1. It is natural for a man's character and actions to be influenced by his friends and associates and for him to follow the local norms of behavior. Therefore, he should associate with the righteous and be constantly in the company of the wise, so as to learn from their deeds. Conversely, he should keep away from the wicked who walk in darkness, so as not to learn from their deeds.

This is [implied by] Solomon's statement (Proverbs 13:20): "He who walks with the wise will become wise, while one who associates with fools will suffer." Similarly, [Psalms 1:1] states: "Happy is the man who has not followed the advice of the wicked."

A person who lives in a place where the norms of behavior are evil and the inhabitants do not follow the straight path should move to a place where the people are righteous and follow the ways of the good.

If all the places with which he is familiar and of which he hears reports follow improper paths, as in our times, or if he is unable to move to a place where the patterns of behavior are proper, because of [the presence of] bands of raiding troops, or for health reasons, he should remain alone in seclusion as [Eichah 3:28] states: "Let him sit alone and be silent."

If they are wicked and sinful and do not allow him to reside there unless he mingle with them and follow their evil behavior, he should go out to caves, thickets, and deserts [rather than] follow the paths of sinners as [Jeremiah 9:1] states: "Who will give me a lodging place for wayfarers, in the desert."

2. It is a positive commandment¹Sefer HaMitzvot (positive mitzvah 6) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 434) include this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

In Halachah 1, the Rambam described the association with the wise as a moral imperative and, here, he states that it is a Torah commandment. We saw a similar pattern in Chapter 1. First, he outlined his theory of the middle path of behavior as the optimal moral position. Only afterwards, did he equate it with the commandment to "walk in His ways."

This approach demonstrates that the Torah does not impose a Divine Will upon man which he cannot grasp or understand. Rather, it reflects rules and principles that can be conceived by human thought and explained in terms of human nature. Thus, the workings of the Halachah can be seen as having been instituted as an organic part of the makeup of the world at large and man in particular. (See the Guide to the Perplexed, Vol. III, Chapter 48.) to cleave unto the wise and their disciples in order to learn from their deeds²as explained in the previous halachah. as [Deuteronomy 10:20] states: "and you will cling to Him."

Our Sages³Ketubot 111b, Sifri, Deuteronomy 11:22. [questioned the nature of this command for] is it possible for man to cling to the Divine Presence?⁴Since He transcends the reaches of our emotions and intellect, the commandment cannot be interpreted literally. They [resolved the difficulty,] explaining this commandment to mean: Cleave unto the wise and their disciples.⁵This interpretation does not contradict the simple meaning of the verse. Since the Sages fulfill the command "Know God in all your ways" (See Chapter 3, Halachah 3), they are in constant connection with Him. Hence, a person can also establish a bond with his Creator by "clinging" to them. See also Tanya, Chapter 2.

Therefore,⁶i.e., implied by "cleaving" is that one should try to marry the daughter of a Torah Sage⁷esachim 49a states: "At all times, a man should sell all his possessions [in order to] marry a daughter of a wise man and marry off his daughter to a wise man." and marry his daughter to a Torah Sage, eat and drink with Sages,⁸Berachot 64a states: "Anyone who partakes of a meal at which a Torah Sage is present is considered like one who has benefited from the radiance of the Divine Presence." do business on behalf of Sages,⁹i.e., the Torah Sage may be a silent partner who puts up a share of the capital in a partnership and the other person takes care of the actual buying and selling.

The Rambam harshly criticizes individuals who try to derive material benefit from their Torah knowledge (See Hilchot Talmud Torah 3:10-11). Therefore, though Ketubot (ibid.), the source for these statements, also mentions "granting a Sage benefit from one's possessions," the Rambam omits this clause. Nevertheless, he does allow one to do business on behalf of a Sage as described above. See also Hilchot Talmud Torah 6:10. and associate with them in all possible ways as [Deuteronomy 11:22] states: "to cling to Him."

Similarly, our Sages¹⁰Avot 1:4 have directed [us], saying: "Sit in the dust of their feet and drink in their words thirstily."

