Parashat Mishpatim

Do not afflict any widow or orphan. If you do afflict him, for when he screams out to Me, I will listen to his screams. And My anger will flare and I will kill you by the sword, and your wives will be widows and your children will be orphans.

Shemos 22:21-23

A textbook example of Midah K’Neged Midah. There is an obvious connection between the sin and its consequence, as both involve widows and orphans. The pasukim, however, do not read smoothly. The middle pasuk, “If you do afflict him, for when he screams,” is sort of fragmented. The Torah relocates the punishment from its appropriate syntactical context over to pasuk 23. Rashi proposes a wild explanation:

If you do afflict him, the Torah abbreviates this sentence, [it] hyperbolizes and does not specify the punishment, much like “Therefore, anyone who kills Kayin” (Beraishis 4:15) [threatens] and does not specify the punishment [for killing Kayin]. So too here… your end will be what you deserve. Why? “For when he screams out to Me…”

Rashi, Shemos 22:22

According to Rashi, the Torah did not relocate any punishment. Rather, pasuk 23 is in the appropriate location and the punishment associated with afflicting an orphan or widow is simply omitted!

The Chizkuni suggests that the punishment for afflicting an orphan or widow varies depending on whether the victim screams to Hashem. Therefore, “If you do afflict him” refers to the affliction of a silent victim, the consequences of which are omitted. The pasukim then continue: “for if you afflict him and he does scream to me, then I will punish you…”

The Chizkuni’s proposal is a decent starting point, but the meaning of these pasukim is still very unclear. For starters, how is Hashem’s reaction to the victim’s screams a reason to refrain from afflicting him? If Hashem doesn’t punish the aggressor until the victim screams, then what does Rashi mean that “the pasuk hyperbolizes?” What does he mean that “your end will be what you deserve” if the aggressor doesn’t deserve anything until the victim screams to Hashem? And if Hashem does unconditionally punish the aggressor, why should the victim’s prayers have any effect on the severity of the punishment?

The Be’er BaSadeh assumes that Hashem does punish all aggressors, and that the victim’s prayers have no affect over the severity of the punishment. However, these prayers affect the immediacy of the Onesh, and so Hashem doesn’t just strike the aggressor eventually as a matter of consequence, but rather acts immediately, as if out of rage, “and My anger will flare.”

“And [the pauper] will call out about you[r unwillingness to give him charity] and you will bear sin,” regardless of whether [the pauper] calls out. Why then does [the pasuk] say “and he will call out?” [to teach] that [Hashem] hastens to punish an aggressor when his victim cries out to heaven.

Rashi, Devarim 15:9

Rashi’s comments in Parashat Re’aih provide string support for the Be’er BaSadeh’s stance. In further support, Rashi says the aggressor’s “end will be what he deserves” when his victim does not cry out, suggesting that the punishment will ultimately arrive, but not immediately arrive. However, the connection between these two scenarios is still a problem. The fact that Hashem punishes swiftly when a victim screams does not explain why the aggressor should refrain from harassing orphans and widows in all cases.

The Be’er BaSadeh proposes an alternative explanation, and this time he assumes that Hashem does not punish all aggressors. Rashi comments that the law “do not afflict any widow or orphan” does not apply exclusively to orphans and widows, but rather to any victimized person. (The pasuk just states “orphan or widow” because they are the most common victims of harassment.) Therefore, when the next pasuk states “if you do afflict him,” this hyperbolized threat refers to the affliction of a regular person. The continuation, “for when he screams,” refers exclusively to the orphan or widow, as does the subsequent pasuk’s explicit Onesh.

The average man, the Be’er BaSadeh explains, can eventually take revenge against his aggressor, but one might expect to get away with antagonizing a helpless widow or orphan. Therefore, Hashem personally offers to take up the helpless victim’s battle and mete an appropriately severe punishment against their aggressors. The pasukim now read smoothly. The reason one should never afflict another individual is because Hashem is willing to take up their fight when they cannot fight for themselves and instead call out to Him.

Indeed, the pasukim reveal, not even the courts are capable of punishing every sin to the appropriate magnitude of severity. Hashem does not deem it enough to kill a man who harms orphans and widows; rather, as Rashi explains, Hashem kills the man in such a way as to ensure that his wife remains a widow and his children remain orphans.

The implication of “and I will kill you by the sword” is that “your wives will be widows and your children will be orphans.” Rather, this is a second curse, that no witnesses will attest to her husband’s death and [his wife] will be forbidden to remarry, and the sons cannot collect from their inheritance [lest their father still be alive].

Rashi, Shemos 22:23

In terms of their philosophical premises, the Be’e BaSadeh’s two approaches do not contradict one another. Hashem often lets the victim take revenge against his aggressor, but sometimes intercedes to apply an appropriately harsh punishment. When the victim cries out, Hashem carries out the punishment quickly. It is in fact possible that our pasuk lends to both understandings simultaneously.

“Do not afflict any orphan or widow.” [The pasuk only states] orphans and widows, how do I know [the saw law applies to] everybody? [Therefore] the pasuk states “Lo Si’anun” [“do not afflict” with a verb that takes a plural object]. Such are the words of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva claims “widow” and “orphan” are stated because the verse discusses [the common case and they are] common victims.

Mechilta, Mishpatim, Parasha 18

“Do not afflict any orphan or widow.” Such is the law for all people, but the pasuk speaks of the common [case], for [orphans and widows] are weak and it is common to harass them.

Rashi, Shemos 22:21

Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael debate over the understanding of these three pasukim. Rabbi Akiva focuses exclusively on the widow and orphan, whereas Rabbi Yishmael interprets the grammar of the pasuk to include common people as well. Rashi’s comments interestingly blend the words of Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael together into a single understanding. Yes, the pasuk talks primarily about orphans and widows, for they are the common victims. But yes, these laws also apply to regular victims, as the word “Si’anun” implies.

Instead of leaning towards one interpretation, Rashi instead reconciles the philosophies behind the two, supporting each Tanna’s interpretation as a valid reading of text, but not to the exclusion of his counterpart’s opinion, and thereby encompassing the whole of the subject at hand.