareness campaigns.
   • Methodology:
     • Coalition: Convene regular meetings with potential partners to align on common policy goals and strategy. Leverage existing networks and build new ones.
     • Awareness: Develop targeted public awareness campaigns using diverse media (social media, traditional media, community workshops) to educate the public and policymakers about the prevalence of financial exploitation, the importance of robust safeguards, and the benefits of ethical investment. Highlight compelling human stories (with consent) to underscore the impact. Frame the issue as a societal responsibility, echoing the "Father of orphans" theme.

3. Proposing Legislative & Regulatory Changes (Months 13-24 and ongoing):

   • Objective: Actively advocate for specific, actionable changes in law and regulation.
   • Methodology:
     • Strengthening Fiduciary Duties: Propose legislation that mandates a universal fiduciary standard for all financial professionals advising vulnerable clients, requiring them to act solely in the client's best interest, similar to the guardian's duty. This would explicitly go beyond a "suitability" standard.
     • Enhanced Guardianship Oversight: Advocate for reforms to state guardianship laws, including:
       • Mandatory, independent financial audits of all court-appointed guardians' accounts.
       • Regular training and certification requirements for professional guardians.
       • Easily accessible public registries of guardians with disciplinary histories.
       • Clearer pathways for beneficiaries or their advocates to report concerns.
     • Promoting Ethical, Low-Risk Investment:
       • Advocate for tax incentives or grants for CDFIs and other impact investment vehicles that provide secure, modest returns while serving community needs (e.g., affordable housing, small business loans in underserved areas). These could be "preferred investments" for public and non-profit trusts.
       • Explore regulatory frameworks that encourage financial institutions to offer "orphan-like" investment products specifically designed for low-risk capital preservation and modest growth for vulnerable populations, perhaps with reduced fees.
       • Addressing "Dust of Interest" Analogue: For non-profit community funds, advocate for legal clarity or exceptions that allow for profit-sharing investment models (where an investor guarantees principal and shares profits, as per the Steinsaltz commentary) without being classified as usurious, thus encouraging more community investment in these funds.
     • Anti-Exploitation Measures: Support legislation that makes financial exploitation a more severe crime and mandates reporting by financial institutions when elder abuse is suspected.

Overcoming Common Obstacles:

• Lobbying Power of Financial Industry: This requires sustained, organized effort, strong coalition building, and compelling, data-driven arguments. Highlighting the long-term benefits of a trustworthy financial system for all (including the industry itself, by building public confidence) can be effective.
• Political Will & Gridlock: Educating policymakers across the political spectrum on the human and economic costs of exploitation can build bipartisan support. Personal stories and quantifiable data are key.
• Complexity of Financial Regulation: Simplify proposed changes into clear, understandable language for public consumption, while ensuring technical accuracy for policymakers. Engage experts to draft precise legislative language.
• Slow Pace of Change: Advocacy is a long game. Celebrate small victories, maintain momentum, and build sustained public pressure.
• Unintended Consequences: Thoroughly analyze potential downsides of any proposed policy change. Engage diverse stakeholders (including the financial industry) in discussions to anticipate and mitigate negative impacts.

Tradeoffs:

Systemic advocacy is a long-term endeavor, demanding immense patience and resources. Progress is often slow, incremental, and may involve compromises. There is always the risk that well-intentioned policy changes could have unintended negative consequences, or that they may not be effectively enforced. Furthermore, focusing on systemic change can sometimes feel distant from the immediate, acute needs of individuals, requiring a balance with direct local service provision. The resources dedicated to advocacy might otherwise be spent on direct services, a constant ethical consideration.

Measure

The effectiveness of our dual strategy – building local infrastructure and advocating for systemic change – must be rigorously measured, reflecting both the practical outcomes for individuals and the broader shift in societal responsibility. Our core metric will be: "The percentage of vulnerable individuals in our community with transparently managed assets yielding a net positive return, alongside a quantifiable decrease in reported financial exploitation cases." This metric directly addresses the Mishneh Torah's mandate for "profit" and "not likely to loss," and the overarching goal of compassionate justice.

How to Track This Metric:

1. Establishing a Baseline (Pre-Initiative):

Before implementing our strategies, we must establish clear baselines.