3. Each man is commanded to love each and every one of Israel as himself¹In his commentary on the Torah, the Ramban questions how one can possibly have the same degree of love for another person as one has for himself. However, since all Jews share the same Godly essence, when one relates to that essence, there is really no difference between loving another person and oneself (Tanya, ibid.). as [Leviticus 19:18] states: "Love your neighbor as yourself."

Therefore,²The question often raised in connection with this mitzvah is: How can one command feeling? Therefore, certain commentaries have stated that the mitzvah merely requires us to perform deeds which would normally be motivated by feelings of love. However, in Sefer HaMitzvot (Shoresh 9), the Rambam specifically states that this mitzvah involves our emotions. Therefore, it must be interpreted to mean that we are commanded to bring ourselves to a state of mind that will inspire feelings of love.

Though the mitzvah involves our feelings, it also requires a specific course of behavior as the Rambam continues:

Therefore, - i.e., the following are the applications of this mitzvah in the ethical realm. However, since "'Love your neighbor as yourself' is a great general principle in the Torah" (Sifra, Leviticus 19:18), there are also applications of this principle in many other spheres.

Thus, Hilchot Eivel 14:1 states:

It is a positive mitzvah ordained by the Rabbis to visit the sick, comfort mourners, participate in a funeral or a wedding, accompany guests, arrange for all the needs of burial..., and to bring joy to a bride and a groom and assist them with all their needs.These are deeds of kindness performed with one's person for which there is no measure.Although these are Rabbinic commands, they are included in [the commandment, "Love your neighbor as yourself," [which implies that] all the things that you would like others to do for you, you should do for your brother in Torah and mitzvot.

The Rambam also mentions this commandment in connection with choosing a bride (Hilchot Ishut 3:19), ransoming captives (Hilchot Matnot Ani'im 8:10), and even determining the proper manner of execution (Hilchot Sanhedrin 15:1). one should speak the praises of [others] and show concern for their money just as he is concerned with his own money³Avot 2:15 states: "Your friend's money should be as dear to your as your own." and seeks his own honor.⁴This corresponds to speaking praise of others. See Avot 2:13: "Your friend's dignity should be as dear to you as your own."

Whoever gains honor through the degradation of a colleague⁵i.e., builds his reputation by emphasizing a colleague's faults does not have a share in the world to come.⁶See Hilchot Teshuvah 3:14.

4. Loving a convert¹Here, the Rambam is referring to a גר צדק, a convert to Judaism, as distinct from a גר תושב, a gentile who accepts the seven mitzvot commanded to Noah and his descendants (See Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah, Chapters 13-14). who has come to nestle under the wings of the Shechinah²This phrase is borrowed from the comforting words spoken by Boaz to Ruth in praise of her dedication in confronting the challenges faced by a convert (Ruth 2:12). [fulfills] two positive commandments: one for he is [also] included among the "neighbors"³i.e., he is a full-fledged member of the Jewish people. [whom we are commanded to love]⁴as mentioned in the previous halachah. and one because he is a convert and the Torah (Deuteronomy 10:19) states: "and you shall love the converts."

[Thus,⁵Sefer HaMitzvot (positive mitzvah 207) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 431) include this as one of the Torah's 613 commandments. God] has commanded us concerning the love of a convert just as He has commanded us concerning loving Himself as [Deuteronomy 11:1] states: "and you shall love God, your Lord."⁶i.e., just as one's love of God must be unlimited, so, too, must one have boundless love for a convert (Mahari, commentary to Sefer HaMitzvot). The Holy One, blessed be He, Himself, loves converts as [Deuteronomy 10:18] states: "and He loves converts."⁷The Midrash Tanchumah (VaYikra 2) states:

The Holy One, blessed be He, states: "It is sufficient that he left idols behind and came [to live] among you. I adjure you to love him, for I love him."

In Sefer HaMitzvot (ibid.) the Rambam also emphasizes that the sacrifices a convert made in coming to Judaism are the reason "God has offered him additional love and created an additional mitzvah for him."

