בַּיָּמִ֣ים הָהֵ֔ם לֹא־יֹאמְר֣וּ ע֔וֹד אָב֖וֹת אָ֣כְלוּ בֹ֑סֶר וְשִׁנֵּ֥י בָנִ֖ים תִּקְהֶֽינָה׃
En aquellos días no dirán más: Los padres comieron las uvas agraces, y los dientes de los hijos tienen la dentera.
Barukh SheAmar
Set his teeth on edge... The Hebrew expression “Hakey” has the connotation of destroy or break elsewhere in the Bible as the proverb in Ezekiel 18:2, “The fathers have eaten sour grapes and the children’s teeth are set on edge.” This is not meant to be taken literally but is to be understood as a proverb which states that sometimes children suffer for their parents’ sins. But what does this expression mean in this context? Rabbi Epsteins portrays the wicked child as an intellectual who is annoyed by the ritualistic aspect of the Jewish tradition. The implications of his question are that it should be enough to simply read the story of the Exodus to commemorate this event without bothering with all the rituals and ceremonies. The commandment of telling the story should be a purely intellectual exercise. The retort to the wicked child is that he should break his teeth since it’s enough to think about food without actually eating and chewing it! That’s not quite the same, is it? Similarly the story of the Exodus must be concretized to make it more powerful and meaningful. It’s not enough just to tell the story. We must become part of the story and feel its meaning in our lives. What’s more, we answer him caustically using expressions similar to his. There is a sarcastic tone to the wicked child so we should offer him a sarcastic answer in return.
Ramban
POKEID’ (VISITING) THE INIQUITY OF THE FATHERS UPON THE CHILDREN UNTO THE THIRD AND FOURTH GENERATION OF THEM THAT HATE ME. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said that the meaning of the term p’kidah is similar to that of z’chirah (remembrance), just as in the verse, And the Eternal ‘pakad’ Sarah,345Genesis 21:1. which is like: “and the Eternal remembered her.” The purport [of the verse here, according to Ibn Ezra], is that G-d will postpone [punishment] of the wicked person because perhaps he will repent and beget a righteous son. But if the son walks in his father’s ways, as also the third and fourth generations, their memories will be destroyed, for G-d will ‘remember’ [to visit punishment upon them for] what the parents have done, and He will no longer postpone their punishment. All the commentators have similarly interpreted [the above Scriptural expression]. But if this be so, the sins of the fathers will not be visited upon their children nor upon the third generation, but only on the fourth. It would have been proper then for Scripture to say that He will visit the iniquity of the fathers and their sons and of the third generation upon the fourth generation! Perhaps these commentators will say that the sense of the verse is that He remembers the iniquity of the fathers upon their sons, saying [to them], “You and your fathers have sinned.” He does thus with the third and fourth generations, and then takes vengeance upon them, and never again does He visit it upon them, for He destroys them all in their iniquity.
But their explanation is not correct. Scripture mentions G-d’s remembrance of all of them equally, and it does not specify that the vengeance is exacted [only] in the end, i.e., on the fourth generation. Besides, the term p’kidah in conjunction with the word al — [as it occurs here: ‘pokeid’ avon avoth ‘al’ banim] — is not used in connection with remembrance, but rather signifies vengeance [or punishment]. Thus: And on the day ‘pokdi upakad’ti’ (that I do punish, I will punish) them for their sin;346Further, 32:34. In that day ‘yiphkod hashem’ (the Eternal will punish) with his sore and great and strong sword leviathan the slant serpent, and leviathan the tortuous serpent, and He will slay the dragon that is in the sea;347Isaiah 27:1. ‘yiphkod hashem’ (the Eternal will punish) the host of the high heaven on high.348Ibid., 24:21. All of these are expression of vengeance and punishment.
The correct interpretation thus appears to me to be that Scripture is stating that He visits the iniquity, which the father perpetrated, upon his children, and excises them on account of the iniquity of their father, something like it is said, Prepare ye slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers.349Ibid., 14:21. Similarly, He visits it upon the third generation if the sin of the two generations is not yet full, something like [it is said], for the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet full.350Genesis 15:16. Sometimes He visits the iniquity of all three generations upon the fourth one when their measure [of iniquity] is filled and then he excises them. But in the fifth generation, no one is punished for the iniquity of his ancestor in the first generation. Now in the Book of Deuteronomy, [where the Ten Commandments are restated], He added a vav [to the expression ‘al shileishim’ (unto the third generation), thus making it] ‘v’al’ shileishim v’al ribei’im l’sonai.351Deuteronomy 5:9. But the meaning of the vav [there is not the usual “and”] but “or” — [” ‘or’ unto the third generation ‘or’ unto the fourth generation of them that hate me” — as explained above].
