Does one violate the Torah prohibition (Ex. 22:21) of tormenting a widow if she has remarried?

You may be inclined to say that the purpose of the Mitzvah is because she's defenseless and the Torah needs to stress how much one has to take care of her (and once she's remarried her new husband will take care of her), but we don't rule that we expound Taamei DeKra.

  • 1
    +1 interesting question which obviously stemmed from that aggadah story I asked about the tannah and the widow, lol. There's a lot of smart Jews. It's refreshing. – JMFB Jan 7 '16 at 12:59
  • 2
    +1. I edited it, because I believe it's more a prohibition against treating someone in her position poorly, rather than actually torturing her (though, surely, torture would be prohibited as well). Do you have a source for your assertion at the end? – Seth J Jan 7 '16 at 14:12
  • hebrewbooks.org/rambam.aspx?rid=151 He only mentions when orhpan-ness ends. – Double AA Jan 7 '16 at 20:32
  • The Sefer Megged Givot Olam cites a story in which Rabbi Yitzchak Elchanan Spektor was reluctant to marry a widow, since he was concerned that he would not traeat her properly, and would violate this prohibition. He held that the prohibition remains (or at least was worried that it might). – mevaqesh Jan 10 '16 at 1:47

Good question.

Me thinks no, because of the reason you gave(the gemara reason being careful in how you treat a widow) and in addition she's no longer the status of a widow. Clearly a widow can marry any man(unless kohen, or the son of the previous husband). Clearly once she's re-married you cannot marry her, she's now a married woman! So her status changes from widow to married.

The closest I could come to an authority would be this claim:

The widow's right to maintenance also ceases if she remarries, because under the ketubbah, which is the source of her right, she is entitled to maintenance during widowhood only. According to most of the authorities, she even loses her maintenance upon her engagement for a new marriage – although by it alone she does not create a new personal status – because by it she shows that she no longer wishes to preserve the honor of her first husband and remain his widow (Ket. 52b; 54a; Sh. Ar., EH 93:7 and Rema ad loc.). https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0021_0_20884.html

So once she remarries she no longer has the right to maintenance or other rights provided by the previous marriage. It's logical to follow that an Almanah would no longer be granted the protection/status of a widow as she has given this up.

  • 5
    If the second husband divorces her though and then marries a Kohein Gadol she should get two sets of lashes (one for divorcee, one for widow), which implies that her status as a widow remains IIRC. – Double AA Jan 7 '16 at 12:48
  • Thanks @hazoriz finally some positive votes! LOL, maybe I'll even get awarded a correct answer. <Thumbs Twiddling> – JMFB Jan 7 '16 at 12:48
  • 2
    @DoubleAA not sure how that trumps my answer. I gave a very specific way in which she gives up that status. Just out of curiosity where is that halacha about the double lashes? Somebody gave me a -1 without a reason? Haters on here, lol. – JMFB Jan 7 '16 at 12:50
  • 1
    I gave you a downvote for the reason expressed in the comment I upticked. Namely: You're comparing "is a widow w.r.t. paining" to "is a widow w.r.t. upkeep" but you could've as well compared the former to "is a widow w.r.t. marrying a kohen gadol". Picking one over the other without saying why makes this a very weak answer imo. – msh210 Jan 7 '16 at 19:29
  • 1
    @JMFB It trumps your answer because we're talking about deorayta status here, not when the terms of the contract whereby her first husband promised to support here expire. The fact that the terms of the contract are up say nothing about whether any biblical status has changed. If someone wrote a Ketubba to his wife promising her support for 2 years only, would she stop being a widow at that point? I don't know if the status of "widow" for a Kohein Gadol is relevant to the OP's prohibition, but it seems much more reasonable then being based on when her husband's estate stops supporting her. – Double AA Jan 7 '16 at 20:01

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .