Philosophy:Collective Punishment/2

Collective Punishment

Exegetical Approaches

This topic is currently in progress

Only the Sinners are Punished

Hashem only punishes the deserving and does not collectively punish anyone for someone else's crime.

Sources:Bavli SanhedrinSanhedrin 108aAbout the Bavli, Bereshit Rabbah28:8About Bereshit Rabbah, TanchumaNoach 5Korach 7About the Tanchuma, Tanchuma (Buber)Noach 18About the Tanchuma, RashiBereshit 6:7Bereshit 6:12Bereshit 19:4Shemot 11:5Shemot 12:29Shemot 32:35Bemidbar 16:22About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki, R Yosef Bekhor ShorBereshit 6:9,12-13Bemidbar 14:29Bemidbar 16:19, 22About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor

Divine justice? This position is motivated by the understanding that justice demands that each person be punished for their own sins and not those of another.

Individual providence? This approach must maintain that Hashem watches over every being individually, and knows each of their actions so He can reward and punish each according to their deeds.

Reward and punishment – According to this position recompense comes to a person both in this world and in the World to Come.

Biblical cases of collective punishment – These commentators try to explain away all the cases in Tanakh where there seems to be collective punishment by suggesting that in each instance the people who suffered were in fact guilty:

• The flood – According to most of these sources, the entire world was destroyed in the flood because, with the exception of Noach, everyone, animals included, had sinned.¹ As support, they point to the verse, "כִּי הִשְׁחִית כׇּל בָּשָׂר אֶת דַּרְכּוֹ עַל הָאָרֶץ" understanding בָּשָׂר to refer to animals and not just people.²
• Sedom – Rashi points out that the text specifies that "כָּל הָעָם מִקָּצֶה" surrounded Lot's house, proving that there was not even one righteous man among them.³ R"Y Bekhor Shor adds that had there been, Hashem would have saved them individually;⁴ Avraham's complaint, "הַאַף תִּסְפֶּה צַדִּיק עִם רָשָׁע" was based on an erroneous understanding of Hashem's plan.⁵ 
• Plague of first borns – Rashi explains that even the firstborns of maidservants and captives were killed because they, too, had enslaved the Israelites and were happy in their sorrow.
• Sin of Golden Calf – According to Rashi, drawing off Bavli Yoma, Hashem plagued only those who were guilty of worshiping the calf but had escaped punishment by the Levites on technical grounds that they had not been warned beforehand.
• Sin of spies – R"Y Bekhor Shor explains that only those of age to enter the military were punished because they were the ones who complained, being afraid to fight the Canaanites.
• Moshe's discussion during Korach's rebellion – According to R. Yosef Bekhor Shor, Moshe mistakenly believed that Hashem planned to kill the innocent "congregation of Israel", but in fact Hashem had really referred to the guilty  "congregation of Korach" alone.  Rashi, in contrast, presents Hashem as originally planning to punish even the innocent, but when Moshe reminds Him that since he knows men's thoughts, there is no need for collective punishment, Hashem agrees. See Dialogue with the Divine During Korach's Rebellion for elaboration.

Biblical cases of vicarious punishment

• Akhan and death of the 36 – This approach could explain either that the 36 men were accomplices to Akhan, helping him to hide the booty or the like, or that they had sinned in some other capacity and were being punished for those crimes.

• Plague in time of David – As the story opens with the fact that "וַיֹּסֶף אַף י"י לַחֲרוֹת בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל", these sources can easily explain that the nation had done something unconnected to David's deeds which had incurred the wrath of Hashem, and it was for this that they were plagued.⁶

What about babies? As it is difficult to say that infants or toddlers should be culpable for any sin, this approach must explain their deaths/punishments as being of a different nature, related to the principle of "פֹּקֵד עֲוֹן אָבֹת עַל בָּנִים", that children at times are punished for the sins of their parents.⁷  For a variety of approaches to this principle see Are Children Punished for Parents' Sins?