Now Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote that children’s children are called “children.” This is why He used the briefer term.352Ibn Ezra tried to answer this question: Since Scripture uses the terms shileishim and ribei’im to signify the third and fourth generations, why does it not say shni’im for the second generation instead of using the term banim (children)? For this reason, Ibn Ezra interpreted banim as meaning “children and children’s children,” for they are both called banim. Hence, Scripture could not use the term shni’im, for that would have meant only the second generation after the sinner, who is the first generation. However, in fact the second and third generations also need to be included here. For this reason, Scripture used banim, which includes the children’s children as well, i.e., the third generation after the sinner. Accordingly, in Ibn Ezra’s opinion, shileishim will mean the children of the third generation, who are the fourth generation after the sinner, and ribei’im will mean the children of the fourth generation, who constitute the fifth generation. Ramban will differ with this entire interpretation. You can understand this from the terms shileishim (the third generation) and ribei’im (the fourth generation).353Ibn Ezra’s intent is that when you consider the words shileishim and ribei’im, this question will occur: Why does Scripture not use the term shni’im instead of banim? You must then conclude as explained in the preceding note. But this is not so. Shileishim means the third generation in that sin. [Hence, it includes only the father, his children, and his children’s children.] Likewise, ribei’im means the fourth generation in that sin, totalling four sinners. And the verse stated in connection with the thirteen attributes of G-d, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children’s children, unto the third generation and unto the fourth generation,354Further, 34:7. is to be explained355The Hebrew text possibly lends itself to this translation: “He — [i.e., G-d, Who is proclaiming these thirteen attributes] — is explaining that al b’nei banim (upon the children’s children) is the shileishim (the third generation) and ribei’im (the fourth generation).” In other words, al b’nei banim is in apposition to al shileishim v’al ribei’im. as “the children’s children, who are the third and fourth generations.” It is for this reason that Moses, [when invoking the thirteen attributes] in the case of the spies, turned back [to this specific attribute as expressed here in the Ten Commandments] and said, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, upon the third and upon the fourth generation.356Numbers 14:18. He did not mention “children’s children,” for it is all one, [i.e., “children’s children” is the same as shileishim].
Now Scripture states [that this attribute of punishment applies only to] those that hate Me. That is, if the children hate G-d. If the sinner begot a righteous son, he does not bear the iniquity of the father, as [the prophet] Ezekiel has explained.357Ezekiel 18:20.
From the words of our Rabbis,358Tosephta Sotah 4:1. there appears a proof to the explanation I have presented above, [i.e., that ‘pokeid’ the sins of the fathers, etc., is to be understood in the sense of “visiting” or “punishing”]. From here, they have derived the principle that the [Divine] measure of good is greater than the measure of punishment, for the measure of punishment is for four generations [while that of reward is for thousands]. But if it were as the first explanation has it, [namely, that of Ibn Ezra, that pokeid means “remembers,” thus signifying that He postpones the punishment of the sinner until the fourth generation in the hope that perhaps he will beget a righteous son], then “the measure of good” would have been greater if He postponed punishment even to the tenth generation!359According to Ibn Ezra, the phrase in question represents a measure of G-d’s mercy. He does not punish the sinner immediately but “remembers” it until the third and fourth generations because perhaps he will repent and beget a righteous son. But, asks Ramban, if that were the interpretation, “the measure of Divine good” would be increased if such “punishment” were withheld even to the tenth generation! Why then did the Rabbis in the above-mentioned text speak of the Divine measure of good being manifested in punishment only to four generations when that Divine manifestation would apply even if it were extended to the tenth generation? But according to Ramban, who asserts that this verse represents a measure of G-d’s judgment — for pokeid means “punishing,” and the verse declares that the effects of the punishment are felt up to and including the fourth generation — that question cannot be asked. If punishment were extended to the tenth generation, it would no longer represent “a measure of good.” On the contrary, it would be a harsher judgment.
It is possible that this strict measure [of punishment that is imposed on a sinner and which is felt up to the fourth generation] applies only to idolatry, for it is with regard to this prohibition that He is warning here. However, in the rest of the commandments, [the rule applies that] every one shall die of his iniquity.360Jeremiah 31:30. You will find the hidden secret of visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children in the Book of Ecclesiastes.361The allusion is to the verse, One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh (Ecclesiastes 1:4), upon which the Sefer Habahir commented: “that hath come already.” This means that the generation that passes away had come into the sins of the father “that had come already” in a previous generation, and the sins of the father are now visited upon the son, etc. (Ma’or V’shamesh). The mystic doctrine of the transmigration of souls is thus alluded to here. I have already written concerning it.362Genesis 38:8 (Vol. I, pp. 469-470).
