…Visited on the Children — BT Sanhedrin 27b (part 2) — #40

But are not children [sentenced to death] because of the sins of their parents? It is written, [For I Adonai your God am an impassioned God,] visiting the sins of the parents on the children (Exodus 20:5). There [in Exodus 20:5, Torah refers to offspring who] follow the ways of their parents, as it was taught [in a baraita]: …also because of the iniquities of their parents that are with them they shall rot away (Leviticus 26:39). [This refers to] when they follow the [sinful] behavior of their parents. You say that [it refers to] when they follow the [sinful] behavior of their parents, but perhaps it refers to when they do not follow [their parents’ sinful behavior]? When [Torah] says, Each person shall be put to death for his own sins, [the children] who abandoned [their parents’ sinful behavior] is meant. What, then, does also because of the iniquities of their parents that are with them they shall rot away refer? That is when they follow their parent’s [sinful] behavior. But is it not so [that a child may be punished for the sins of the parent]? Is it not written, they shall stumble over one another [as before the sword] (Leviticus 26:37), [meaning] they shall stumble over one another’s sins? This teaches that all [Jews] are responsible for one another. [No!] There [Torah refers to a situation in which] it was in their power to protest, but they did not.

INTRODUCTION

The Rabbis take a brief detour from a discussion about close relatives who are exempted from testifying, or serving as judges, at the trial of someone accused of a capital offense. (Please see the introduction to TMT-39, Part 1 of this passage or download pdf.) 

COMMENTARY

In Part 1, the Gemara brought a verse that asserts, Parents shall not be put to death because of [their] children, nor children be put to death for parents: a person shall be put to death only for his own crime (Deuteronomy 24:16). The verse seems clear enough, yet above (Part 2) the Gemara asks: Really? Are you so sure about that? After all, Exodus 20:5 explicitly says that God visits the sins of parents on children. And, indeed, Exodus 34:7 and Deuteronomy 5:9 make the very same claim.

A rebuttal to the contention that God punishes children for the sins of their parents is brought by a baraita (an early rabbinic teaching) that says, in essence: You’re misunderstanding Exodus 20:5. It does not make a blanket claim that God punishes children for their parents’ sins. Rather, it refers only to children who commit the same sins as their parents; hence the children are being punished for the sins they, themselves, commit. 

How does the baraita make this argument? According to the baraita, we learn this from Leviticus 26:39, a verse that is challenging to translate into English. Everett Fox renders it: “Those that remain among you will rot away in their iniquity, in the lands of their enemies, yes, because of the iniquities of their fathers, with them they shall rot away.” The baraita reads the Hebrew word itam (“with them”) to refer to the parents’ sins, not to the parents. Hence, it interprets the verse to affirm that children are punished (“rotting away”) not because their parents sinned, but when the children choose to sin as their parents did. The baraita concludes we can understand the verse, Each person shall be put to death for his own sins, as speaking about children who do not commit the sins of their parents and consequently are not punished. This, in turn, means that  Leviticus 26:39 applies only in the limited case of children who commit the sins of their parents.

The Gemara responds to the baraita by posing the question it initially asked: Really? Are you sure that children are not punished for the sins of their parents? After all, we also have Leviticus 26:37, which speaks of family relationships in the context of sin, resulting in “stumbling as before the sword” (sure sounds like punishment). Surely this proves that divine punishment is inflicted on family members. 

An anonymous voice responds that this teaches us that all Jews are responsible for one another. On the surface, this sounds like a good message and stopping place for this conversation, but the Rabbis insightfully realize that this message is deeply problematic. To suggest that all Jews—not just family members—are responsible for one another in the context of divine punishment for sins one didn’t personally commit broadens the inherent problem of theodicy immeasurably. If all Jews are responsible for preventing other Jews from wrongdoing, then anyone can be punished for the sins of anyone else! 

The Rabbis cannot leave the conversation here, and they don’t. They end with a corrective: The only time that one is punished for the sins of another is when they had the opportunity to protest wrongdoing, but did not do so. This means that if you see someone committing a sin, you don’t necessarily have to stop them (and often cannot), but you should protest if you can. Isn’t this common decency?

QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER AND DISCUSS

1. The Gemara seems to feel compelled to argue against the notion that children are punished for the sins of their parents. Certainly verses can be quoted to support and reject the idea. Why might the Rabbis feel this is a pressing question?
2. The principle that, “All Jews are responsible for one another” becomes dangerously twisted by the suggestion that “responsibility” means sharing guilt and divine punishment regardless of one’s personal behavior. How do you understand the principle?
3. If your understand of God doesn’t include the notion of divine punishment, what lessons can you learn from this passage?