The entirety of Chapter 18 revolves around the complaint of that generation: "The fathers eat sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge" - the fathers sinned, and the children bear the punishment. The prophet comes to uproot this proverb, laying before us three generations: a righteous grandfather, a wicked son, and a grandson who returns to righteousness, to prove that every soul is judged solely according to its own deeds. In this section, we will address the meaning of the recurring phrase "he shall surely live" (chayoh yichyeh) throughout the chapter, and then proceed through the pesukim in sequence, from the violent son to the comforting words, "Do I desire the death of the wicked?"
בְּחֻקּוֹתַי יְהַלֵּךְ וּמִשְׁפָּטַי שָׁמַר לַעֲשׂוֹת אֱמֶת צַדִּיק הוּא חָיֹה יִחְיֶה נְאֻם אֲדֹנָי יְהוִה׃ - In My statutes he has walked, and My ordinances he has kept to act faithfully; he is righteous, he shall surely live, says the Lord Hashem.
The Radak previously cited Rav Saadia Gaon, who maintains that all the life and death mentioned in our chapter refer to the World to Come: "He is righteous, he shall surely live" refers to eternal life, while for the wicked, "he shall surely die" refers to the spiritual death of the soul. The Radak responds: While it is true that the primary reward and punishment is in the World to Come, and with that I agree, the matter discussed here is not speaking of the World to Come. The straightforward meaning of the verses here concerns people complaining that death in this world was decreed upon them because of the sins of their fathers. They saw with their own eyes the many troubles that befell their generation, and they attributed this to the iniquities of their ancestors. They were not complaining about the World to Come, but about this world - and consequently, the response, "he shall surely live," must likewise refer to this world. Therefore, it is very difficult to reconcile Rav Saadia Gaon's position with the literal reading of the text here.
However, the Radak raises a difficulty against his own view: If it indeed refers to reward in this world, why are only life and death mentioned? After all, reward and punishment in this world include all the specific blessings and curses written in the Torah. In simple terms: a person might live a life for which death would be preferable. What benefit is there in the promise "he shall surely live"? One might live surrounded by suffering and hardship, as Iyov said: "Why did You not slay me from the womb?" - why did You not put me to death before I emerged from my mother's womb? If this refers to the World to Come, everything is understandable: there, life is eternal and free of suffering. But in this world, the term "life" alone is not sufficient to convey reward.
To this, the Radak answers that this is not a difficulty, for the text speaks concisely, and all the goodness of this world is encompassed within the term "life." This is just as it is stated regarding the observance of the statutes and ordinances, "which a man shall do and live by them" - a life worthy of being called life: a life of health, success, abundance, and blessing. Therefore, there is no need to detail rain, sustenance, and all other blessings, for everything is included under the heading of "life."
And although Rav Saadia Gaon's approach finds support in the Targum, which renders "and live by them" as "and live through them unto the life of the World to Come," that was said regarding the verse in the Torah. Here, however, the prophet addresses this specific generation, who argued, "We are suffering here and have no life." They were therefore answered in their own terms: one who fulfills the will of Hashem will have life here in this world.
Proof for this principle comes from Adam HaRishon: The Holy One, blessed be He, told him, "For on the day that you eat of it, you shall surely die," mentioning death alone. Yet afterward, we find that additional curses were placed upon him: "Cursed is the ground because of you," "in sorrow shall you eat of it," "thorns and thistles shall it bring forth to you," and "by the sweat of your brow shall you eat bread." From where did all these arise, given that he was not warned of them explicitly in advance? From this we see the principle: the term "life" encompasses all manners of blessing, and the term "you shall die" encompasses all manners of curse.
Similarly, it is said: "I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse... therefore choose life, that you and your descendants may live." The blessing and curse follow naturally, for when a person chooses life, it is a life of blessing and success. For life accompanied by success and goodness is what is truly called life, whereas a life steeped in misfortune is considered a form of death. Proof of this comes from the words of Chazal: a poor person is considered as dead, a blind person is considered as dead, a metzora is considered as dead - they are physically alive, yet life in such a state is viewed as a form of death. Likewise, of someone who succeeds in his endeavors it is said, "Ko lechai" (may it be so for life), while regarding one afflicted with physical affliction it is said, "Let her not be as one dead."