But their explanation is not correct. Scripture mentions G-d’s remembrance of all of them equally, and it does not specify that the vengeance is exacted [only] in the end, i.e., on the fourth generation. Besides, the term p’kidah in conjunction with the word al — [as it occurs here: ‘pokeid’ avon avoth ‘al’ banim] — is not used in connection with remembrance, but rather signifies vengeance [or punishment]. Thus: And on the day ‘pokdi upakad’ti’ (that I do punish, I will punish) them for their sin;346Further, 32:34. In that day ‘yiphkod hashem’ (the Eternal will punish) with his sore and great and strong sword leviathan the slant serpent, and leviathan the tortuous serpent, and He will slay the dragon that is in the sea;347Isaiah 27:1. ‘yiphkod hashem’ (the Eternal will punish) the host of the high heaven on high.348Ibid., 24:21. All of these are expression of vengeance and punishment.
The correct interpretation thus appears to me to be that Scripture is stating that He visits the iniquity, which the father perpetrated, upon his children, and excises them on account of the iniquity of their father, something like it is said, Prepare ye slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers.349Ibid., 14:21. Similarly, He visits it upon the third generation if the sin of the two generations is not yet full, something like [it is said], for the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet full.350Genesis 15:16. Sometimes He visits the iniquity of all three generations upon the fourth one when their measure [of iniquity] is filled and then he excises them. But in the fifth generation, no one is punished for the iniquity of his ancestor in the first generation. Now in the Book of Deuteronomy, [where the Ten Commandments are restated], He added a vav [to the expression ‘al shileishim’ (unto the third generation), thus making it] ‘v’al’ shileishim v’al ribei’im l’sonai.351Deuteronomy 5:9. But the meaning of the vav [there is not the usual “and”] but “or” — [” ‘or’ unto the third generation ‘or’ unto the fourth generation of them that hate me” — as explained above].
Now Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote that children’s children are called “children.” This is why He used the briefer term.352Ibn Ezra tried to answer this question: Since Scripture uses the terms shileishim and ribei’im to signify the third and fourth generations, why does it not say shni’im for the second generation instead of using the term banim (children)? For this reason, Ibn Ezra interpreted banim as meaning “children and children’s children,” for they are both called banim. Hence, Scripture could not use the term shni’im, for that would have meant only the second generation after the sinner, who is the first generation. However, in fact the second and third generations also need to be included here. For this reason, Scripture used banim, which includes the children’s children as well, i.e., the third generation after the sinner. Accordingly, in Ibn Ezra’s opinion, shileishim will mean the children of the third generation, who are the fourth generation after the sinner, and ribei’im will mean the children of the fourth generation, who constitute the fifth generation. Ramban will differ with this entire interpretation. You can understand this from the terms shileishim (the third generation) and ribei’im (the fourth generation).353Ibn Ezra’s intent is that when you consider the words shileishim and ribei’im, this question will occur: Why does Scripture not use the term shni’im instead of banim? You must then conclude as explained in the preceding note. But this is not so. Shileishim means the third generation in that sin. [Hence, it includes only the father, his children, and his children’s children.] Likewise, ribei’im means the fourth generation in that sin, totalling four sinners. And the verse stated in connection with the thirteen attributes of G-d, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children’s children, unto the third generation and unto the fourth generation,354Further, 34:7. is to be explained355The Hebrew text possibly lends itself to this translation: “He — [i.e., G-d, Who is proclaiming these thirteen attributes] — is explaining that al b’nei banim (upon the children’s children) is the shileishim (the third generation) and ribei’im (the fourth generation).” In other words, al b’nei banim is in apposition to al shileishim v’al ribei’im. as “the children’s children, who are the third and fourth generations.” It is for this reason that Moses, [when invoking the thirteen attributes] in the case of the spies, turned back [to this specific attribute as expressed here in the Ten Commandments] and said, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, upon the third and upon the fourth generation.356Numbers 14:18. He did not mention “children’s children,” for it is all one, [i.e., “children’s children” is the same as shileishim].
Now Scripture states [that this attribute of punishment applies only to] those that hate Me. That is, if the children hate G-d. If the sinner begot a righteous son, he does not bear the iniquity of the father, as [the prophet] Ezekiel has explained.357Ezekiel 18:20.