A number of the Rambam's responsa are also dedicated to strengthening the spirits of converts. He wrote to a convert named Ovadiah, that although the Jews trace their lineage to Abraham, the converts' connection to Judaism is dependent on God, Himself and is, therefore, more praiseworthy. Similarly, he praises another convert for "leaving his father and homeland...pursuing God... and reaching such heights."

5. Whoever hates a [fellow] Jew in his heart transgresses a Torah prohibition as [Leviticus 19:17] states: "Do not hate your brother in your heart."¹Sefer HaMitzvot (negative mitzvah 302) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 238) include this prohibition as one of the Torah's 613 mitzvot. One is not [liable for] lashes²The minimum punishment given for violating a Torah command. for violating this prohibition because no deed is involved.³This is a principle followed throughout Torah law; a court administers punishment only for actions, not for thoughts or feelings (See Hilchot Temurah 1:1).

The Torah only warns [us] against hating in [our] hearts.⁴Thus, here, we see a prohibition that involves only our emotions, i.e., we are forbidden to harbor such feelings in our hearts. However, a person who beats a colleague or insults him,⁵Sefer HaMitzvot (ibid.) goes further and states that if a person makes known his hatred for his colleague, even though he transgresses the prohibitions against seeking vengeance and/or bearing a grudge, he does not violate this prohibition. Thus, this mitzvah forbids holding feelings of enmity in one's heart when they are never expressed. although he is not permitted to do so,⁶The Rambam mentions the prohibition against insulting a fellow Jew in Halachah 8 (and against cursing a fellow Jew in Hilchot Sanhedrin 26:1-2) and the prohibition against hitting a fellow Jew in Hilchot Sanhedrin 16:12. does not violate [the prohibition,] "you shall not hate."⁷In Sefer HaMitzvot (ibid.), the Rambam describes this hatred "as more severe than anything else." Once hatred has been expressed, it is possible to reconcile differences. However, if it is kept hidden in one's heart, there is no possibility of improving relations and establishing unity.

6. When one person wrongs another, the latter should not remain silent and despise him¹See Halachah 9. as [II Samuel 13:22] states concerning the wicked: "And Avshalom did not speak to Amnon neither good, nor bad for Avshalom hated Amnon."

Rather,²Avshalom had just reason for hating Amnon who had raped and disgraced Tamar, Avshalom's sister. Nevertheless, Avshalom is criticized for not making his ill feelings known and failing to try to resolve his differences with Amnon peacefully.

The choice of this example appears to be the Rambam's own for the commentaries have not cited any sources which he quotes. Perhaps the Rambam cites this instance to demonstrate the negative effects of such hatred. Ultimately, Avshalom slew Amnon, triggering a series of unfortunate events which culminated in a bitter civil war and his own death.

Rather, he is commanded - Sefer HaMitzvot (positive mitzvah 205) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 239) include this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. This commandment has two dimensions:a) to bring the complaints one has against a colleague into the open as stated in this halachah; b) to rebuke a sinner as stated in the following halachah. he is commanded to make the matter known and ask him: "Why did you do this to me?", "Why did you wrong me regarding that matter?" as [Leviticus 19:17] states: "You shall surely admonish your colleague."

If,³Leviticus 19:17-18 states:

(17) Do not hate your brother in your heart. You must surely admonish your neighbor and not bear a sin because of him. (18) Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against the children of your people. Love your neighbor as yourself.

Each of the clauses in these two verses is halachically significant. The first verse informs us that hatred of a fellow Jew is prohibited (Halachah 5). Then, it explains how one should respond if negative feelings towards a colleague arise (Halachah 6, here). Afterwards, it teaches that one's negative feelings must be expressed in a manner that does not embarrass one's fellow Jew (Halachah 8). Thus, the verse can be rendered: Do not bear hate in your heart, instead, inform your fellow Jew of your complaint, but do so in a manner that is not sinful. (Note the Ramban's commentary on the verse.)

The second verse teaches that vengeance or bearing a grudge is forbidden (Chapter 7, Halachot 7-8) and then, concludes with a positive statement obligating us to love our fellow Jew (Halachah 3). afterwards, [the person who committed the wrong] asks [his colleague] to forgive him, he must do so.⁴See Yoma 87a which gives several examples of Sages who went out of their way to create circumstances that would allow a person who had wronged them to ask for forgiveness. A person should not be cruel when forgiving [as implied by Genesis 20:17]: "And Abraham prayed to God..."⁵The narrative in Genesis describes how after God punished Avimelech, King of the Philistines, for taking Sarah, he returned her to Abraham and Abraham prayed for Avimelech's recovery. Though Abraham had been wronged, he was willing to forgive Avimelech.

Note Hilchot Teshuvah 2:10 which states:

It is forbidden for a person to be cruel and refuse to be appeased. Instead, he should be easily pacified and difficult to anger. When the person who wronged him asks for forgiveness, he should forgive him with a full heart...This is the path of the seed of Israel... In contrast, the insensitive gentiles..., their wrath is preserved forever. Similarly, because the Gibeonites did not forgive... [II Samuel 21:2] describes them as follows: "The Gibeonites were not among the children of Israel."

7. It is a mitzvah¹The mitzvah הוכיח תוכיח mentioned in the previous halachah. for a person who sees that his fellow Jew²Though the Hebrew חבירו literally means friend, we have used this translation since this term extends beyond one's immediate circle of friends. However, it is possible that the Rambam desired the term to be interpreted more narrowly. The Shulchan Aruch HaRav 156:7 states that one is obligated to admonish only a close friend. There is no requirement to admonish a person with whom one does not share such ties when there is little likelihood that one's words will have any effect. has sinned or is following an improper path³The Avodat HaMelech states that the expression "improper path" refers to incorrect behavior even if no actual violation of Torah law is involved. See also Berachot 31b, Arachin 16b. [to attempt] to correct his behavior and to inform him that he is causing himself a loss⁴The word חטא, generally translated as "sin" can also be rendered as "lack." See I Kings 1:21. In his commentary to Avot 5:1, the Rambam elaborates on the complementary nature of these two interpretations. By sinning, a person causes real loss to himself and the entire world. by his evil deeds as [Leviticus 19:17] states: "You shall surely admonish your colleague."

A⁵The Torah mentions the mitzvah of admonishment directly after the prohibition against hating a fellow Jew, implying that admonishing is intended as a safeguard to prevent hatred from arising between Jews.

The previous halachah dealt with this concept in terms of our interpersonal relationships. Our halachah deals with this concept within the context of a person's relationship with God. Pesachim 113a teaches we must hate a sinner. As a preventive measure, the Torah offers us an alternative, admonishing him, which hopefully will cause him to correct his behavior and thus, do away with the need for such hatred (Sefer Yeraim).

A person who rebukes a colleague - whether because of a [wrong committed] against him - as mentioned in the previous halachach person who rebukes a colleague - whether because of a [wrong committed] against him or because of a matter between his colleague and God⁶a sin or improper course of behavior as mentioned above - should rebuke him privately.⁷to prevent the person being rebuked from becoming embarrassed. However, note the latter portion of the following Halachah.

The Magen Avraham (608:3) states that we are only required to administer a rebuke privately for a sin committed in private. If a person sees a colleague commit a sin in public, he should immediately rebuke him to prevent chillul HaShem. He should speak to him patiently and gently,⁸for we are all naturally defensive when our actions are being criticized. We must demonstrate more consideration for a fellow Jew's feelings if we wish our statements to be effective.

The Sifri derives the need for privacy and gentleness from the manner in which God rebuked Miriam and Aharon for speaking against Moses. informing him that he is only making these statements for his colleague's own welfare,⁹and has no intention of causing him harm, but wishes, instead, to allow him to merit the life of the world to come.¹⁰which is the ultimate good as explained in Hilchot Teshuvah, Chapter 8.

If he¹¹the colleague who acts wrongly accepts [the rebuke], it is good; if not,¹²and the latter persists in his negative behavior he should rebuke him a second and third time.¹³In Sefer HaMitzvot, the Rambam quotes the Sifra which mentions repeating a rebuke four or five times. Bava Metzia 31b states one must rebuke a colleague even one hundred times. Indeed, one is obligated to rebuke a colleague who does wrong until the latter strikes him¹⁴Arachin 16b mentions a second limit, when the transgressor curses the one who rebukes him. The Ramah (Orach Chayim 608:2) accepts this view as halachah. Nevertheless, in Sefer HaMitzvot (ibid.), the Rambam specifically writes: "even if one is cursed or belittled, he should not slacken or cease admonishing until he hits him."

