Let us return to the Radak. Earlier the Radak already brought the words of Rav Saadia Gaon. It says here "chayo yichyeh," he shall surely live. What does "chayo yichyeh" mean? Will he live here, will he live in the World to Come? What kind of life are we talking about here? He brings that Rav Saadia Gaon explains that the life and death mentioned here refer to the World to Come. The righteous man "chayo yichyeh," he will have eternal life. And the wicked man, "mot yamut," that is the death of the soul. This is how Rav Saadia Gaon explains it, that our entire passage, our entire chapter, the life and death being discussed refer to life in the World to Come. The Radak says, and I say that this is indeed true, for the essence of punishment and reward is in the World to Come. I agree. But the matter mentioned here was not stated regarding the World to Come. The plain meaning of the verses here cannot be explained this way. For the plain meaning of the verses here speaks of people who complain that death has been decreed upon them here because of their fathers' sins. And now the prophet comes and says: no, whoever does good deeds here will live. Where? Here. And whoever does not, will die. Where? Here. He is not speaking to them about the World to Come. He is giving a response here to those who said that the son bears the father's sin. And why? Because they saw things, they saw that there were many troubles for that generation, and that was because of the fathers' sins. So they were not complaining about the World to Come, they were complaining about this world. Consequently, the answer too, "chayo yichyeh," refers to this world. It is not about the World to Come. So it is very difficult to explain Rav Saadia Gaon's words here in the interpretation of the verses. And if you ask, the Radak asks, then why is only life and death written? After all, the reward of this world is not only life and death. It is in all the details of the curses and blessings written in the Torah. Or in simple words, it is possible that a person will have a life in which he would prefer death. So what will you say, no, no, he will live. It is possible that he will have such a life, as Iyov said, why did You not let me die from the womb? Why did You not kill me before I came out of my mother's womb? So this is a bit difficult. If you explain like Rav Saadia Gaon, then I understand, you are speaking of "yichyeh," that is the World to Come, that is eternal life, where there are no troubles. But when you speak here of this world, what have you given me with just "chayo yichyeh"? "Chayo yichyeh," you have not promised me anything. So it could be that I will live with troubles and with problems, a life that death might be better than. So if so, how can one speak here of the reward of this world and sum it up only in the sense of living? Living is not enough to express reward in this world. The Radak answers, this is not a difficulty, because here he simply wanted to be brief about the matter, and he summarizes all the good of this world with the expression "life." As it is written, that whoever keeps all My statutes and all My judgments, which a person shall do, "and live by them." What does "and live by them" mean? A life that is truly worthy of being called life.
A life of health, a life of success, a life of abundance, a life of blessing, that is what is called life. So when the Radak explains "chayo yichyeh," he includes in this all kinds of good life. But in this world. So he does not need to specify that you will also have rain and also a livelihood and so on, he does not need to specify all this, because it is all included in the general expression "life."
The Rav says, and even though what Rav Saadia Gaon says is actually supported by the words of the Targum Yonatan, for the Targum Yonatan indeed translates "and he shall live by them" as eternal life. Actually, excuse me, Targum Onkelos, which speaks about the verse, right? "And live by them" means he shall live them for eternal life. He says, nevertheless, that refers to the verse in the Torah. There the Torah promises eternal life. But what is written in our text, says the Rav, here it was said as a message to the generation, for the generation claimed we suffer here and have no life, so as a message, as an expression to them, he says: you will have life here in this world for whoever does the will of Hashem. This speaks about this world.
You will see the same thing, he says, in what was written to Adam HaRishon, that the Holy One, blessed be He, told him that on the day you eat of it you shall surely die. The Holy One, blessed be He, promised him death. And afterwards, you see He tells him: cursed is the ground because of you, in toil you shall eat of it, thorns and thistles it will sprout for you, by the sweat of your brow you shall eat bread. What is this, a bonus? The Holy One, blessed be He, did not tell him this in advance. He told him "you shall surely die." Death. Fine, death came to the world, that is it. Why do we then suddenly see so many more curses accompanying this death? What have you learned? The principle I told you. That when there is life, life includes all kinds of blessing. And when there is death, the meaning of "you shall die" carries the meaning of all kinds of curse. That is the meaning.