Divine vs. human retribution – These sources do not address the general issue of humans punishing collectively, and could take either of the two positions below: 

• No collective punishment – These commentators might not differentiate between Divine and human retribution and assume that collective punishment is never allowed.  As such, to explain the actions of Shimon and Levi in Shekhem, this position would either posit that the brothers were simply wrong,⁸ or that the rest of the city were equally guilty of the crime.⁹  For elaboration and a discussion of the story, see Sin and Slaughter of Shekhem.

• Yes collective punishment – Alternatively, they might posit that, unlike Hashem, humans are not always certain who is guilty or innocent,¹⁰ and thus, at times, collective punishment is warranted.  This, though, would only be in cases where it is clear that the majority  are at fault.

Collective salvation

Slightly Guilty also Punished

When Hashem inflicts punishment, those who are totally innocent are never included.  However, individuals who condone the sinful act, or are culpable to even a small degree, might be included in the punishment of a worse sinner.

Sources:Bavli ShabbatShabbat 54b-55aAbout the Bavli, R. Yudan in Bemidbar Rabbah20:23About Bemidbar Rabbah, AbarbanelShemot 32Bemidbar 16Bemidbar 25:1About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel¹¹

Divine justice? This approach maintains that at times passivity itself is problematic. Not protesting another's actions turns the bystander into an accomplice who deserves punishment. All the more so if one participated even slightly in the crime.

Individual providence? This position would likely posit that there is individual providence and that Hashem looks at each individual's actions and thoughts to determine their guilt or innocence.

Biblical cases of collective punishment – According to this approach, in these cases those who suffer are guilty of either active participation (as in the position above) or of passive condoning of others' sins. Several examples follow:

• Sin of Golden Calf – Abarbanel asserts that the nation as a whole was punished because all were guilty, some because they did not protest and others because even if they did not actively worship the calf, they had negative thoughts.
• Korach's rebellion – Abarbanel similarly explains that Hashem was justified in wanting to destroy the entire nation during the rebellion since they all gathered to watch Korach without objecting to his actions, implying that they supported the rebellion. When Moshe argued with Hashem he was appealing to Hashem's mercy, not His justice.¹²
• Sin of Baal Peor – R. Yudin asserts that Hashem told Moshe to hang the leaders¹³ when the people sinned at Baal Peor because they did not rebuke or punish them for their wrongdoing.¹⁴
• Spies – This position would likely explain that the murmurings of the nation and their attempts to stone Kalev and Yehoshua proved that they agreed with the other spies' evaluation. Even if there were those who did not participate in these actions, no one but Kalev and Yehoshua were willing to stand up against the spies, and as such, all adults except them were condemned to death.
• Other cases – Other cases such as the flood or destruction of Sedom might be explained as in the position above, that all inhabitants who were not saved were actively sinful.

Biblical cases of vicarious punishment

• Akhan and death of the 36 – The Rif maintains that the 36 people died even though they personally did not touch the spoils because they did not watch to ensure that no one else did.

What about babies? This approach would have to explain that totally innocent children are sometimes punished for the sins of their parents due to the principle of "פֹּקֵד עֲוֹן אָבֹת עַל בָּנִים".

Divine vs. human retribution – Abarbanel claims that even within human modes of justice, it is fair to punish another for condoning crime.  Thus, he asserts that Shimon and Levi were justified in killing the Shekhemites who did not protest the taking of Dinah.

Collective salvation

Even the Innocent Punished

Sometimes Hashem collectively punishes the entire group and the innocent suffer together with the guilty.