הֵן כׇּל הַנְּפָשׁוֹת לִי הֵנָּה כְּנֶפֶשׁ הָאָב וּכְנֶפֶשׁ הַבֵּן לִי הֵנָּה הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַחֹטֵאת הִיא תָמוּת׃ - "Behold, all souls are Mine; as the soul of the father, so too the soul of the son is Mine: the soul that sins, it shall die."
At first glance, this would seem to provide proof for Rav Saadia Gaon: after all, the verse speaks of the death of the soul, and what death of the soul is there other than regarding the World to Come? For does the soul not continue to exist even after the body dies? However, the meaning of "the soul that sins" refers to the soul that sins together with the body, the soul of physical desire; when the body is punished, it is punished along with it, and this is its "death." When a person suffers in this world, his body and soul suffer together, and all the pain and affliction here are the death of the soul just as they are the death of the body. Indeed, several prophets during their lifetimes wished for their own death, as we find with Iyov.
וְהוֹלִיד בֵּן פָּרִיץ שֹׁפֵךְ דָּם וְעָשָׂה אָח מֵאַחַד מֵאֵלֶּה׃ - "If he begets a violent son, a shedder of blood, who does to a brother any of these things..."
That righteous man fathered a violent son. "A paritz" - one who breaches (poretz) the boundary of truth, and in the words of the Radak: a person who is wanton and unrestrained in his deeds. Not only that, but he is also a shedder of blood. The commentators differ in explaining the phrase "and does ach from one of these": Rashi cites Targum Yonatan, "and does to his brother one of these," meaning he inflicted one of these evil deeds upon his brother. The Radak explains that "ach" is equivalent to "achat" (one), an abbreviated form (in the manner of "ani" and "anochi"), as if to say "and does one of any of these" - he committed one of the transgressions mentioned above.
The Malbim explains that "ach" here is literally a biological brother: the righteous man fathered a violent son, and also fathered a brother who performed some of these - from the good deeds listed above regarding the righteous father. The result is that the violent son learned neither from his righteous father nor from his righteous brother. The Malbim's reasoning is that until now the passage dealt with the righteous man - "and has kept My ordinances to deal truly, he is righteous, he shall surely live" - and therefore it stands to reason that "one of these" refers to the righteous deeds. According to the other interpretations, "from one of these" refers back to the wicked deeds listed earlier, but that is difficult to reconcile with the flow of the text here.
וְהוּא אֶת כׇּל אֵלֶּה לֹא עָשָׂה כִּי גַם אֶל הֶהָרִים אָכַל וְאֶת אֵשֶׁת רֵעֵהוּ טִמֵּא׃ - "And he did not do any of these, but has also eaten upon the mountains, and defiled his neighbor's wife."
All the positive actions that his father performed actively - executing true justice, giving his bread to the hungry - he did not do. Not only that, but he actively transgressed negative prohibitions: "has eaten upon the mountains" - he went and ate from the sacrifices of idolatry, "and defiled his neighbor's wife."
עָנִי וְאֶבְיוֹן הוֹנָה גְּזֵלוֹת גָּזָל חֲבֹל לֹא יָשִׁיב וְאֶל הַגִּלּוּלִים נָשָׂא עֵינָיו תּוֹעֵבָה עָשָׂה׃ - "He has wronged the poor and needy, committed robbery, has not restored the pledge, and has lifted up his eyes to the idols, committed abomination."
Why does it say specifically, "He has wronged the poor and needy"? Does he not swindle the wealthy? After all, only pennies can be extracted from a poor person, while defrauding a massive corporation yields billions. Rather, Scripture speaks of common reality, as the Radak notes: in ordinary life, it is far easier to exploit the poor and needy. Before entering into a transaction, a wealthy person has advisors and financial experts vetting everything, and he himself is well-versed in these matters. But the poor and destitute person has no support system and possesses no financial acumen.
