27b----------------------------------------27b

1)

PUNISHING SONS FOR THEIR FATHERS' SINS

דת"ר (דברים כד) לא יומתו אבות על בנים מה ת"ל אם ללמד שלא ימותו אבות בעון בנים ובנים בעון אבות הרי כבר נאמר (דברים כד) איש בחטאו יומתו אלא לא יומתו אבות על בנים בעדות בנים ובנים לא יומתו על אבות בעדות אבות ובנים בעון אבות לא והכתיב (שמות לד) פוקד עון אבות על בנים התם כשאוחזין מעשה אבותיהן בידיהן כדתניא (ויקרא כו) ואף בעונות אבותם אתם ימקו כשאוחזין מעשה אבותיהם בידיהם אתה אומר כשאוחזין או אינו אלא כשאין אוחזין כשהוא אומר איש בחטאו יומתו הרי כשאוחזין מעשה אבותיהן בידיהן ולא והכתיב (ויקרא כו) וכשלו איש באחיו איש בעון אחיו מלמד שכולן ערבים זה בזה התם שהיה בידם למחות ולא מיחו
Translation: The Rabbis taught: "Fathers shall not be put to death because of (their) children" (Devarim 24:16). What does the Pasuk come to teach? If it is to teach that fathers are not executed for the sins of their children, and children are not executed for the sins of their fathers, that is already stated: "Each person shall die for his own sin" (Devarim 24:16). Rather, the Pasuk teaches: fathers shall not be put to death based on the testimony of their children, and children shall not be put to death based on the testimony of their fathers. 'Children are not punished for the sins of their fathers' - but is it not written: "Who visits the sin of the fathers upon the children" (Shemos 34:7)? That applies when they continue in the actions of their fathers, as it was taught regarding the Pasuk "And they shall rot away because of their iniquities, and also because of the iniquities of their fathers with them" (Vayikra 26:39). When does this apply? When they continue in the actions of their fathers. Do you say it applies when they continue, or perhaps even when they do not? The Pasuk says: "Each person shall die for his own sin" - thus, it applies when they continue in their fathers' actions. But is it not written: "And they shall stumble, each man because of his brother, each man through his brother's sin" (Vayikra 26:37), which teaches that all Jews are guarantors for one another? That refers to a case where it was in their power to protest, but they did not.