ציטירנדיקער פּירוש אויף בראשית 38:8

IF THERE BE A QUARREL BETWEEN MEN. According to the tradition of our Rabbis that stripes are administered to those who are guilty of having violated negative commandments³⁶⁶Makkoth 13b. [and not in civil cases, the question arises] what is its [the stripes’] connection with a quarrel between two people? He who eats n’veilah (carrion) in his home is liable to stripes! So also he who sows his field or his vineyard with diverse seeds, or he who cohabits with any of the women forbidden by a plain prohibitive law [i.e., one not involving the court-imposed death-penalty], and all the rest of the negative commandments [are all typical of the transgressions punishable by stripes. All involve negative commandments, not civil suits as is the case in the verse before us.] Additionally, what is the meaning of the phrase and they shall justify the righteous³⁶⁷In Verse 1 before us. [since a civil case does not involve questions of wickedness and righteousness]? Therefore, the Rabbis have interpreted³⁶⁸Makkoth 2b. the verse as referring to plotting witnesses. Scripture says: “In case, If there be a quarrel between two men, and they come high unto judgment and they will judge them through the testimony of two witnesses, as we have been commanded.³⁶⁹Above, 19:15. [Afterwards, two other witnesses came to court and testified that the first pair of witnesses were elsewhere at the time when the event they testified about allegedly took place. Thus the person found guilty as a result of the original testimony is shown to be ‘righteous’ while the plotting witnesses have been proven ‘wicked.’] Then the judges will justify the righteous [through the second pair of witnesses] and condemn the wicked contrary to the first judgment; then it shall be if the wicked man [i.e., the first pair of witnesses] deserve to be beaten. ”³⁷⁰Verse 2. This applies to where the command and ye shall do unto him, as he had purposed to do unto his brother³⁷¹Above, 19:19. There are cases, however, as the text continues, where this law cannot be applied, for example if they testified that a priest is the son of a divorcee, thus disqualifying him from the priesthood. If the witnesses were non-priests, that punishment is obviously inapplicable. And even if they were priests the punishment cannot be inflicted because their intent was to disqualify not only the priest himself but his offspring as well, but Scripture implicitly excludes the offspring from liability [for it says, and ye shall do unto him, but not to his offspring] as he had ‘purposed to do unto his brother.’ Therefore the witnesses are scourged for their false testimony (Makkoth 2 a-b). cannot be carried out upon them — such being the case if they testified [against a priest] that he is the son of a divorced woman [and therefore not qualified to be a ministering priest in the Sanctuary], or that he is a slave or a bastard [who is prohibited from the priesthood or from marriage to a Jew], or if they testified against someone that he transgressed one of the negative commandments [which are punishable by stripes] — in all these cases they [the plotting witnesses] are punishable by stripes.
It is possible that there be a quarrel between men resulting in stripes — such as where someone assaulted his fellow [causing a damage of] less than a perutah,³⁷²If the assault did result in a significant damage, he is liable on five counts: for injury, for pain, for medical expenses, for loss of wages, and for humiliation. The rule is that wherever the damages have a monetary value greater than a prutah [a small coin], there are no stripes. But if the damages are less than a prutah, he is punishable by stripes. (Kethuboth 32b). or that he cursed his fellow with the Name of G-d,³⁷³Shebuoth 36a. or that someone exacted a utensil necessary for the preparation of food as security for a loan, and similar cases. Scripture speaks of the common occurrence that the party to a dispute [with his fellow] will bring him to court and he will be punished with stripes because of him.
Now, the reason for the forty stripes, according to the Midrash,³⁷⁴Tanchuma (Buber), Bamidbar 28. is because he transgressed against the Torah which was given in forty days and he caused death upon himself who was formed in the forty days following conception; let him, therefore, be given forty stripes, and be freed of his punishment [of death].
I have already mentioned the subject of levirate marriage and the secret thereof, as well as of Chalitzah (the loosening of the shoe) and its reason.³⁷⁵Genesis 38:8 (Vol. I pp. 469-470).

They also claim that the phrase when brothers dwell together denotes close relatives, but not actual brothers. They bring the case of Boaz [cf. Ruth 3: 9 ; Ruth 3: 13] as evidence. This is vacuous, however, because no mention is made there of the word yibbum [here translated as “acting as the husband’s brother” — Translator], only of “redemption” [cf. Leviticus 25: 25]. Besides, what, then, is the meaning of the word together ? That they live in the same country? In the same courtyard? That they are fond of each other? The Dissenters claim further that the Scriptural usage of the term act as her husband’s brother proves that she is his brother’s wife in name only, but not in fact, as in the phrase “your brother’s wife has returned” [Ruth 1: 16]. But they have stumbled into error. Note that regarding the sons of Y ǝ hudah, Scripture explicitly says, “act as her husband’s brother” [Genesis 38: 8], although there he clearly already was her husband’s brother. Even the abovementioned use of the word “your brother’s wife” can be understood on the grounds that the two women were married to two brothers. Every sensible person knows that, although the prohibitions that were told to Moshe were not forbidden beforehand, if someone before the time of Moshe refrained from engaging in such actions he would not have displeased God . Scripture even states, “for the men of the land who preceded you practiced all these abominations” [Leviticus 18: 27], and yet we have no evidence that any prophet had ever admonished them against such actions. With respect to Onan Scripture specifically says that he did not “provide progeny for his brother” [Genesis 38: 9] and consequently “it was evil in the sight of God ” [Genesis 38: 10]. For these reasons, we will rely on the tradition that actual brothers are meant here.

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).