And so it is in our day as well: go and see who they sell land to that might only theoretically be rezoned and upon which something might perhaps one day be built - to kollel scholars from Bnei Brak. They tell them: you will marry off your children with this, though perhaps only great-grandchildren will live to see it. All the con artists specifically target the poor and destitute, those who are not sharp in business affairs and for whom this is unfamiliar territory. They make them promises of easy riches, stock windfalls, and can't-miss investments, claiming only the first twenty buyers will get in. It is precisely those whose financial situation is dire and who lack commercial experience who are duped.
And another reason: he is not afraid to defraud them, because a wealthy person has the power to sue him, stand against him in court, and recover his money from him. But the poor and needy person has no strength to stand against him, and does not even have the means to pay the court fee - and therefore, the wrongdoer is not concerned about him.
Ona'ah (fraud), as we noted, refers to taking the money of others through business dealings and deceit, as in the verses, "You shall not wrong one another," and "Do not wrong your brother." "He committed robbery, did not return a pledge" - he does not return the collateral. "And lifted his eyes to the idols" - in the sense of looking up to them with reverence, as in "the rulers of my people" and "I have profaned your sanctuaries."
And in explaining "committed an abomination," there are three approaches: the Radak explains that he approached a menstruant woman (niddah), which is the opposite of what was said above regarding the righteous man, "and did not approach a menstruant woman." Rashi explains it as male homosexual relations. And the Malbim, as we will see in the next verse, explains that "committed an abomination" refers to adultery with a married woman, which was also mentioned above regarding the righteous man who refrained from it, and now this son has stumbled in it.
בַּנֶּשֶׁךְ נָתַן וְתַרְבִּית לָקַח וָחָי לֹא יִחְיֶה אֵת כׇּל הַתּוֹעֵבוֹת הָאֵלֶּה עָשָׂה מוֹת יוּמָת דָּמָיו בּוֹ יִהְיֶה׃ - "He lent on interest and took accrued interest; shall he live? He shall not live! He has committed all these abominations; he shall surely be put to death, his blood shall be upon him."
"Shall he live?" - Do you think he will live? "His blood shall be upon him" - his blood is on his own head for everything he has done. And the Malbim explains what the premise might have been to think that he would live: after all, his father was righteous, and let us not forget that this corrupt son is the son of the righteous man we saw in the preceding verses. Could you imagine that after all the evil deeds and sins, the merit of his father would stand by him? That his father's merits would protect him even though he provoked God and acted contrary to the Creator's will? The merit of the fathers will not stand for him.
Therefore, there is a duality here: "He shall not live" - referring to the life of the soul in the World to Come; "he shall surely be put to death, his blood shall be upon him" - in this world as well. "His blood shall be upon him" - for through the deeds he performed, he incurred the death penalty: if he committed adultery with a married woman, he is liable to strangulation; if he worshipped idols, he is likewise liable to execution, and so forth - and he will certainly not live.
וְהִנֵּה הוֹלִיד בֵּן וַיַּרְא אֶת כׇּל חַטֹּאת אָבִיו אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה וַיִּרְאֶה וְלֹא יַעֲשֶׂה כָּהֵן׃ - "And behold, he fathered a son, and he saw all his father's sins that he had committed; he saw and did not do like them."
The story does not end here: there was a father, there was a son, and now we move to the grandson. The wicked man's son saw his father's sins and did not learn from his deeds. On the contrary - he saw how corrupt and ruinous his father's path was, and made a resolution: "and did not do like them," he would not act like his father.
And why the repetition, "vayar [and he saw]... ve-yireh [and he saw]"? The Malbim explains: the first is sensory vision, while the second is intellectual perception. And do not be surprised by this, for we find it in several places: "He lifted his eyes and looked, and behold, three men were standing before him... and he saw" - the first seeing was physical, that he noticed them, while the second was the understanding of what they needed and what he had to do for them. Similarly, "And the kohen shall look at the affliction... and the kohen shall see it" - the first seeing is with the eyes, while the second seeing is contemplation on how to rule regarding this affliction. So too, "See the land... and you shall see it" - physical vision and contemplative vision. Here as well: "He saw all his father's sins" with his eyes; "and he saw" - he understood the evil inherent in these sins, which is the perception of the soul, and as a result, "did not do like them."