And if so, he says, what is written in our text, that he says "chayo yichyeh," means a life of blessing, with all the abundance that accompanies a life of blessing. Likewise it is written: life and death I have set before you, the blessing and the curse, and you shall choose life so that you and your offspring may live. What, what about the blessing and the curse? That follows automatically, when you choose life, then it is automatically a life of blessing, a life of success. And why? Because life with success and good, says the Radak, is life. And with evil, to live with evil, that is already a form of death. The proof: Chazal say, for example, that a poor person is considered as dead. Wait, but he is alive? Yes, but to live in such a state is a form of death. A blind person is considered as dead, a leper is considered as dead. What do you see? That when I speak to you of life, the meaning is a worthy life, a life with blessing, a life with abundance. As it is written of one who is successful in his affairs: "and you shall say thus to the living one." And one afflicted in his body is called dead: "let her not be as one dead."
And if so, when it is written "the soul that sins, it shall die," he says this about the soul that has desire and sins together with the body. So you might say, here "the soul that sins, it shall die," this is a proof for Rav Saadia Gaon. It speaks here of the death of the soul. What death of the soul is this? It speaks here of the aspect of the World to Come. The death of the soul, for if not, the soul exists. What, even when a person dies, does the soul die? The soul still exists. Why is it written "the soul that sins, it shall die"? The Rav says, when it speaks of the soul that sins dying, the meaning is the soul that sins together with the body, that has desire, so when the body is punished, it is punished together with the body. That is called death. So when a person suffers here, who suffers? His body and his soul. So consequently this is its death, just as it is the death of the body, all the pain and suffering here, this too is the death of the soul. And several of the prophets in their lives asked for their death, as we said earlier, as we find with Iyov.
And he begets a violent son, a shedder of blood, and does "ach" from one of these. And this righteous person begot a violent son. "A violent son" (ben paritz) means one who breaks through the fence of truth, as the Radak says, a man who is unrestrained in his deeds. A shedder of blood, that is not enough, but he is also a murderer, he sheds blood. "And does ach from one of these." What does "and does ach from one of these" mean? Rashi brings the Targum Yonatan: "and does to his brother one of these." And he does to his brother one of these. That is the meaning of "and does ach." He does to his brother one of the evil things. That is "and does ach from one of these." The Radak brings that "ach" is like "echad" (one). "And does ach from one of these," as if it were written "one from one of these," comparable to how it is written "ani" and "anochi" (both meaning I). "And does one from one of these," as if it were written here. So "ach" is a shortened form of "achat" (one). And he does one of these transgressions that we mentioned earlier.
The Malbim explains that the "ach" written here is a biological brother. The Malbim says, and if this righteous person begot a violent son and "did ach," even though he has a brother who did the good deeds of the father from one of these, this son who was born learned neither from the father nor from the brother. That is the meaning of "and does ach from one of these." So there are two things written here. And he begets a violent son, a shedder of blood. The father begot a violent son, a shedder of blood, and he also begot a brother, who is a brother to this violent son, and the brother of this violent son did one of these, meaning the good things. Because what have we been discussing until now? Until now we discussed the righteous man. He observed to do truth, truly righteous, he shall surely live, says Hashem Elokim. So it is reasonable that "one of these" refers to what the righteous man did, because according to the interpretations of the other commentators, "from one of these" refers back to the deeds of the wicked man that we saw earlier, that were spoken of at the beginning. And it is a bit difficult to connect this from the negative. Therefore the Malbim says, "and does ach," he also begot a brother who did one of these good deeds, and then it comes out that the violent son learned neither from his righteous brother nor from his righteous father.
