Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Vadim Cherny" <VadimCherny AT mail.ru>]

People discern individuals only inside their group of neighbors, but deal
with other groups as corporate bodies. At 9/11, guerrillas did not think,
"oops, some of these guys voted against supporting Israel, so we must
somehow spare them." Neither the American administration could possibly
spare Iraqis who genuinely hated Saddam.
The commandment of individual responsibility applies only to neighbors. Many
other commandments apply only to neighbors, as well. Consider that, You will
not murder, and You will not steal, are not qualified by object, but
applicable to anyone. You will not covet, however, applies only to
neighbors. Extremely evil actions are prohibited toward everyone, while
expanded ethics applies only to neighbors. So, the commandment of fathers
and sons is simply irrelevant to Amalek.
As for Saul's children, every revolution treated the royal family as a
single corporate body.
Actually, you ignore more important case: a doctrine that a sin of
individual Israelite defiles the community. This is also a matter of
corporate responsibility: Jews are a single body before God, and their
failure to expunge crime from their midst is a crime in itself.
Royal house had the same kind of responsibility of controlling Saul as
Iraqis had of controlling Saddam. In both cases, the affected outsiders
didn't care that the control could not be efficient.
The example of Saul's children does not show violation of the commandment of
individual responsibility, but demonstrates a totally different concept of
corporate responsibility.

Vadim Cherny



> However in neither case, 1 Sam 15 and 2 Sam 21, is there any suggestion
that those who died had anything at all to do with the crimes in quesiton.
>
> Certainly none of the Ameleq alive at the time of Moses was alive when
Saul was alive.  2 Sam 21 does not even hint that Saul's sons, much less
grandsons, had anything to do with the crimes of Saul against the
Gibeonites.
>
> While the corporate may get punished, it is the individual in each case
who actually suffers.
>
> > I can't see where we agree. Children are not responsible for the
parents.
> > When, however, they implicitly acted together, they are punished
together.
> > Saul's children were the members of atrocious government. His maternal
> > relatives were not killed. The vengeance was surely there, and political
> > considerations, too - but they they did not contradict the notion of
> > individual responsibility. The difference here is that the individual is
not
> > human, but corporate.
> >
> > Vadim Cherny
> >
> > > I don't see that we are disagreeing.   Individuals of a
> > > later generation who had nothing to do with the initial
> > > crime, suffer the ultimate consequences of that crime.  The
> > > text of 2 Sam 21 do explicitly or implicitly state that the
> > > seven decendents of Saul had anything to do with his
> > > crimes.  The sins of the father are visited upon the sons
> > > and grandsons.  We are agreeing.
> > >
> > >
> > > > I tend to disregard numerous rationalizations of human
> > > actions by divine
> > > > will contained in Tanakh, but that's not the point.
> > > > Here it goes about the wicked house of Saul. David was
> > > right to exterminate
> > > > the house to eliminate future claims. Saul did not commit
> > > the crime alone,
> > > > like common murderer. Rather, the crime was committed by
> > > royal
> > > > establishment, a corporate body. This establishment had
> > > to be eliminated in
> > > > full. Relatives of Saul were eliminated not because they
> > > were his
> > > > descendants, but because they were members of royal
> > > house, a body that
> > > > committed the crime.
> > > > Israelites suffered famine not for Saul's crime, but for
> > > failure to purify
> > > > their community of that crime by timely killing his
> > > relatives.
> > > >
> > > > Vadim Cherny
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > The text I read is this, in English (ASV) and Hebrew:
> > > > >
> > > > > Now there was a famine in the days of David for three
> > > > > years, year after year; and David sought the presence
> > > of
> > > > > the LORD. And the LORD said, "It is for Saul and his
> > > bloody
> > > > > house, because * he put the Gibeonites to death."
> > > > >
> > > > > $eQbyw hn$ yerx) hn$ eyn$ $l$ dwd yemyB b(r yhyw
> > > > > lW)$-l) hwhy rm)Yw hwhy yenP-t) dwD
> > > > > . eyn(bGh tymeh-r$)-l( eymDh tyeB
> > > > >
> > > > > It would seem that there was a famine (drought?) in
> > > Isreal.
> > > > > David asked Yahweh why there was such a long famine.
> > > > > Yahweh answered that the famine was brought on my
> > > Saul's
> > > > > crimes against the Gibeonites.  It is the Isrealites
> > > > > (probably the Gibeonites as well) who are suffering
> > > from
> > > > > the famine which was the result of Saul's crimes.  Saul
> > > is
> > > > > of course dead at this point.  David kills Saul's two
> > > sons
> > > > > and five grandsons both to appease the Gibeonites and
> > > > > Yahweh.  This seemed to have been effective as it says
> > > at
> > > > > the end of 2 Sam 21:14.
> > > > >
> > > > > and after that God was moved by prayer for the land.
> > > > >
> > > > > aek-yerx) ur)l eyhl) ret(eYwjlMh hWc-r$) lK
> > > > >
> > > > > Once more, I do not mean to offend anyone but the story
> > > > > seems quite transparent.  Saul commits a crime.  There
> > > is a
> > > > > famine as a result of that crime (causing much
> > > suffering no
> > > > > doubt).  The children and grandchildren of the criminal
> > > are
> > > > > killed.  The crime is avanged and the famine is lifted.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Jack Tladatsi
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Jack Tladatsi
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
> Jack Tladatsi
>
>