עַל הֶהָרִים לֹא אָכָל וְעֵינָיו לֹא נָשָׂא אֶל גִּלּוּלֵי בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת אֵשֶׁת רֵעֵהוּ לֹא טִמֵּא׃ - He has not eaten upon the mountains, nor lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, nor defiled his neighbor's wife.
The Radak notes: "Upon [al] the mountains" - this is the only place where it says "al", whereas in all the rest it says "el" [to/at], yet the meaning and intent are the same. And all these matters are just as they were stated above concerning the righteous man, who is the grandfather.
וְאִישׁ לֹא הוֹנָה חֲבֹל לֹא חָבָל וּגְזֵלָה לֹא גָזָל לַחְמוֹ לְרָעֵב נָתָן וְעֵרוֹם כִּסָּה בָגֶד׃ - He has wronged no man, has not taken a pledge, nor committed robbery, has given his bread to the hungry and covered the naked with a garment.
"Has not taken a pledge" - as we explained regarding taking collateral. "Has given his bread to the hungry and covered the naked with a garment," just as we saw above - his deeds mirrored those of his righteous grandfather.
מֵעָנִי הֵשִׁיב יָדוֹ נֶשֶׁךְ וְתַרְבִּית לֹא לָקָח מִשְׁפָּטַי עָשָׂה בְּחֻקּוֹתַי הָלָךְ הוּא לֹא יָמוּת בַּעֲוֹן אָבִיו חָיֹה יִחְיֶה׃ - He has withdrawn his hand from the poor, has not taken interest or increase, has executed My ordinances, has walked in My statutes; he shall not die for the iniquity of his father, he shall surely live.
"He has withdrawn his hand from the poor" - he held back his hand from doing harm to the poor person. And why is this counted as praise? The Metzudos explains: because it is easy to harm a poor person, as we saw earlier, and consequently there is great temptation to do so - therefore, the verse praises him for restraining his hand from the poor person and doing him no harm. "He shall not die for the iniquity of his father, he shall surely live" - and this dual phrasing refers to both physical life and the life of the soul: "he shall not die for the iniquity of his father" means that his physical body will endure, while "he shall surely live" refers to the life of the soul. Thus, this person too does not pay for his father's sins.
In simple terms, what have we learned so far? That the wicked son does not live on account of the merit of his righteous father, and the son of the wicked man - who is the grandson - does not die for the iniquity of his wicked father.
אָבִיו כִּי עָשַׁק עֹשֶׁק גָּזַל גֵּזֶל אָח וַאֲשֶׁר לֹא טוֹב עָשָׂה בְּתוֹךְ עַמָּיו וְהִנֵּה מֵת בַּעֲוֹנוֹ׃ - As for his father, because he cruelly oppressed, robbed his brother, and did that which is not good among his people, behold, he shall die in his iniquity.
"Robbed his brother" - did he not rob other people? Rather, all of Israel are brothers, as the Radak phrases it, citing the verse "until your brother seeks it," and Targum Yonasan translates: "he stole from one of his brothers" - meaning, from a fellow Jew.
"And did that which is not good among his people" - after all the severe sins we enumerated, that he worshipped idols, defiled his neighbor's wife, approached a niddah, committed homosexual acts, and all the other transgressions, is this the description? The Radak explains: it is as if the verse said, "and did evil among his people." It is the way of the language to say "not good" instead of "evil," as in "he sets himself in a way that is not good," and "false scales are not good" - yet everyone understands that false scales are not merely "not good," but rather a great wickedness. Similarly, "that is not clean," "who is not clean" - one who is not tahor means tamei (ritually impure). Yet the Torah employs a refined expression.
A Jew once came to the Chazon Ish and said about a certain individual - who was wicked and whom it was permissible to speak ill of - "Rabbi, he is a liar." The Chazon Ish did not rebuke him on the grounds of lashon hara; instead, he told him: "That is not how one phrases it." The man asked him: "And what should one say?" He replied: "One should say, 'he does not speak the truth.'" The Chazon Ish possessed tremendous refinement of soul, and therefore he was always meticulous never to speak with harsh expressions. Language is the pen of the heart: when you hear someone expressing themselves with harsh words, it testifies to something inside. Therefore, even when a person needs to speak about something that is not good, he should always express himself gently and in dignified language, not in a harsh or coarse manner.
Once, someone came to the Chazon Ish with a proclamation regarding a breach in modesty, asking him to sign it. In proclamations of this nature, great caution is required, for one wishes to state what to avoid, yet one must be careful not to use graphic descriptions that might actually cause even greater harm. The Chazon Ish looked at it and told him: Even about modesty, one must speak modestly. Your wording itself is flawed in the realm of modesty. And so it is here: even though what he did was dreadful, Scripture expresses itself delicately - "and did that which is not good among his people."
And what is meant by "among his people"? Radak explains that this is part of the sin, that he did it publicly and openly. Therefore, it is fitting that he alone bear his sin. And the Malbim explains that from this very phrasing, justice dictates that the son should not bear his father's iniquity: for "behold, he died in his iniquity" - he has already paid his debt and received his punishment, so why should the son be punished for the father's sin? As for "and did that which is not good," the Malbim explains that even when he occasionally did good, it was done with evil intent - and this is "that which is not good": what appeared to you as good, know that it was not good, for its objective was negative. Or, in an alternative explanation, as we saw earlier, he did no good whatsoever.
וַאֲמַרְתֶּם מַדֻּעַ לֹא נָשָׂא הַבֵּן בַּעֲוֹן הָאָב וְהַבֵּן מִשְׁפָּט וּצְדָקָה עָשָׂה אֵת כׇּל חֻקּוֹתַי שָׁמַר וַיַּעֲשֶׂה אֹתָם חָיֹה יִחְיֶה׃ - Yet you say: "Why does the son not bear the iniquity of the father?" When the son has done justice and righteousness, and has kept all My statutes and performed them, he shall surely live.
What was their claim? Radak explains: When I tell you that this is My conduct, you reply to Me - the reality before our eyes proves the opposite. Behold, our fathers sinned and are no more, and we bear their iniquities; so the son does bear the father's iniquity! To this the prophet replies: Could such a thing possibly be? If the son practiced justice and righteousness, and kept all My statutes and performed them, why should he bear his father's iniquity? He shall surely live! And if you argue that reality proves otherwise, that we are suffering for our fathers' sins - you are mistaken: you are bearing both your own iniquities and the iniquities of your fathers, for He "visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, to those who hate Me." Since you continue in the evil path of your fathers, you suffer both for their deeds and for your own deeds, and Hashem repays those who hate Him to the third generation when they grasp the deeds of their fathers in their hands.
The Malbim explains their claim according to what we saw earlier: they argued that in nature, physical ailments and traits are inherited from father to son, and therefore it is logical that here too the son should bear the father's iniquity. Hashem answers them: This is not My way. The son practiced justice and righteousness, and therefore it is fitting that he shall surely live. And if you say that nature shows otherwise - that applies only to physical matters, not to matters of the soul. As explained above, the discussion concerns the soul, and the Holy One, blessed be He, says: I am the Creator of the soul, and it has no connection to whatever evil his father committed. In matters of the soul, each individual gives an accounting for his own actions.
הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַחֹטֵאת הִיא תָמוּת בֵּן לֹא יִשָּׂא בַּעֲוֹן הָאָב וְאָב לֹא יִשָּׂא בַּעֲוֹן הַבֵּן צִדְקַת הַצַּדִּיק עָלָיו תִּהְיֶה וְרִשְׁעַת הָרָשָׁע עָלָיו תִּהְיֶה׃ - The soul that sins, it shall die; a son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, nor shall a father 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.
Know this: the soul that sins, it shall die. Family relation is of no avail, neither with the father nor with the son, neither for merit nor for liability, and each person will settle his own account. And in the example described - a righteous grandfather, a wicked son, and a righteous grandson - he says: no one here will pay for another's account.
First: just as the father - meaning the grandfather - is not punished for the wickedness of his son, so too the son - meaning the grandson - will not be punished for the wickedness of his father. Neither is the grandfather punished on account of the middle generation, nor is the grandson punished on account of the middle generation; rather, each has his own reckoning. This is "a son shall not bear the iniquity of the father" - the grandson will not bear the iniquity of the middle generation; "nor shall a father bear the iniquity of the son" - the grandfather will not bear the iniquity of the middle generation. In short: the wicked middle link has no effect on his father, on his grandfather, nor on his son.
Second: just as the righteousness of the righteous father did not benefit the wicked son who is the middle link, so the wickedness of that wicked middle link will not harm his righteous son who is the grandson. This is "the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him" - upon him and not upon his son, for having a righteous father will not avail you at all; "and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him" - and it will not harm the grandson at all, since he is righteous. It turns out that the righteous - the grandfather and the grandson - do not influence the wicked person to bring him good, nor are they harmed in any way on his account. Neither this nor that.
וְהָרָשָׁע כִּי יָשׁוּב מִכׇּל חַטֹּאתָו אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה וְשָׁמַר אֶת כׇּל חֻקּוֹתַי וְעָשָׂה מִשְׁפָּט וּצְדָקָה חָיֹה יִחְיֶה לֹא יָמוּת׃ - "And if the wicked person turns away from all his sins that he committed, and observes all My statutes, and practices justice and righteousness, he shall surely live; he shall not die."
Here the prophet shifts to speaking about a single individual. Until now, we discussed alternating individuals - grandfather, son, and grandson - but from now on, it deals with the very same person who experiences two states: a state where he was wicked, and a state where he repented. "And observes all My statutes" - meaning that he was careful regarding negative commandments, expressed in terms of "beware," "lest," and "do not"; "and practices justice and righteousness" - that he fulfilled positive commandments. And since he corrected his deeds and repented, "he shall surely live" the life of the soul, "he shall not die" the death of the body.
כׇּל פְּשָׁעָיו אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה לֹא יִזָּכְרוּ לוֹ בְּצִדְקָתוֹ אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה יִחְיֶה׃ - "None of his transgressions that he committed will be remembered against him; through the righteousness that he practiced, he shall live."
All the transgressions of this baal teshuvah will not be remembered against him, for in the righteous deeds he has now performed - in them he shall live.
הֶחָפֹץ אֶחְפֹּץ מוֹת רָשָׁע נְאֻם אֲדֹנָי יְהוִה הֲלוֹא בְּשׁוּבוֹ מִדְּרָכָיו וְחָיָה׃ - "Do I at all desire the death of the wicked? says the Lord Hashem; is it not rather in his returning from his ways, that he may live?"
And here a question arises: Is there a change in the Creator's will here? After all, death was already decreed upon him, so how can his sentence be altered from death to life? To this Hashem answers: "Do I at all desire the death of the wicked?" From the very outset, My desire was not for his death; from the very outset, My desire was that he turn from his ways and live. Thus, My primary will was always that he live, and My will has not changed at all. And what seemed to you as a decree of death - even at that moment, that was not My true will; rather, My will was that he live. We will see further that people struggled and wrestled with this question, and a more detailed answer to it will follow later in the chapter.
We learned that the terms "life" and "death" in this chapter encompass all blessing and all curse, and in accordance with the opinion of Radak, these words were stated as a reply to the generation's claim regarding their suffering in this world, unlike the view of Rav Saadia Gaon that the entire chapter refers to the World to Come. And in the body of the chapter, the prophet laid out three generations before us: a righteous man who fathered an unruly son, and that son who fathered a righteous son, to teach that the merit of the father does not protect the wicked son, and the iniquity of the father does not condemn the righteous son - "the soul that sins, it shall die." Along the way, we learned a great moral lesson: that swindlers target specifically the poor and destitute person who lacks understanding in commerce and lacks the power to demand his rights; therefore, it is a great virtue that "he withdrew his hand from the poor." And we learned from the phrase "and did that which is not good" the Torah's way of speaking in refined language, as was the manner of the Chazon Ish - "he is not telling the truth," and "one must also speak about modesty with modesty," for language is the quill of the heart. Finally, the opening of repentance was presented for that very same individual: none of his transgressions will be remembered against him, for the Holy One, Blessed is He, never desired the death of the wicked, but rather that he return from his ways and live.