Visiting Sins of the Fathers on the Sons

Found 8 Search results

"A Man Shall Be Put To Death Only For His Own Crime"
Prof. Jonathan Grossman
The Torah states that each man shall die for his own sin. This statement seems redundant - why would anyone think otherwise? This article raises a number of solutions to this question, and offers an explanation based on the cultural background of the biblical era.
"A Man Shall be Put to Death Only for his Own Crime"- Audio
Prof. Jonathan Grossman
תאריך פרסום: August 5773 (2013) | | 9 minutes
This parasha, which deals with laws relating to courts, death penalties, and runaway slaves, contains phrases quoted and related to in later books of Tanakh, as well. But some of the ideas related to these laws also appear - in similar and yet very different form - in the Code of Hammurabi. Comparing laws in our parasha with those in other Near Eastern societies demonstrates an extreme contrast between the Torah’s values and those of other societies.
Amatzya and the War with Yoash
Rabbi Alex Israel
Sefer Melakhim presents Amatzya as a King who is religiously devoted and successful in expanding his empire. His aggression towards Yisrael, possibly generated by overinflated hubris, lead to his demise. Divrei Ha-yamim detail the sources of political tension between the North and South, but it also presents two distinct stages of Amatzya's reign. Prior to the campaign against Edom, Amatzya obeys the prophet and acts faithfully to God; he demonstrates compassion (against his father's assassins) and seeks national unity. After the successful campaign in Edom, he worships idols, intimidates the prophet and resists his message, exhibits extreme cruelty to Edom, and engages in a bombastic war campaign. Divrei Ha-yamim offers a coherent rationale for Amatzya's downfall; his turn to idolatry and his direct challenge to God arouse God's punishment.

In some ways Amatzya recalls his father, Yoash of Yehuda, whose early life was marked by ardent devotion to God, but who altered radically in later life, rejecting the priesthood, turning to idolatry. Both kings disastrously mismanaged a war which resulted in Yerushalayim being penetrated by the enemy, and both kings were assassinated by political opponents.
Three Prophecies Regarding the Future
Rabbi David Sabato
In three prophecies in the unit of prophecies of consolation, Yirmiyahu foresees the changes that will take place at the time of the redemption.

The first prophecy deals with Israel being replanted in their land and the new relationship between the actions of the fathers vs. the consequences to the sons.

The second prophecy deals with a new covenant and its consequences. The difference between the old covenant and the new one relates not to the contents or the addressee as Christianity believes, but to the manner in which it will be made and its consequences. The prophet contrasts the old covenant that was broken by the people and the new covenant that apparently will not be broken because it will be engraved on the hearts of the people. One of the general motifs in the book of Yirmiyahu is the internalization of holiness and opposition to the formal, mechanical conception of holiness. Standing out against this in many places in the book of Yirmiyahu is prayer and moral deeds as a condition for holiness. The underlying problem with the tablets of the covenant and ark is their remoteness from the people, which allows people to escape from them. The removal of the ark and the transfer of its contents inwards into the hearts of the people will create the desired change and turn the covenant into an eternal covenant.

The third prophecy addresses the rebuilding of Jerusalem which will be holy to the Lord and will not be plucked up again forever.
The Soul that Sins – It Shall Die
Dr. Tova Ganzel
The people of Yehezkel’s generation claimed that since the destruction was inevitable, their individual actions no longer had any importance and it made no difference whether they remained loyal to God’s commandments or not. Others believed that “The way of the Lord is unfair”. Therefore Yehezkel repeats and emphasizes the responsibility of every individual for his actions and the life-and-death consequences that follow. Yehezkel concludes by stating that the people’s claim – that the son dies because of the sins of the father – is simply incorrect.

The prophet also declares that the gates of repentance remain open to the individual. These verses are quite unusual given that nowhere in the book is there any call for the people to mend their ways so that God will not destroy His Temple. Although the prophet here calls upon the people to repent, he offers no promise that this will prevent the destruction; he only speaks of deliverance from the death for the sinners when the destruction comes.

The sins brought about the imminent destruction of the city according to Yehezkel are idolatry, sexual immorality and bloodshed. Yehezkel does not seem to attribute the destruction of the First Temple to the social transgressions of the nation as a whole – in neither the prophecies before nor after the Destruction.

In Chapter 22 as the Destruction of Jerusalem draws nearer the prophet appears to place more of an emphasis on the personal responsibility that the leaders of the people bear for their actions, along with the dire consequences of their corrupt leadership for the nation as a whole. This chapter attributes sins both social and religious in nature to the office-bearers in leadership positions. Thus, the fate of the city is sealed because of idolatry, sexual immorality, bloodshed, and – finally – the deeds of the leadership.
Tanakh and Archaeology
Part 4 - The Era of the Forefathers (continued)
Rabbi Amnon Bazak
Many social and legal phenomena described in Sefer Bereishit conform to what we know today about the laws and practices of various peoples in the ancient Near East – even though the Torah, given at a later time, explicitly forbade some of these practices. The presentation of the forefathers as people who were active within a socio-legal framework that partly contravened the Torah, proves the familiarity of Sefer Bereishit with the world within which its characters functioned. It is also testimony to the authenticity and honesty of the biblical account, which makes no pretense of presenting the forefathers as operating in accordance with the laws of the Torah, which came later.
Tanakh and Literature of the Ancient Near East
Part 2 - The Torah and Legal Systems of the Ancient Near East (continued)
Rabbi Amnon Bazak
On this basis of some of the major features that distinguish the law of the Torah from the laws of the Ancient Near East we may conclude that the Torah does indeed display awareness of the existence of other ancient codes of law, and perhaps even specific laws. However, even in instances where there is a clear connection between the two systems, the Torah is not a replica of existing laws. On the contrary, the Torah adopts those laws that conform with the dictates of morality and uprightness, while altering radically some of the basic principles upon which those laws are based and their foundation in limited human perceptions of justice. From the Divine point of view of the Torah, there is an emphasis on the value of life, on individual responsibility, etc., in contrast to the principles arising from the other systems of laws. The Torah represents, even in the social sphere, a wondrous legal structure based on social justice, supporting and illustrating Moshe's declaration, "What nation is there so great, that has statutes and judgments so righteous as all this Torah, which I set before you today?"
Peshat and Midrash Halakha
Part 1 - Introduction
Rabbi Amnon Bazak
The conventional approach among the commentators is thus that all of Chazal's interpretations are halakhically binding, but they do not void the validity of the peshat reading of the text.

However, the Ibn Ezra is of the belief that when the midrash halakha contradicts the plain meaning of the verse, it should not be regarded as an interpretation of the verse, but rather as an already-known law relying upon the verse only as asmakhta. In the realm of exegesis, the peshat is the only way of understanding the text, but when it comes to halakha, the Oral Law is binding – even where it does match the plain meaning. The source and authority of the halakha do not arise from the verse, but rather from the oral tradition.