• Financial Exploitation:
  • Quantitative: Collaborate with local law enforcement, adult protective services, legal aid societies, and ombudsman offices to collect data on reported cases of financial exploitation among vulnerable populations (e.g., seniors, individuals with disabilities, minors) over the past 3-5 years. Track the number of cases, the total monetary value of losses, and the resolution rates.
  • Qualitative: Conduct anonymized surveys or interviews with service providers and community leaders to understand the perceived prevalence of exploitation, common tactics, and existing gaps in reporting/prevention.
• Managed Assets for Vulnerable Individuals:
  • Quantitative: Estimate the current percentage of vulnerable individuals in the community (based on census data, social service client lists, etc.) who have formal, transparently managed assets (e.g., through court-appointed guardians, professional trusts, or family fiduciaries). This is often challenging to track directly, so proxies like the number of active court guardianships or public benefit trusts can be used.
  • Qualitative: Assess community awareness of options for asset protection and the level of trust in existing mechanisms.

2. Tracking for Move 1 (Local: Community Asset Protection Funds - CAPF):

This involves direct, granular data collection from the local infrastructure we build.

• Number of Individuals Served: Track the total number of vulnerable individuals whose assets are being managed by the CAPF.
• Asset Growth & Return:
  • Quantitative: For each beneficiary's account, meticulously track the annual net return on investment, after all fees and disbursements for living expenses. Calculate the average annual net positive return across all managed assets. The goal is to consistently achieve a modest, inflation-beating return (e.g., 2-3% above inflation).
  • Qualitative: Document how these returns directly improve beneficiaries' quality of life (e.g., enabling access to better healthcare, education, or housing).
• Transparency & Accountability:
  • Quantitative: Track the frequency of independent third-party audits (e.g., annual). Record the number of financial reports provided to beneficiaries/advocates and the percentage of reports submitted on time.
  • Qualitative: Conduct anonymous client satisfaction surveys to gauge trust levels, clarity of communication, and perceived fairness of management.
• Loss Avoidance:
  • Quantitative: Track any instances of attempted financial exploitation against CAPF beneficiaries that were successfully prevented due to the CAPF's oversight and protective measures. This is difficult to quantify directly but can be inferred from incident reports.
  • Qualitative: Document stories of how the CAPF protected assets from specific threats (e.g., predatory lending, scams).
• Educational Outreach: Track the number of financial literacy workshops conducted and the attendance figures.

3. Tracking for Move 2 (Sustainable: Systemic Safeguards & Ethical Investment):

This requires monitoring policy changes and broader societal indicators.

• Policy & Legislative Impact:
  • Quantitative:
    • Number of legislative bills introduced or supported that align with our advocacy goals (e.g., stricter fiduciary standards, guardianship reform).
    • Number of these bills that are successfully passed into law.
    • Number of regulatory changes implemented by financial bodies that enhance protections for vulnerable investors.
    • Number of times our coalition's research or proposals are cited in policy discussions or official reports.
  • Qualitative: Assess the strength and comprehensiveness of new laws/regulations. Evaluate the degree to which they embed the principles of "trustworthy person," "collateral," and "best interest" for vulnerable populations.
• Reduced Financial Exploitation (Community-wide):
  • Quantitative: Continuously monitor the data collected from law enforcement, adult protective services, etc., to track year-over-year changes in the number of reported financial exploitation cases and the total monetary losses. A statistically significant downward trend would indicate success.
  • Qualitative: Observe changes in public awareness and reporting behavior. Are more people aware of how to report exploitation? Are institutions more proactive in identifying it?
• Ethical Investment Landscape:
  • Quantitative: Track the growth of local CDFIs and other ethical investment vehicles. Monitor the availability of "orphan-like" low-risk, secure investment products designed for vulnerable populations.
  • Qualitative: Assess if financial institutions are more readily adopting ethical investment practices or offering specialized services for vulnerable clients.