Sources:R. Saadia GaonCommentary Bereshit 6Commentary Bereshit 18Commentary Shemot 30:11-15HaEmunot VeHaDeot 8HaEmunot VeHaDeot 9About R. Saadia Gaon, RalbagBereshit Beur HaParashah 6:1-4Vayikra 20:4-5Bemidbar 16 Toelet 6Bemidbar 16:32Devarim 13:16Yehoshua 7:1Yehoshua 5-8 Toelet 11About R. Levi b. Gershom, Akeidat YitzchakBemidbar #78 Question 10Bemidbar #78About R. Yitzchak Arama, AbarbanelShemot 32Devarim 4:15-24Yehoshua 7:4-5About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel, MalbimBemidbar 16:22Yehoshua 7:1About R. Meir Leibush Weiser, Netziv, Bereshit 6:9Shemot 11:4Shemot 12:29Shemot 32:26Bemidbar 14:35About R. Naftali Tzvi Yehuda BerlinR. D"Z HoffmannBereshit 18:23-26Bereshit 19:29Shemot 20:5Devarim 13:16About R. David Zvi Hoffmann

Natural order or Divine intervention? Most of these commentators suggest that collective punishment is built into the natural order of the world, but differ in the details of how it works:

• Removal of providence –  According to Ralbag, Abarbanel and Malbim, collective punishment is not caused by active Divine intervention, but rather by passive removal of Divine providence. All members of a collective which merit Hashem's providence will suffer if that providence is removed due to the sin of just one or a few.  In such a case, natural order takes over and might lead to the suffering of innocents. 

• Collateral damage – R. Saadia and R. Hoffman do not frame the issue in terms of providence, stating more simply that many general punishments, such as plague or war, by their nature will automatically also hurt innocents.¹⁵  Thus, R. Saadia points out that the flood, enslavement in Egypt and even the present exile and delay of the Mashiach affect the righteous as well.¹⁶ Netziv and R. D"Z Hoffman add that once there is such an expression of collective punishment, miraculous intervention is needed to save the righteous individual, and only an extraordinary person will merit that.
• Actions of Divine messenger – According to Malbim, sometimes Hashem sends a messenger to deal out retribution.  Since these messengers, unlike Hashem,  cannot differentiate between the wicked and righteous,¹⁷ they sometimes kill innocents as well.¹⁸

Divine justice? These commentators offer several justifications for the notion of collective punishment:

• Reward in world to come – According to most of these sources, if innocent people suffer in this world it it not unjust for they will receive compensation in the world to come.
• Punishment and warning to wicked – R. Hoffmann adds that the collective suffering of the righteous should be viewed as part of the sinner's punishment.¹⁹ Not only have the wicked caused themselves to perish, but they have also brought disaster on their entire generation who now lack a righteous role model. The all encompassing tragedy further serves as a warning to onlookers of the magnitude of the consequences of evil.²⁰
• One body – Ralbag, Akeidat Yitzchak, Abarbanel and Malbim explain that all members of the nation are connected, and constitute one body. Thus, it is only natural that if one "limb" sins, it will affect the rest.
• Collateral damage – Sometimes an innocent is hurt simply through collateral damage.  They are not active targets of the punishment, but suffer by being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Majority vs. minority of sinners?

• No distinction – Those commentators who understand collective punishment as being related to the unity of Israel, need not distinguish between cases in which the sinners are a minority or majority of the whole.  Any part of the whole, no matter how small, can affect the rest.
• Affected by number of sinners – Those who view collective punishment as no more than the natural result of a collective disaster, though, might limit the principle to cases where the majority is evil.  It is only in such a case that there should have been reason for the calamity to begin with.²¹

Biblical cases of collective punishment – This position is supported by the many cases in Tanakh in which people appear to be punished collectively.  Those sources which maintain that Hashem never actively intervenes to bring such punishments would explain instances where he seems to do so by positing, like the above approaches, that the punished in those cases were either active sinners²² or guilty by association in condoning the crimes of others.²³

Biblical cases of vicarious punishment – In certain instances in Tanakh, the collective gets punished while the sinner himself is spared:

• Akhan and death of the 36 – Ralbag, Abarbanel and Malbim assert that the punitive process here is identical to that in collective punishment.  When Akhan sinned, Divine providence departed from the nation as a whole, leaving them to chance. As such, those who went to battle naturally found themselves in danger and died, but Akhan, who happened not to place himself in danger, did not.