And he has done none of these. For he also ate upon the mountains and defiled his neighbor's wife. And he has done none of these, none of the deeds that his father did actively, as we saw: he judged truthful judgment, gave his bread to the hungry, he did not do these. More than that, he also transgressed prohibitions, committed actual transgressions. He ate upon the mountains, he went and ate from idol worship, from the sacrifices of idols, and he defiled his neighbor's wife. He oppressed the poor and needy, committed robberies, did not return the pledge, and lifted his eyes to the idols, committed abomination. He oppressed the poor and needy. The poor and needy, what, does he only defraud the poor and needy? Does he not cheat wealthy people? What do you gain from cheating the poor and needy? Pennies. When you defraud some giant corporation, you come out with billions. Does this person insist on only defrauding the poor and needy? The Radak says no, he spoke of what is common. And commonly it is much easier to defraud a poor and needy person. A wealthy person, before he enters into any deal, has enough advisers and financial people and people who check everything, and he himself has his hand in all these matters. That is a wealthy person. The poor and needy person has no support and no backing, he has no understanding of all financial matters. Go and see to whom people sell lands that are still very far from being rezoned and still very far from being built upon, and to whom do they sell? To yeshiva students from Bnei Brak. Why? They tell them, listen, with children you will marry off with this. Maybe grandchildren. Maybe great-grandchildren. When the land is rezoned and becomes fit for building, maybe. But all the fraudsters greatly love the poor and needy. They love the yeshiva students, they love those who are not sharp, those who are not sharp in business matters, that is not their field, and they give, promising them promises in the sky and all kinds of matters of easy profits and all kinds of stock markets and investments that must not be missed and only the first twenty will win and all kinds of talk and expressions of this sort. And it is specifically these people whose financial situation is poor, who are not sharp and knowledgeable in all matters of commerce, whom they cheat. So this is what the Radak says here. He oppressed the poor and needy, specifically the poor and needy, because he is weak and it is easy to cheat him. And he was not afraid to defraud them either, because if he defrauded a person of greater means, that person has the power to sue him, to stand against him in court, and would succeed in getting the money back from him. But when it comes to a poor and needy person, the poor and needy person has no power to stand against him, he does not even have money to pay the court for the filing fee even. So consequently, he is not troubled by him. Therefore he oppressed the poor and needy.
Oppression, as we said, is taking others' money through negotiation, through coming and deceiving the person, taking from him through deceit. Like "you shall not oppress one another," "do not oppress a man his brother." He committed robberies, did not return the pledge, and lifted his eyes to the idols, as we said about "you shall exact from you and I shall let your oppressors devour you," right. He committed abomination. What does "he committed abomination" mean? There are several interpretations of this. The Radak's interpretation is that he approached a niddah. This is actually the opposite of what we saw in the negative, that regarding a niddah he did not approach, whereas this one did commit abomination, he did approach a niddah. Rashi says "he committed abomination" is homosexual relations. The Malbim, we will see in the next verse, holds that "he committed abomination" refers back to another man's wife, because we also saw this in the previous verse regarding the righteous man who did not do it, so now "he committed abomination" means he stumbled in the prohibition of another man's wife.
He gave with interest and took increase, and shall he live? He shall not live. All these abominations he has done, he shall surely die, his blood shall be upon him. He gave with interest and took increase, and shall he live? Do you think he will live? His blood shall be upon him. "His blood shall be upon him" means everything he did, his blood is on his own head. The Malbim explains, what actually was the initial assumption that he would live? Because his father was righteous. Let us not forget that this violent son we are discussing is the one whom the righteous man that we saw in the previous verses begot as a righteous son. So he says, do you think this son, after all the evil deeds and sins he committed, do you think his father's merit will protect him? Do you think that what his father did will stand for the son, that the son will have merits, even though he angered and did things against the Creator's will? The merit of the fathers will not protect him. The Malbim says, he shall not live the life of the soul in the World to Come and also not in this world. And therefore, pay attention, there is a repetition here. He shall surely die, his blood shall be upon him. What does this mean? He will not have life either, "and shall he live," he says he shall not live, the life of the World, eternal life he will not have, and also in this world he shall surely die, his blood shall be upon him. His blood shall be upon him, since for these deeds that he did he is liable to death. If he transgressed with another man's wife, he is liable to strangulation. And if he transgressed with idol worship, he is also liable to death. And so on in this manner, so he certainly will not live.
Well, the story is not over. We have a father, there is a son, now we move to the grandson. Verse 14. And behold, he begets a son, who sees all his father's sins which he has done, and considers, and does not do likewise. He begot a son. This wicked son saw, the son of this wicked man saw his father's sin, and he did not learn from his deeds. On the contrary, he saw how evil and corrupt his father's way was, and he decided to take upon himself a resolution, he will not do likewise. He will not act likewise, he will not commit sins as his father did. What does "who sees all his father's sins which he has done, and considers, and does not do likewise" mean? What is "who sees," what is "and considers"? Why the repetition? The Malbim says that the first is physical sight, and the second is intellectual perception. The Malbim says, do not be surprised, we have seen this matter in several places. "And he saw, and behold three men were standing over him, and he saw." There too, the initial sight was physical sight, he saw them. Afterwards a second sight, he understood what these people actually needed and so on, what he needed to do for them. Like "and the kohen shall see the affliction, and the kohen shall see it." Here too, the first sight is physical sight, he saw with his eyes. The second sight is that he contemplated what needed to be ruled regarding this affliction. "And he sees the land, and you shall see it." Here too, he sees the land physically, "and you shall see it" means to look deeply with contemplative sight. So here too, "who sees all his father's sins" is physical sight, "and considers" means he understood what evil there is in these sins, which is more of a sight of the soul, "and does not do likewise."
He does not eat upon the mountains, nor lifts his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, does not defile his neighbor's wife. Upon the mountains, says the Radak, this is the only place where "upon" (al) is written, everywhere else it is written "to" (el). The same idea and the same meaning. He does not eat upon the mountains and does not lift his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, as we saw in the negative that was said about the righteous man, he is like the grandfather. And he does not defraud anyone, does not take a pledge, as we said regarding the collateral. And does not commit robbery, gives his bread to the hungry, and covers the naked with a garment. He gave his bread to the hungry and covered the naked with a garment, as we saw in the negative, like the deed of his righteous grandfather, so were his deeds. He withdraws his hand from the poor, does not take interest or increase, does My judgments, walks in My statutes, he shall not die for his father's iniquity, he shall surely live. He withdraws his hand from the poor. He withdrew his hand from doing evil to the poor. Why do you count this as praise? The Metzudot says, because it is easy to do evil to the poor. As we saw in the negative, since one easily does evil to the poor, a person has a temptation. So it tells you: he withdrew his hand from the poor, he pulled his hand back from the poor and did not do evil to the poor. And this son will not die for his father's iniquity, but shall surely live. And the repetition here, "chayo yichyeh," he shall surely live, refers to both the life of the body and the life of the soul. "He shall not die for his father's iniquity," meaning he will have continued existence for the body. "He shall surely live," that is the life of the soul. So in practice, you see, this person also does not pay for his father's sins. In simple words, what have we learned? That the wicked son will not live in the merit of his righteous father. And the son of the wicked man, who is the grandson, will not die because of his wicked father.
As for his father, because he cruelly oppressed, robbed his brother, and did what is not good among his people, behold, he dies for his iniquity. As for his father, because he cruelly oppressed. His father oppressed, and robbed his brother. What does "robbed his brother" mean? Did he not rob from other people? Rather "robbed his brother" means that all of Israel are brothers. As the Radak says, like it is written "you shall surely return them to your brother." As the Targum Yonatan says, "robbed a robbery from one of his brothers." He robbed a robbery from one of his brothers, meaning from one of Israel. And did what is not good among his people. "Did what is not good among his people," that is somewhat a politically correct definition, right? After we saw the severe sins that he committed, this person worshiped idols, defiled his neighbor's wife, transgressed with a niddah, transgressed homosexual relations, all the transgressions, what do you say? He did not good among his people. "He did not good among his people," is that a definition? The Radak says about this: "did what is not good among his people," it is as if it said "and did evil among his people." Why did it say "not good"? And it is the way of the language to say "not good" in place of "evil." Like "and he stands on a way that is not good." And "scales of deceit are not good." One who thinks that scales of deceit are merely "not good," everyone knows clearly that scales of deceit are the greatest wickedness. So here too, when it is written "not good," it does not mean to say "not good," it is not recommended. Rather what, it is an expression for evil. Like "which is not pure," or "which shall not be pure," merely "not pure," it is impure. Rather what, it is a refined expression. Once a Jew was at the Chazon Ish, and he said to him what, so-and-so, he said to him: Rabbi, he is a liar. This was a wicked person about whom it was permitted to say this. So the Chazon Ish did not rebuke him for the law of lashon hara. The Chazon Ish only told him, he said to him, that is not how one phrases it. He said to him, what do you mean? He says, one should say he does not speak the truth. The Chazon Ish, as is known, had very great delicacy of soul. Very great. And therefore he was always careful not to speak with harsh expressions. You know that language is the pen of the heart. When you hear a person expressing himself with harsh expressions, it testifies to something inside. Therefore a person should always, even when he needs to say something about a bad matter, express himself with delicacy, speak in more dignified language, not speak in harsh language, in coarse language, even though the matter is certainly negative. The Chazon Ish was very particular about this matter. Once someone came to him with a certain notice, a notice regarding a certain breach in the area of modesty. So he wrote a notice, he asked that the Chazon Ish sign it. And you know, many times in such notices one needs very very great care, because you want to say what one must be careful of, and one needs to be careful not to describe all kinds of graphic descriptions, for then, on the contrary, you have caused even greater damage. So he brought it to the Chazon Ish for the Chazon Ish to sign. The Chazon Ish looked, the Chazon Ish told him, even about modesty one must speak modestly. That is what he said. Your phrasings here are somewhat flawed in the area of modesty. Even about modesty one must speak modestly. So there are several expressions that would be better to refine and not write in too blatant a manner, because even about modesty one must speak modestly. So if so, this is also the phrasing here. "Who did what is not good among his people." Even though what he did was truly terrible and awful, but it is phrased with a delicate phrasing, "did what is not good among his people, and behold he dies for his iniquity." And therefore the father, following this deed, dies for his iniquity.
What does "among his people" mean? The Radak explains that this is part of the sin, that he did it publicly. He did it among his people, did it in public. So if so, this person deserves to bear his own sin. The Malbim explains that the law dictates that the son should not bear his father's iniquity. Because it tells you "his father cruelly oppressed," behold he dies for his iniquity. If he dies for his iniquity, that means he has already paid his debt, he has already received his punishment. So why should the son be punished for the father's sin? And what is written here "and who did what is not good," according to the Malbim, means even when he sometimes did good, it was with evil intent. That is the meaning of "who did what is not good." Right? When it seems to you that it was good, know that it actually was not good. His purpose was a negative purpose. Or an additional explanation he gives, as we saw in the negative, the meaning is he did not do good. That is the meaning of "did what is not good."
Yet you say, why does the son not bear the iniquity of the father? But the son has done judgment and righteousness, has kept all My statutes, and does them, he shall surely live. What actually is their question? The Radak says, they are actually asking him: when I tell you that this is My conduct, you will say to me, why do you say that the son does not bear the father's iniquity? Behold, see that among us the facts speak the opposite. Behold, see that our fathers sinned and are no more, and we bear their iniquities. See that the son does bear the father's iniquity. This was actually their claim. You say a man shall die for his own iniquity, but the facts among us prove the opposite. To this the prophet says to them, is such a thing possible? For if the son has done judgment and righteousness, why should he bear the father's iniquity? But the son has done judgment and righteousness, has kept all My statutes, and does them, he shall surely live. And if you ask, but the facts prove the opposite, for behold, see that we suffer, behold, see that we bear our fathers' iniquities, he says to them, you are mistaken. You bear your own iniquities and the iniquities of your fathers. For Hashem visits the iniquity of fathers upon sons to those who hate Him. And since you continue in the evil way of your fathers, since that is so, you suffer both for what your fathers did and for what you do. Hashem repays those who hate Him to the third generation, when they hold their fathers' deeds in their hands.