What "Done" Looks Like:

• Quantitatively:
  • Short-Term (3-5 years): A 10-15% reduction in reported financial exploitation cases in our community from the baseline. Our CAPF is actively managing assets for at least 1-2% of the identified vulnerable population, with an average annual net positive return of at least 2% above inflation. At least one significant piece of state or federal legislation enhancing vulnerable person protection has been passed.
  • Long-Term (10+ years): A 30-50% reduction in reported financial exploitation. Our CAPF (or similar models it inspired) is a well-established, self-sustaining entity serving a significant portion (5-10% or more) of the vulnerable population, consistently yielding positive returns. Our advocacy has contributed to a national framework of robust guardianship laws, universal fiduciary standards, and accessible ethical investment opportunities, fundamentally shifting the paradigm of asset protection for the vulnerable.
• Qualitatively:
  • A Culture of Trust and Dignity: Our community embodies the spirit of "the Father of orphans." Vulnerable individuals feel genuinely secure in their financial well-being, knowing there are transparent, ethical, and compassionate systems in place to protect their assets. They are treated with dignity, their voices are heard, and their autonomy is respected to the greatest extent possible.
  • Proactive Protection: The default societal stance shifts from reactive intervention after exploitation to proactive prevention and structured support. Financial institutions are incentivized and regulated to identify and prevent exploitation, rather than just report it.
  • Empowered Guardianship: The role of "guardian" is revered and supported, attracting highly ethical individuals who are well-trained and held to the highest standards of accountability. The community understands that safeguarding the vulnerable is a shared responsibility, not just a legal obligation.
  • Ethical Financial Ecosystem: The financial landscape offers a greater array of secure, ethical investment options that prioritize capital preservation and modest, consistent growth for all, especially those reliant on managed funds. The "dust of interest" leniency, in its modern application, fosters innovative, protective financial structures.

Measuring these outcomes will require ongoing commitment, collaboration, and a willingness to adapt strategies based on data. It is a testament to our collective responsibility, echoing the divine promise that "the Father of orphans" watches over all.

Takeaway + Citations

The ancient wisdom of Mishneh Torah, Inheritances 11, transcends its specific legal context to offer a profound moral imperative for our time: we are called to be vigilant, proactive protectors of the vulnerable. This means not just reacting to injustice, but building robust, trustworthy systems and advocating for a societal fabric that inherently safeguards the dignity and assets of those without a strong voice. By fostering local, ethical asset management and championing systemic legal and financial reforms, we actively embody the compassion and justice that God, "the Father of orphans," demands of us. This is a long journey, demanding humility, persistence, and an unwavering commitment to the well-being of all, especially the least protected among us.

Citations

• Mishneh Torah, Inheritances 11: https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah%2C_Inheritances.11.1?lang=en&with=all&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&with=all&lang2=en
• Steinsaltz on Mishneh Torah, Inheritances 11:1:10: https://www.sefaria.org/Steinsaltz_on_Mishneh_Torah%2C_Inheritances.11.1.10?lang=en&with=all&lang2=en
• Steinsaltz on Mishneh Torah, Inheritances 11:1:11: https://www.sefaria.org/Steinsaltz_on_Mishneh_Torah%2C_Inheritances.11.1.11?lang=en&with=all&lang2=en
• Steinsaltz on Mishneh Torah, Inheritances 11:1:12: https://www.sefaria.org/Steinsaltz_on_Mishneh_Torah%2C_Inheritances.11.1.12?lang=en&with=all&lang2=en
• Steinsaltz on Mishneh Torah, Inheritances 11:1:2: https://www.sefaria.org/Steinsaltz_on_Mishneh_Torah%2C_Inheritances.11.1.2?lang=en&with=all&lang2=en
• Steinsaltz on Mishneh Torah, Inheritances 11:1:3: https://www.sefaria.org/Steinsaltz_on_Mishneh_Torah%2C_Inheritances.11.1.3?lang=en&with=all&lang2=en
• Steinsaltz on Mishneh Torah, Inheritances 11:1:4: https://www.sefaria.org/Steinsaltz_on_Mishneh_Torah%2C_Inheritances.11.1.4?lang=en&with=all&lang2=en
• Steinsaltz on Mishneh Torah, Inheritances 11:1:5: https://www.sefaria.org/Steinsaltz_on_Mishneh_Torah%2C_Inheritances.11.1.5?lang=en&with=all&lang2=en
• Deuteronomy 10:18: https://www.sefaria.org/Deuteronomy.10.18?lang=en&with=all&lang2=en
• Psalms 68:5-6: https://www.sefaria.org/Psalms.68.5-6?lang=en&with=all&lang2=en