• Plague in time of David – R. Saadia, Ralbag and Abarbanel all maintain that the nation died for their own sins, and not for those of David.²⁴  Ralbag even says that Hashem simply used David as a tool to punish them.

Even babies? R. Saadia points to the collective suffering and deaths of innocent infants as proof that there must be a world to come in which they are compensated.

Collective salvation?

• Yes – Akeidat Yitzchak asserts that just as one individual's sin can harm the nation as a whole, one person's merits can save them. This makes sense if one thinks of the nation as being one body; the actions of any part, whether good or bad, affect the rest.  Similarly, just as an undeserving individual might get caught up in a general catastrophe, a wicked person might nonetheless benefit from general good fortune.
• No – According to Radak, the wicked cannot be saved by the righteous since wrongdoers need to be punished for their sins.²⁵ It is possible, though, that he might agree that the wicked can benefit from general good fortune bestowed on a collective due to its righteous members.

Individual providence?

• Ralbag maintains that there is general providence for all, but only select people merit individual providence. Such a position is compatible with the notion of collective punishment.
• Netziv and R. D"Z Hoffmann suggest that there is individual providence, but that in times of anger or collective catastrophe, it will only come into play if the person is worthy of a miracle.

Divine vs. human retribution – These sources might suggest that humans, like Hashem, might at times need to punish the collective, even though innocents might become collateral damage.

Preventing collective punishment – Ralbag and Akeidat Yitzchak suggests that to prevent collective punishment one must disrupt the collective, separating out the sinner so he is no longer part of the body, and can no longer affect it.  They understand Hashem's command during the rebellion of Korach, "הֵעָלוּ מִסָּבִיב לְמִשְׁכַּן קֹרַח דָּתָן וַאֲבִירָם" in this manner as well, explaining that to ensure that the nation did not get caught up in the collective punishment of Korach, Hashem told Moshe to break up the congregation.²⁶

¹ R"Y Bekhor Shor agrees that Noach was the only individual who walked uprightly, but explains the destruction of the animals differently.  He maintains that their demise was not due to their guilt but because their only purpose in creation was to serve man; thus, when mankind was destroyed so were they.  See Bereshit Rabbah28:6About Bereshit Rabbah.

² In contrast to the earlier verse, "כִּי רַבָּה רָעַת הָאָדָם" which specifies man, this verse speaks of "כׇּל בָּשָׂר".

³ See, similarly, Ibn EzraBereshit 18:21About R. Avraham ibn Ezra who understands Hashem's words "וְאֶרְאֶה הַכְּצַעֲקָתָהּ הַבָּאָה אֵלַי עָשׂוּ כָּלָה" to mean that Hashem was to check if all of Sedom's inhabitants had done evil.

⁴ Though Hashem was not willing to save the wicked if there were fewer than ten righteous in the city, He would have still saved the righteous themselves.

⁵ For a fuller discussion of  Avraham's plea to save Sedom see Avraham's Prayer for Sedom.

⁶ See RadakShemuel II 24:1 who explains the story in this manner.

⁷ R. Saadia brings a somewhat radical approach which suggests that before the flood there were no children, obviating the problem of infants dying in the deluge.  This, of course, would not explain the perishing of any children in Sedom, or other punitive plagues described later in Tanakh.

⁸ R. Yosef Bekhor Shor writes that Shimon and Levi were so filled with fury that they did not care about the legality of their actions, " שמעון ולוי, שהיו בעלי כעס, אמרו: בין כדין ובין שלא כדין ננקום מהם".

⁹ One Tosafist commentaryBereshit 34:31About Ba'alei HaTosafot even suggests that Dina had been raped by the entire city and not just by Shechem.

¹⁰ See Rashi's comments above regarding Moshe's argument to Hashem during the rebellion of Korach.

¹¹ Abarbanel combines this approach with the following one, asserting that Hashem only actively targets those who are either fully or passively guilty. Innocents, though, might sometimes suffer due to the removal of Divine providence which leaves them open to chance and natural dangers.

¹² When Hashem acquiesces to Moshe's plea, He directs that the nation should distance themselves from Korach, Datan and Aviram, making them actively show that they do not support him.

¹³ He assumes that the word "אוֹתָם" in the phrase, "קַח אֶת כׇּל רָאשֵׁי הָעָם וְהוֹקַע אוֹתָם" refers back to the "heads of the nation" mentioned and not to those who actually had relations in front of Baal Peor.

¹⁴ Abarbanel follows in his lead and suggests that to avoid this punishment, Moshe told the leaders to correct their behavior and kill the guilty parties, as the very next verse says, "וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה אֶל שֹׁפְטֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל הִרְגוּ אִישׁ אֲנָשָׁיו הַנִּצְמָדִים לְבַעַל פְּעוֹר".

¹⁵ The Netziv agrees on the whole, but speaks of  "periods of anger" (בעידן ריתחא), or circumstances of danger, in which an innocent might also get caught up in the general catastrophe.

¹⁶ In this last example, R. Saadia might be reacting to Christian claims that the Mashiach's delay is proof of the fact that all are sinners.

¹⁷ He asserts that a totally righteous or totally evil individual would be discerned, but anyone in the middle would not.

¹⁸ This is how he understands the story of Avraham's prayer in Sedom.  When Avraham realized that the visiting angels had left to Sedom but that Hashem remained to talk to him, he understood that the angels (and not Hashem) were to destroy the city, prompting him to pray for those who might be overlooked as a result. Cf. Netizv regarding the plague of the firstborns.
This position does not explain why Hashem would choose to allow unreliable messengers to punish if the result is injustice to the innocents.

¹⁹ R. D"Z Hoffmann offers this explanation together with that above, recognizing that it alone might not justify the punishment of the innocent.

²⁰ See R. Saadia who makes this point as well.

²¹ As such, they would have to explain away the cases, such as the death of the 36 people in Ai or the nation in the time of David's census, where many seem to die for the sin of just one.  In each case they would likely suggest that those who died were individually culpable and being punished for their own sins.

²² Thus, Ralbag asserts that Noach was the only righteous individual in his generation and had there been others, they would have been saved together with him.  On the verse says that Hashem will punish the family of one who gives of his seed to the Molekh ("וְשַׂמְתִּי אֲנִי אֶת פָּנַי בָּאִישׁ הַהוּא וּבְמִשְׁפַּחְתּוֹ"), Ralbag tries to explains that the word "מִשְׁפַּחְתּוֹ" refers only to those who followed in the sinner's path and not innocent family members. Similarly, he asserts that when Hashem makes a miracle for the earth to swallow Datan and Aviram, it is only they, and not the innocent sons of Korach, who are swallowed.

²³ See the examples brought by Abarbanel in the above approach.

²⁴ R. Saadia maintains that they were being punished for joining the rebellion of Avshalom while Abarbanel maintains that it was for joining the rebellion of Sheva b. Bichri.

²⁵ He explains that when Avraham prayed, "הַאַף תִּסְפֶּה וְלֹא תִשָּׂא לַמָּקוֹם לְמַעַן חֲמִשִּׁים הַצַּדִּיקִם אֲשֶׁר בְּקִרְבָּהּ" he was not asking Hashem to save the wicked of Sedom due to the righteous, but to save the physical site of Sedom itself. ["לַמָּקוֹם" is understood literally to refer to a geographical location and not as "the people of the place".]

²⁶ Akeidat Yitzchak explains that this is the rationale behind the laws of excommunication and Ralbag asserts that this is one of the reasons it is so important to rebuke others for wrongdoing.