The Ramah also mentions that the obligation to rebuke a colleague an unlimited number of times only applies when the rebuke is being given to a single individual. When one is admonishing many people for transgressing together, a single rebuke is sufficient. and tells him: "I will not listen."

Whoever¹⁵The Rambam (Hilchot Shivitat Esor 1:7) states:

Women who eat and drink until darkness [on the eve of Yom Kippur, because] they do not know we are commanded to add from the weekday to the holy [day] should not be admonished, lest they [continue] doing so consciously... It is better to allow them to remain unaware [of this transgression than risk] their willful violation of it.The same applies concerning similar cases.

Commenting on this law, the Ramah (ibid.) mentions that a person should not rebuke a colleague for the inadvertent transgression of a Torah law if he knows that the transgressor will not listen. However, this only applies regarding instances like the obligation to add to the Yom Kippur fast which are not explicitly mentioned in the Torah. has the possibility of rebuking [sinners] and fails to do so is considered responsible for that sin,¹⁶This statement is quoted from Shabbat 54b which relates that, after the destruction of the first Temple, the righteous were also slain mercilessly. Why were they subjected to this punishment? Because they failed to rebuke the transgressors. See also Sanhedrin 93a.

for he had the opportunity to rebuke the [sinners] - and perhaps, had he rebuked them, the sin would not have been committed.

In Hilchot Teshuvah 4:1, the Rambam lists the failure to rebuke a transgressor as one of four sins that are so severe that "God will not allow a person who commits these deeds to repent." for he had the opportunity to rebuke the [sinners].

8. At first,¹as mentioned in the previous halachah a person who admonishes a colleague should not speak to him harshly until he becomes embarrassed²Arachin 16b quotes Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah: "I wonder if there is anyone in this generation who knows how to admonish his fellow man." as [Leviticus 19:17] states: "[You should]... not bear a sin because of him."³I.e., from this verse, we can derive that embarrassing a colleague is a sin. This is what our Sages said:⁴Arachin (ibid.) Should you rebuke him to the point that his face changes [color]? The Torah states:⁵in the second half of the verse requiring us to rebuke a colleague. "[You should]... not bear a sin because of⁶In Hilchot Chovel U'Mazik, Chapter 3, the Rambam discusses the sin of embarrassing another person from the perspective of damages. Here, he focuses on the ethical aspect of the sin. him."

From this, [we learn that] it is forbidden for a person to embarrass a [fellow] Jew.⁷even in private

The Avodat HaMelech states that when a person feels that a colleague wronged him, he should admonish the latter gently. If the person admonished does not respond, he may speak to him in harsher terms and even embarrass him in private. However, under no circumstances may he embarrass him publicly for his own personal reasons. The Shulchan Aruch HaRav (156:8) and other commentaries disagree with this view and forbid embarrassing a colleague for personal reasons whether privately or publicly. How much more so [is it forbidden to embarrass him] in public.⁸where he will suffer greater shame. Even though a person who embarrasses a colleague is not [liable for] lashes⁹The minimum punishment for transgressing a Torah commandment. on account of him, it is a great sin.¹⁰as evident from what... Our Sages said:¹¹Avot 3:14 "A person who embarrasses a colleague in public does not have a share in the world to come."

Therefore,¹²The above-mentioned mishnah states that this applies "even if he possesses good deeds." In his commentary to this mishnah, the Rambam states that, generally, when a person dies amidst suffering, his death atones for his sins and he is granted a share in the world to come. In this case, even the person's suffering and death does not bring about atonement. See also Hilchot Teshuvah 3:14.

