Komentarz do Powtórzonego Prawa 24:16

לא יומתו אבות על בנים FATHERS SHALL NOT BE PUT TO DEATH על בנים — i.e. by the evidence of their children. But if you say it means “for the sin of their children”, then it would be redundant for it goes on to state “every man shall be put to death for his own sin” (Sifrei Devarim 280:1; Sanhedrin 27b).

לא יומתו אבות על בנים, even if the crime involved was insurrection against the established authority, king, etc. It had been a widely accepted rule that kings would also execute the family members of rebels in order to ensure that the surviving relatives of such executed rebels would not form an active opposition to the king as a result of their grievance. Such matters are referred to in Isaiah 14,21 “prepare a slaughtering block for his sons because of the guilt of their father. Let them not arise to possess the earth! Then the world’s face shall be covered with towns.” The meaning of the word שונאים which I used earlier is to be understood as in Samuel I 28,17 ויהי ערך, “he became a foe.” In any event, the Torah prohibits Jewish kings from killing one person as a substitute for another; this is part of G’d’s pity for members of His people. Amatziah, King of Yehudah, abided by this legislation when he executed the servants who had killed his father but did not touch their children (Chronicles II 25, 3-4)

ובנים לא יומתו על אבות. By the courts. This was spelled out in Kings II 14,6 ואת בני המכים לא המית ככתוב לא יומתו וגו', ”But he did not put to death the children of the assassins, in accordance with what is written in Deuteronomy 24,16.” While it is forbidden for human authorities to kill children on account of the sins of their father, G’d reserves the right for Himself to do so, as we know from Exodus 20,4 פוקד אבות על בנים, He requites the sins of the fathers to the children, if they continue in the evil footsteps of their fathers whose punishment G’d had suspended while hoping for their children to redeem their fathers by their exemplary conduct. This principle has been spelled out even more clearly in Ezekiel 18,2 where the prophet had been challenged by the exiles with the question: ‘if the parents ate unripe grapes, why should their children suffer from the resulting diarrhoea?’ They meant that seeing they had been exiled, rejected by their master, G’d, the laws of the Jewish religion should no longer apply to them. The thrust of our verse here is that the court does not have the right to use an innocent child as hostage for the crimes of his father in absentia..