This verse, found in the Ten Commandments, seems to conflict directly with the following verse in Devarim 24:16:

לֹא-יוּמְתוּ אָבוֹת עַל-בָּנִים, וּבָנִים לֹא-יוּמְתוּ עַל-אָבוֹת: אִישׁ בְּחֶטְאוֹ, יוּמָתוּ.

The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers; every man shall be put to death for his own sin.”

In her Studies in Devarim, Nechama cited the opinions of a number of commentators who tried to reconcile these two verses. The following are the three explanations on which she focused:

1) The verse in Devarim refers to human courts while the verse in Shemot refers to divine justice. (Rashbam, Ibn Caspi, Midrash Tannaim)

2) The verse in Devarim is addressed specifically to kings, warning them not to kill the children of their enemies. (Sforno)

3) The verse in Devarim refers to testimony – that children should not be put to death based on the testimony of their fathers, and vice versa. (Gemara Sanhedrin 27b)

While these commentaries resolve the conflict between the two verses and satisfactorily explain the verse in Devarim, they still leave us with a theological difficulty in our understanding of the verse in Shemot. Ralbag expressed the difficulty as follows:

איך יתכן שיעניש ה' ית' בני החוטא והנה אין להם אשם בחטאי אביהם?

How can it be that God would punish the children of sinners when they carry no guilt for the sins of their parents?

In her gilayon on Parashat Yitro in 5730, Nechama cited a number of Midrashic sources and classical commentaries that deal with this issue. We can divide their responses to this challenge into four categories:

The Legacy of Sin: Natural Consequences

Ralbag posits that the Torah does not mean that God would impose a punishment on the children of transgressors, but rather that the children would at times suffer the consequences of a punishment imposed upon the parent:

ואנחנו מתירים זה הספק בזה האופן בזה והוא, שהעונש יביא ה' על העוברים על דבריו....וכאשר יהיו אלה הרעות באופן שיגיע עליהם הרעות באופן שיגיע להם רע לזרעם ולא היה מגיע להם לולא חטא אבותיהם. והמשל: כאשר מרו אבותינו חויב להם מהעונש שיגלו בין האומות ויירשו גויים ארצם. והנה נמשך לזרעם אחריהם הגלות, בסיבת המצאם גולים בהולדם, עד שלא יתכן שימלטו מזה הרע.... ובזה האופן אמר הנביא (איכה ד') "אבותינו חטאו ואינם ואנחנו עוונותיהם סבלנו".... ובזה האופן לא יהיה עול אם יגיע לבנים עונש בעבור חטא האבות כי זהו במקרה.

And we solve the problem in the following manner: that God punishes only those who transgress His words…. in a manner that it might have a negative impact on the children, an impact that they would not have experienced were it not for the sins of the father. For example, when the fathers rebelled and were punished by being sent into exile among the nations, the exile continued for their children after them. Since they were born in exile, they could not escape this misfortune…. And so the prophet said (Eichah 4): “Our fathers have sinned and are no longer, and we suffer from their sins.” … In this way, it is not unjust if the children receive a punishment for the sins of their fathers, because it is coincidental.

Thus, in Ralbag's conception, the Torah is saying that God will not refrain from punishing the father in order to prevent collateral damage that might affect the innocent children.

Shadal also views the verse as referring to natural consequences, but in a different manner:

We can ourselves perceive how parents bequeath to their children both good and bad traits, the father's conduct being a necessary cause of good or evil in his children. This process constitutes one of the secrets of hidden providence that God made that they should fear Him. For every father loves his children and the concern lest his bad example should bring evil upon his sons acts as a deterrent …

For indeed there is nothing accidental in life, but everything has a cause hearkening back to the First Cause. Just as God instituted the natural law that the iniquities of the father bring evil on his descendants in order to deter man from evil and guide him on the right path, so He stated that He visits the iniquities of the fathers on the children as if He does this through vengeance and anger, when really nothing happens except in the form of a natural consequence.

Thus, Shadal (Bikkurei Ittim Hechadash) claims that God does not impose a punishment on the children of transgressors. Rather, the impact on the children is a natural consequence. This consequence, however, is not by chance, as Ralbag claimed, but is rather a fact of natural law. Therefore, the verse in Shemot comes as a deterrent to warn parents not to transgress at the expense of their children.

Like Father Like Son: A Limited Application

The Gemara, Berachot 7a, cites an opinion that the verse in Shemot should be understood in its simple sense. However, the Gemara limits the application to specific instances in which the children follow in the footsteps of their parents:

אמר מר: צדיק וטוב לו-צדיק בן צדיק. צדיק ורע לו-צדיק בן רשע. איני (=אם כך הוא) והוא כתיב "פוקד עוון אבות על בנים" וכתיב (דברים כ"ד) "ובנים לא יומתו על אבות". ורמי קראי אהדדי? ומשנינן: לא קשיא: הא כשאוחזין מעשה אבותיהם בידיהם, הא כשאין אוחזים מעשה אבותיהם בידיהם.

The master said: a righteous person for whom it is good is a righteous person who is the son of a righteous person. A righteous person for whom life is bad is a righteous person who is the son of a wicked person. Is it so? It is written “visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children,” and it is written (Devarim 24): “neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers.” Are the verses contradictory? We can answer: They are not difficult – this [the first verse] is when the children follow the behavior of the parents, and this [the verse in Devarim] is when they don't follow the behavior of their parents.

Thus, only when the child takes on the behaviors of the father does the verse in Shemot apply. This explanation coincides to a certain extent with Shadal's concept, but does not see it as a natural consequence. It is rather a possible consequence that results in God punishing the children whose personalities and values systems are affected by their parents' behavior. This interpretation is supported by Regev in his commentary on Bikkurei Ittim Hechadash:

אחשוב כי על כל פנים הבנים עצמם הם החוטאים, ולכן בצדק יפקוד האל עליהם העונות שעשו הם עצמם, אכן קרא לעונם בשם "עוון אבות" לפי שהכתוב מדבר בעון שלמדו הבנים מאבותיהם...

I think that, in any case, the children themselves are the transgressors, and it [the verse] therefore refers just to visiting upon them the sins that they themselves committed. The reason that the verse referred to their sins as the “sins of the fathers” is because it speaks of sins that the children learned to do from their fathers…

Regev translates the phrase “avon avot” (lit. “the sins of the fathers) as the sins that the children learned from the fathers rather than the sins that the fathers committed.

Reserving Judgment: Redemption Through Children

We find a radically different explanation in the Mechilta of R. Shimon Bar Yochai:

ר' יהודה אומר: כונס אני עונותיכם לידי ותולה עד ארבעה דורות ...

R. Yehudah says: I [God] take your sins in my hand and suspend them for four generations …

In R. Yehudah's conception, not only are the children not punished for the sins of the parents, but they can actually redeem their parents through proper behavior. The punishment of the wicked person is suspended. If his descendants are meritorious, his punishment is subsequently cancelled. R. Yehudah's interpretation is expanded upon in Midrash Hashkem:

ומנין שהצלת גדולים עד ארבעה דורות? שני "פוקד עוון אבות על בנים על שלשים ועל רבעים". אין אחד יכול לומר, שאם היה האב רשע והבנים צדיקים שהוא פוקד רשעת האב עליהם, שאין זו מידת הדין. ואין אתה יכול לומר, שהוא נתפס בחובו, שאין זו מידת הרחמים.

ואיזו מידת הרחמים? תולה לאב עד ארבעה דורות, אם נמצא אחד מהם צדיק- הרי האב ניצול. לא נמצא אחד מהם צדיק- כל אחד נתפס על מעשיו.

שמא תאמר "פוקד עוון אבות על בנים" לשון קצף הוא, צד ולמד מי"ג מידות (שמות ל"ד ו'-ז') "ה' ה' אל רחום וחנון וגו עוון אבות על בנים", אף כשהוא אומר "פוקד עוון אבות על בנים" לשון רחמים הוא, שאם יהיה אחד מהדור צדיק הוא מצילם...

ועוד : משה רבנו בשעה שבא לבקש רחמים מהו אומר? (במדבר י"ד) "ועתה יגדל נא כח ה' כאשר דברת ה' כאשר דברת ה' ארך אפים...פוקד עוון אבות על בנים"- ואילו היה לשון קצף- לא היה אומר זה.

How do we know that adults are saved for four generations? We learned: “visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children.” You cannot say that if the father is evil and the sons are righteous, He visits the evil of the parents on them, for that would not be the attribute of justice. And you cannot say that he is taken to task for his sin, as that would not be the attribute of mercy. And what is the attribute of mercy? The [sin of] the father is suspended for four generations – if one of the offspring is righteous, the father is saved, but if none of the offspring are righteous, each one is taken to task for his sins.

Lest you say that “visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children” is a language of “anger”, learn from the 13 attributes of mercy (Shemot 34:6-7): “'The Lord, the Lord, God, merciful and gracious, etc. … visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children.” Even when it says “visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children” it is the language of mercy – that if one person in the family line is righteous, he saves them.

In addition, When Moshe came to ask forgiveness [for Bnei Yisrael], what did he say? “And now, I pray Thee, let the power of the Lord be great, according as Thou hast spoken, saying: The Lord is slow to anger, …visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children.” If this was a language of anger, he would not have said this.

Although the interpretation of R. Yehudah seems far from the simple meaning of the text, Midrash Hashkem points out that the phrase “visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children” appears in the Torah twice in the context of the attributes of mercy. As such, there is an internal consistency in the use of the term that would support R. Yehudah's explanation.

A Change of Heart

Bamidbar Rabbah 19:33 provides a fascinating alternative resolution of the two verses in Shemot and Devarim. The Midrash claims there are three instances in which Moshe succeeded in changing God's mind. The second incident relates to our verses:

השניה: כשאמר לו הקב"ה "פוקד עוון אבות על בנים", אמר משה: "ריבונו של עולם! כמה רשעים הולידו צדיקים, יהיו נוטלים מעוונות אביהם?! תרח עובד צלמים ואברהם בנו צדיק, וכן חזקיה צדיק ואחז אביו רשע. וכן יאשיהו- צדיק ואמון אביו רשע. וכך נאה- שיהיו הצדיקים לוקין בעוון אביהם? אמר לו הקב"ה: "למדתני! חייך שאני מבטל דברי ומקיים דבריך, שנאמר (דברים כ"ד) "לא יומתו אבות על בנים ובנים לא יומתו על אבות", וחייך שאני כותבת לשמך, שנאמר (מלכים ב' י"ד ו') "ככתוב בספר תורת משה אשר צווה ה'".

The second instance: When God said to him “visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children”, Moshe responded: “Master of the Universe! How many evil people gave birth to righteous people – should they take the sins of their fathers?! Terach worshipped statues and Avraham his son was righteous. Similarly, Chizkiyahu was righteous and his father Achaz was evil. And so too, Yoshiyahu was righteous and Amon his father was evil. Is it right that the righteous should be punished because of the sins of their fathers?” God responded: “You have taught me! As you live, I am nullifying my words and establishing your words, as it says (Devarim 24): ‘neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers.' And as you live, I am writing it in your name, as it says (Melachim II 14:6): ‘As it is written in the Torah of Moshe which God commanded.”

This scenario presents the two verses as part of a dialogue in which Moshe convinces God to cancel the verse in Shemot in favor of the verse in Devarim.

Conclusion

All of the interpretations that we have examined have one thing in common – they all contend that God does not impose a punishment on innocent children because of the sins of their parents. Thus, the verse in Devarim expresses the general principle that only one who transgresses is punished. The Midrash in Bamidbar Rabbah contends that the verse in Devarim supercedes and essentially nullifies the verse in Shemot. According to Gemara Berachot and Regev, the verse in Shemot reinforces this idea found in the verse in Devarim by limiting the punishment to children who follow in the footsteps of the father. Embedded in their explanations, as well as in the interpretations of Ralbag and Shadal, is that the verse in Shemot contains a strong message warning parents that their negative behavior can have a significant impact on their children. The Mechilta of R. Shimon Bar Yochai and Midrash Hashkem, on the other hand, contend that the two verses reflect different attributes of God the verse in Devarim reflects the attribute of justice while the verse in Shemot reflects the attribute of mercy.