Therefore, a person should be careful not to embarrass a colleague - whether of great or lesser stature - Alternatively, "whether an adult or a minor." Bava Kama 86b relates that even minors and fools can suffer from public embarrassment. a person should be careful not to embarrass a colleague - whether of great or lesser stature - in public, and not to call him a name which embarrasses him¹³Hilchot Teshuvah (ibid.) also states that one's share in the world to come is withheld because of this transgression. or to relate a matter that brings him shame in his presence.¹⁴The Rambam discusses mentioning such matters outside a person's presence in Chapter 7, Halachah 2.

When does the above¹⁵prohibition against admonishing a person in public apply? In regard to matters between one man and another. However, in regard to spiritual matters, if [a transgressor] does not repent [after being admonished] in private,¹⁶Even in such a case, the person should first be rebuked in private. (However, note the statement of the Magen Avraham quoted in the previous halachah.)

he may be put to shame in public and his sin may be publicized. He may be subjected to abuse, scorn, and curses until he repents, as was the practice of all the prophets of Israel. - The commentaries point to Nechemiah 13:23-25: "I saw Jews who had married wives of Ashdod and of Ammon... and I contended with them, cursed them, beat some of them, and pulled out their hair."

See also Hilchot Teshuvah 4:2 which describes how the prophets would publicly rebuke the people for their sins. he may be put to shame in public and his sin may be publicized. He may be subjected to abuse, scorn, and curses until he repents, as was the practice of all the prophets of Israel.

9. It is pious behavior if a person who was wronged by a colleague would rather not admonish him or mention the matter at all because the person who wronged him was very boorish or because he was mentally disturbed,¹The Rambam's words appear to indicate that if the person who committed the wrong was sophisticated enough to learn from the rebuke, he should be admonished so that he will develop his character. Only when the person would be incapable of benefiting from the rebuke, does the Rambam suggest withholding admonishment. [provided] he forgives him totally without bearing any feelings of hate or admonishing him.²See Megillah 28a which mentions that each night, Rabbi Nechuniah ben HaKanah and Rabbi Zeira would make a statement forgiving anyone who wronged them. The Torah is concerned only with those who carry feelings of hate.³Since the Torah mentions the mitzvah to admonish directly after the prohibition against hating a fellow Jew, there is obviously a connection between the two. The mitzvah to admonish is necessary to prevent feelings of hatred. If one is able to rise above those feelings without admonishing, there is no need to do so.

10. A person is obligated to show great care for orphans and widows because their spirits are very low and their feelings are depressed.¹These people tend to be oversensitive and the smallest harshness or slight might cause them pain and thus, constitute a transgression of the prohibition mentioned below. This applies even if they are wealthy. We are commanded to [show this attention] even to a king's widow and his orphans²In addition to the possibility of financial difficulties which are often experienced by widows and orphans, the loss of a husband or parent is an emotional crisis which creates stress and heightens the sensitivity of the family members. Even a family whose financial status is secure may suffer strain and emotional upheaval. as [implied by Exodus 22:21]: "Do not mistreat any widow or orphan."

How³Sefer HaMitzvot (neg. mitzvot 256) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 65) consider this as one of the Torah's 613 mitzvot. should one deal with them? One should only speak to them gently and treat them only with honor. One should not cause pain to their persons with [overbearing] work or aggravate their feelings with harsh words and [one should] show more consideration for their financial interests than for one's own.⁴Berachot 18b relates that Shmuel's father was given money belonging to orphans to guard. He placed his own money above and below theirs so that he would suffer any possible loss and not they. Similarly, many leniencies and provisions have been instituted within Torah law to protect the interests of orphans. For example, a person who collects a debt from an estate left to orphans must take an oath that the debt had not been repaid even though, had the debtor remained alive, the oath would not have been required.

See also Hilchot Nachalot, Chapter 11. Anyone who vexes or angers them, hurts their feelings, oppresses them, or causes them financial loss transgresses this prohibition.⁵The violation of the prohibition is thus dependent on the feelings of the widow or orphans in question. There is no objective standard of behavior. Rather, one must become sensitive to the feelings of the people who have suffered the loss and conduct himself accordingly. Surely this applies if one beats them or curses them.⁶Beating and cursing also involve the transgression of other prohibitions. Thus, a person who beats or curses an orphan violates two prohibitions by that act.