The Malbim explains that you ask why the son does not bear the father's iniquity. This means, according to what we saw, that they claimed: behold we see that by nature, illnesses of the body and its traits pass by heredity from the father to the son. And since that is so, their claim was, then here too it should be that the son bears the father's iniquity. Hashem says to them, that is not My conduct. For the son has done judgment and righteousness, and therefore it is fitting that he shall surely live. What do you say, but in nature we see that things are different? He says to them, that is only in matters of the body, it is not in matters of the soul. As we explained in the negative, that it speaks of the soul, the Holy One, blessed be He, says: I am the fashioner of the soul. So it has no connection to what his father did or how he acted wickedly. In matters of the soul, each person will give an accounting for his own deeds.
And therefore he continues and specifies: the soul that sins, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, and the father shall not bear the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. Therefore he says to them, know this, the soul that sins, it shall die. There is no connection to the father or to the son, neither for merit nor for liability. Each one will pay his own account. And in this example that he described to them, that there was a righteous grandfather, and afterwards this grandfather begot a father, and this father was wicked, and this father now begot a grandson, and this grandson was again righteous, he says, know that no one here will pay for someone else's account. And first he says to them, just as the father, who is the grandfather, was not punished for the wickedness of the son, so too the son, meaning the grandson, will not be punished for the wickedness of his father. Neither will the grandfather be punished for the middle one, nor will the grandson be punished for the middle one. Each one has his own account. And this is what he says: the son, meaning here the grandson, shall not bear the iniquity of the father, who is the middle one, just as the father, who is the grandfather, shall not bear the iniquity of the son, who is the middle one. In short, the middle one here, who was wicked, does not affect his grandfather, nor his father, nor his son. Second, he says to them, just as you see that the righteousness of the righteous father did not benefit the wicked son, who is the middle one, so too the wickedness of the wicked man, who is the middle son, will not harm his righteous son, who is the grandson. And this is what he says, just as the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, it will not benefit his son, the fact that your father is righteous will not help you at all, you the middle one. So too the wickedness of the wicked, whom we saw is the middle one, will not harm the grandson, the third one, at all, since he is righteous. So the righteous father and grandfather, and the righteous grandson, both will have no effect on the wicked one, meaning that the wicked one will benefit because of them, and they will not be harmed at all by the wicked one, that because the wicked one is such a wicked person, the grandfather, meaning his father or his son, will be harmed because of him. He says to them, neither this nor that will be. The soul that sins, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, and the father shall not bear the iniquity of the son.
But the wicked man, if he turns from all his sins which he has committed, and keeps all My statutes, and does judgment and righteousness, he shall surely live, he shall not die. Here now he moves to speak about one person. Until now we spoke of different bodies. We spoke of a grandfather, we spoke of a son, we spoke of a grandson. Now he will come to speak about that same person himself. But the wicked man, if he turns from all his sins which he has committed. He himself has two states. One state, in which he was wicked, and a second state, in which he repented. And now, he keeps all My statutes and does judgment and righteousness. He keeps all My statutes, this means with the prohibitions, he is careful lest, that is the negative commandments, he is careful with the prohibitions. And does judgment and righteousness, meaning he fulfilled positive commandments. He shall surely live, he shall not die. This person shall surely live, he shall not die. This means, since he has now already corrected his deeds, and since he now repented, about this he says: he shall surely live the life of the soul, and he shall not die the death of the body.
All his transgressions which he has committed shall not be remembered against him. In his righteousness which he has done he shall live. All his transgressions which he committed, this one who repented, shall not be remembered against him. Since in his righteousness which he has done he shall live. Through the righteousness that he has now done, by this he shall live. What will you say, is there a change in the will of the Creator, blessed be He? For I already decreed death upon him, how now am I changing his sentence from death to life? Is there here, as it were, a change of will in the Creator? Hashem says to them, do I desire the death of the wicked, says Hashem Elokim? Is it not rather that he turn from his ways and live? Do I desire the death of the wicked? From the outset it was not My desire for him to die. From the outset it was My desire that he turn from his ways and live. So if so, My essential will was always that he live, My will did not change. The fact that you now say, as it were, that I desire that he live, but earlier death was decreed upon him, Hashem says, no, even when I decreed death upon him, that was not My will. My will was that he live. And soon we will see that they truly struggled with this question, and they had difficulty with this question, and about this we will soon see a more detailed answer.