the gemra asks a contradiction that one pasuk says a son is punished for his fathers sins and one pasuk says he isn't. the gemra then answers that you are punished for your fathers sins if you follow in his wrong ways but you are not if you didn't. i have trouble understanding this, should it not be the opposite that a child that is raised in a corrupt atmosphere and follows in that evil lifestyle should be far less accountable for his avaros then a person who his role models didn't do that sin and he goes ad commits that sin, yet this gemra is saying that not only dose the first kid get punished for his sins he gets punished for his fathers sins also?
nosson sternbach, baltimore usa
What the Gemara says is that a person is punished for his father's sins if he sinned too, but not if he didn't.
Do you have a problem with that?
Your question implies that the Gemara is drawing a distinction between where the father and the son sinned, and where the son sinned and the father didn't. But that is not what the distinction that the Gemara is actually making, as I explained. In fact, the Gemara does not refer to the latter case at all.
If you still have a problem, please let me know and I will be glad to try and solve it.
Chag Same'ach ve'Chol Tuv,