From the words of our Rabbis,358Tosephta Sotah 4:1. there appears a proof to the explanation I have presented above, [i.e., that ‘pokeid’ the sins of the fathers, etc., is to be understood in the sense of “visiting” or “punishing”]. From here, they have derived the principle that the [Divine] measure of good is greater than the measure of punishment, for the measure of punishment is for four generations [while that of reward is for thousands]. But if it were as the first explanation has it, [namely, that of Ibn Ezra, that pokeid means “remembers,” thus signifying that He postpones the punishment of the sinner until the fourth generation in the hope that perhaps he will beget a righteous son], then “the measure of good” would have been greater if He postponed punishment even to the tenth generation!359According to Ibn Ezra, the phrase in question represents a measure of G-d’s mercy. He does not punish the sinner immediately but “remembers” it until the third and fourth generations because perhaps he will repent and beget a righteous son. But, asks Ramban, if that were the interpretation, “the measure of Divine good” would be increased if such “punishment” were withheld even to the tenth generation! Why then did the Rabbis in the above-mentioned text speak of the Divine measure of good being manifested in punishment only to four generations when that Divine manifestation would apply even if it were extended to the tenth generation? But according to Ramban, who asserts that this verse represents a measure of G-d’s judgment — for pokeid means “punishing,” and the verse declares that the effects of the punishment are felt up to and including the fourth generation — that question cannot be asked. If punishment were extended to the tenth generation, it would no longer represent “a measure of good.” On the contrary, it would be a harsher judgment.
It is possible that this strict measure [of punishment that is imposed on a sinner and which is felt up to the fourth generation] applies only to idolatry, for it is with regard to this prohibition that He is warning here. However, in the rest of the commandments, [the rule applies that] every one shall die of his iniquity.360Jeremiah 31:30. You will find the hidden secret of visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children in the Book of Ecclesiastes.361The allusion is to the verse, One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh (Ecclesiastes 1:4), upon which the Sefer Habahir commented: “that hath come already.” This means that the generation that passes away had come into the sins of the father “that had come already” in a previous generation, and the sins of the father are now visited upon the son, etc. (Ma’or V’shamesh). The mystic doctrine of the transmigration of souls is thus alluded to here. I have already written concerning it.362Genesis 38:8 (Vol. I, pp. 469-470).
Shadal
... And 'that which I see' is that the understanding of the verse is certainly that God visits the iniquity of the parents even upon righteous children. And such was the faith of our fathers; and so did the Sages, may their memory be blessed, say - "A righteous one who has bad befall him is a righteous one that is the child of an evildoer!" And it is something to which [our] senses testify, that the father gives over to his child quite a few good and bad things. And perforce his ways and deeds bring good or bad to his offspring after him. And this phenomenon is one of the secrets of hidden providence in all of the events that happen in the world. 'And God did that they should fear before Him' - as every father loves his offspring; and the worry, lest his sins bring woes also to his children, stops him from always 'following his willful heart,' to one extent or another. And even if it does not stop him, behold those that see his children tormented because of his iniquity will cry out bitterly about him, and that man will 'become a parable and a byword.' And many 'will hear and fear and not do like his acts'... And behold, that which I said that the matter of the visiting of the iniquity of the fathers upon the children is something to which our senses testify, etc., is similar to that which Ralbag explained - that the punishment of the parents continues to the children by happenstance, in the way of "Our fathers sinned and are no more; and we must bear their guilt." And I also know that the understanding of the expression, "visiting the iniquity of the parents upon the children," is not that the punishment should continue to the children by happenstance, but rather that God punishes the children with a clear intention - as in (Exodus 32:34), "and I will visit their sins upon them"; (Hosea 4:9) "and I will visit its ways upon it." Likewise, the content of the word, "visit," is a directed punishment and not one by happenstance - as in (Hosea 9:7), "The days of visiting have come, the days of repayment have come"; (Isaiah 10:3), "And what will you do on the day of visiting." Nevertheless, this is the way of the Torah, to describe to us the the bad and the good as if they intentionally came down from Above as reward and punishment; even if they come about naturally, according to the way of the world. As there truly is nothing in the world that is by happenstance. For everything is the result of His causes, and everything is an outgrowth of the First Cause (see Kuzari 5:9). And just like God inscribed it into the laws of nature that the iniquities of the father bring bad to his offspring after him to threaten people, and just like the Torah said that the Lord is a jealous God, and vengeful and angry to threaten the Children of Israel; so too did it also say that He visits the iniquity of the parents upon the children - as if He did this by way of vengeance and fury - even though the thing happens naturally and is not revenge, God forbid. Rather, it is all for the good of people...