|
|
Parashat Ki Teze
Iyunim - Weekly insights on the Parasha with commentaries by Nehama
Leibovitz, za"l
The fathers shall not be put to death for the children and the
children shall not be put to death for the fathers; every man shall be
put to death for his own sin. (24, 16)
A wellknown difficulty faces the student of this text. Does it not directly
contradict the passage in the Decalogue which reads: "visiting the sins
of the fathers on the children and on the third and fourth generation of
them that hate Me?" Many commentators have proposed an answer to this difficulty
all in the same strain: With his usual acumen Ibn Ezra comments:
The text "the fathers shall not be put to death for the children'
is a command to Israel: the passage: "visiting the sins of the fathers
on the children..." refers to the Visitor Himself"
Rashbam briefly and simply notes:
Our text is addressed to the court of justice as in 2 Kings
14, 6, where it is stated: "The sons of the slayer he did nut kill. as
written in the Law of Moses: 'The children shall not be put to death for
the fathers'." But the Holy One blessed be He visits the iniquity of the
fathers upon the children when they continue to emulate the deeds of their
fathers... to destroy their inheritance, but not through the court.
An added reasoning is given to this distinction between the working of mortal
and Divine justice by Ibn Kaspi:
The fathers shall not be put to death for the children through
judicial penalty since it would not be right to implement the visiting
of the fathers iniquitirs on the children through anyone else but God
who formed the human soul and knows the calculation of iniquities.
Admittedly we see in the everyday reality around us bow the criminal behaviour
of parents, their irresponsibility and licence has had its tragic repercussions
on their children', demoralised by parental example. What greater punishment
can there be for children for their parents' transgressions? But a mortal
judge cannot imitate the deeds of the Creator and the wars of His providence
in the world. He must remain within the narrow and clearly defined limits
set him by the Torah. He must judge each man by his deeds and the testimony
of witnesses. Rabbi Ishmael observed in Midrash Tannaim:
"The fathers shall not be put to death for the children". What
was the need for this text? Because another text states: "Visiting the
sins of the fathers on the children". I might infer that this applies
even to those who have been sentenced to death by the court. The text
therefore informs us: ''The fathers shall not be put to death fur the
sins of the children".
The plain meaning of the text then is that children should not be judicially
punished For the sins of their parents and vice versa. Sforno sets this
out in detail:
Even for the sin of treason against the Israelite monarchy
when it was the custom of ancient kings to kill the children to prevent
them avenging themselves against them as In Isaiah 14. 21:"Prepare ye
slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers that they
rise not up and possess the earth and fill the face of the world with
enemies". The Torah forbad outright the kings of Israel to adopt such
a practice, out of the compassion of the Lord for His people. This precept
was honoured by Amaziah king of Judah (2 Chronicles 15, 4-5) about whom
it is stated: "And it came to pass when the kingdom was restored to him
that he killed his servant who had smitten the king, his father, but their
sons be did not kill, as written in the book of Moses wherein the Lord
had commanded saying: The fathers shall not be put to death for the sons
and sons for the fathers''.
But another interpretation is put upon the text by our Sages (cited by Rashi)
in Sanhedrin 27b:
What is the implication of the text "The fathers shall not
be put to death for the sins of the children?" If it implies the fathers
shall be put to death For the iniquity of the fathers, that has already
been stated (Deut. ibid.): "every man shall be put to death for his own
sin''. But the text implies that the Fathers shall not be put to death
on the testimony of the children and the children on the testimony of
their fathers.
Since our Sages did not conceive that the Torah could be guilty of repetition
or tautology, they did not adopt the literal explanation followed by other
commentators in which we have the same idea repeated, once negatively and
then affirmatively purely for emphasis. This parallelism which is particularly
frequent in the poetic parts of Scripture is inconceivable in a legal code
where every word must need to add some- thing new. They therefore explained
the two parts of the verse differently. The first part -- the negative formulation
-- they understood as forbidding sentence of death on the evidence of relatives
of the accused, the second - affirmative formulation -- that a man should
only suffer for his own deeds and not for those of others. But there is
another reason -- not purely formalistic or stylistic -- an inner reason
which prompted their explanation.This is given by Malbim:
It is inconceivable to explain the text literally. in the sense
of a command to the court not to sentence fathers for the sins of their
children and vice versa. For how could it enter one's mind that the court
regarding which Scripture admonished "the congregation shall judge...
the congregation shall deliver" implying thep are obliged to exhaust every
conceivable loophole to acquit the accused. should sentence him to death
for the sin of others?
Other commentators go even further, arguing how is it possible to imagine
such a thing, when the murderer himselfis only plut do death for his own
crime, when there are witnesses and he was given due warning of the consequences
of his crime and when there was a proper cross-examination. Only when there
is not the shadow of a doubt about his guilt -- that he perpetrated his
crime with malice a forethought in front of witnesses, only then, is he
executed. We can certainly not imagine that the Torah should allow a man
to be punished for the sin of another. Our Sages therefore understood the
text in the sense of disqualifying the evidence of children and fathers
in a capital case. Jewish law extends this to all relatives of the accused.
Here is the explanation of this ruling given in Sefer Ha-hinukh:
Human affairs are chiefly and principally dependent un hmman
testimooy. G-d therefore wished that human justice should be executed
only an the basis of the strongest and most authentic evidence. above
all suspicion. To this end Me disqualified the testimony of all relatives.
even to condemn lest it lead to acceptance of their favourable evidence
on each other. This exemplifies the ways of the perfect Torah which always
keeps us far from things liable to mislead and cause harm to man. There
is yet another advantage in this ruling. Relatives are often together,
and in each other's way. It is impossible that they should not occasionally
fall out and if we were to believe their evidence against each other.
Perhaps prompted by the anger of the moment, they would betake themselves
to the judge who would be off with their heads to the king. But when his
anger subsided the relative would want to hang himself for what he had
caused his kinsman. All the ways of the Lord are upright.
Nevertheless the two passages we have qouted from Kings and Chronicles respectively
that describe Amaziah's conduct would seem to contradict our Sages' explanation
of our text. Here are the passages in full:
And it came to pass when the kingdom was strengthened in his hand that
he smote his servants who had slain the king his father. But the sons
of the murderers he did not put to death, as written in the book of
tha Law of Moses whereio the Lord commanded saying: "The fathers shall
not be put to death for the children neither shall the children be put
to death For the fathers; every man shall be put to death for his own
sin." (2 Kings 14, 5-6)
And he slew his servants who had smitten the king his father; but
their sons he did not put to death; for as written in the law of the
book of Moses wherein the: Lord commanded saying: "The fathers shall
not be put to death For the children neither shall the children be put
to death for the fathers; every man shall be put to death for his own
sin" (2 Chronicles 25, 3-4)
In the above passages the Biblical text is understood in its literal and
not in its homiletic sense, as punishment for the sin of the fathers and
not on the testimony of fathers". The upholders of the literal explanation
indeed adduce this as support far their contention. But the author of Ha-ketav
Ve-ha-kabbalah states an important general principle of interpretation in
answer to this difficulty.'l'he sacred text admits of more than one explanation.
There are many levels of meaning, but none of the expositions and exegesis
read into the text by our Sages override the literal sense -- on first reading.This
principle was stated by the Sages themselves in their dictim: "The Scripture
can never be divorced from its plain meaning". Rashi observes on this dictim:
Though the text is expounded in, its homiletic sense it never completely
loses its literal significance.
This is a fundamental principle which should be ever In front of the
student of the Torah. The best proof of it is from the text we have studied.
Insights on the Parasha: The Companion
Web site to the Parasha Gilyonot
|
|