Even though [a person who violates] this prohibition is not [liable for] lashes,⁷the minimum punishment given for the transgression of a Torah prohibition.

The commentaries have questioned why, in fact, the minimal punishment of lashes is never given. Though punishment is not given for a transgression that does not involve a deed as mentioned in Halachah 5, it is possible that a person will commit a deed that aggravates a widow or orphan. Why does he not receive lashes in such an instance?

The Sefer HaChinuch states that since the nature of the prohibition is very subjective, the Torah does not specify any punishment. The Minchat Chinuch quotes an opinion which maintains that any prohibition that can be violated by speech or thought alone (as is possible in this case) is not liable for lashes even when it is transgressed with a deed. The Avodat HaMelech states that the reason one does not receive lashes is stated by the Rambam himself, namely: the retribution one suffers for its [violation] is explicitly stated in the Torah (ibid. 22:23): "I will display My anger and slay you with the sword."⁸and this punishment is more severe than lashes. Hence, the lesser punishment is not administered. There is a covenant between them and He who spoke and created the world⁹When people lose a loved one, they often despair and feel that the world is run in a random and arbitrary manner. Perhaps the Rambam uses this term for God - "He who spoke..." - to stress how He is the One who brought the world into being and controls every facet of its existence. that whenever they cry out because they have been wronged, they will be answered as [ibid.:22] states: "When they cry out to Me, I will surely hear their¹⁰The use of a Biblical prooftext generally indicates a quote from a Talmudic or Midrashic source. However, though the concept the Rambam mentions is also alluded to in Bava Kama 93a, the exact expression he uses is not mentioned there.

This instance supports an opinion frequently expressed by certain commentaries, i.e., that the Rambam had at his disposal midrashic sources which are not available to us. Alternatively, we are forced to say the Rambam takes the liberty of developing Halachic interpretations of Biblical verses on his own. Scholars of the post-Talmudic period would rarely make such interpretations.

When does the above apply? When one causes them suffering for one's own purposes. However, it is permitted for a teacher to cause them suffering while teaching them Torah, or a craft, or in order to train them in proper behavior. - This point is mentioned explicitly in the Mechilta of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai. The Mechilta which is most commonly quoted is that composed by Rabbi Yishmael. Many of the Rabbis who have devoted themselves to the study of the sources used by the Rambam note his partiality for the Mechilta of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai and his frequent use of it as a source. cry."

When does the above apply? When one causes them suffering for one's own purposes. However, it is permitted for a teacher to cause them suffering while teaching them Torah, or a craft, or in order to train them in proper behavior. Nevertheless,¹¹even though he is given permission to discipline them he should not treat them in the same manner as he treats others, but rather make a distinction with regard to them and treat them with gentility, great mercy, and honor for [Proverbs 22:22] states: "For God will take up their cause."

This¹²The Or Sameach notes that, although this verse may be understood as referring to the oppression of widows and orphans, it makes no explicit mention of such. Therefore, he suggests that the Rambam actually cited part of Proverbs 23:11 which states: "Do not enter orphans' fields for their redeemer is powerful, He will take up their cause" and a printing error caused the other verse to be substituted.

Rav Kapach notes that manuscript copies of the Mishneh Torah do not include the word שנאמר - "as it states." Accordingly, he maintains that the Rambam was merely borrowing the phrasing of a verse (as is his frequent custom), but not quoting it as a prooftext. applies to both those orphaned from their father and those orphaned from their mother.¹³This point is also mentioned explicitly in the Mechilta of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai. The commentaries note only one other source which alludes to this concept, the description of Mar Ukva's children as orphans (Bava Metzia 70a) although other references imply that they had only lost their mother. Until when are they considered orphans in the context [of this mitzvah]? Until they no longer need a mature individual to support, instruct,¹⁴Note Hilchot Nachalot 11:10 which mentions a guardian's responsibilities to train the orphans in his charge to perform mitzvot. and care for them and are able to see to all their own needs by themselves, like other adults.¹⁵Thus, this is not a matter of objectively determined chronological age and may vary from society to society according to the different socio-economic norms.