Dasan and Aviram went out and stood defiantly at the entrance of their tents, with their wives, children, and infants. (Bamidbar 16 27)

Rashi adds, 'Come and see how grievous a sin dissension is: for an earthly tribunal does not punish a person before he shows signs of puberty, the heavenly tribunal not even before he is twenty years old, while here even the sucklings perished (Midrash Tanchuma).'

The commentators all strive to find justification for innocent children being punished for the sins of their fathers.

Why here specifically do we find this anomaly?

When a young man reaches the age of thirteen, becoming a Bar Mitzvah, the father recites the blessing of ברוך שפטרני מעונשו של זה — Blessed [are You, Hashem] Who has exempted me from the punishment of this one.

This is commonly understood as an expression of gratitude by the father that he is no longer liable to be punished for the actions of his child now that the young man is accountable for his own behavior.

Many challenge this notion that parents are possibly held accountable for their minor children's offenses.

The 16^th century leading rabbinic figure and Halachist, Rabbi Mordechai Yoffe, known as the Levush, after the book he wrote on Jewish law of the same name, takes a different perspective in explain this blessing.

The father declares his appreciation for no longer being culpable for punishments befalling his minor children due to his own sins.

Until a child reaches maturity, its survival is contingent on its parents' behavior. Only upon becoming a halachic adult is the child freed from that consequence.   Halachist

Maimonides makes a startling assertion in his Laws of Teshuva (6 1):

There are certain sins for which justice determines that retribution be exacted in this world; on the sinner's person, on his possessions, or on his small children — small children who do not possess intellectual maturity and have not reached the age where they are obligated to perform mitzvot are considered as his property. [This concept is alluded to] by the verse [Devarim 24:16]: "A man will die because of his own sins." [We may infer: This rule only applies] after one has become "a man.^"

In an exchange of letters between two great 12^th century rabbinic scholars, Rabbi Meir Abulafia and Rabbi Aharon of Lunel, this notion was strongly contested by the former and proudly defended by the latter.

To justify the punishment of children for their parent's sins, Rav Aharon of Lunel directs us to the portion of the Torah that deals with the rebellious son, who at the young age of thirteen is to be sentenced to death for his defiant behavior, where the Talmud addresses his being punished so harshly for offenses that aren't otherwise capital ones.

The wayward and rebellious son is put to death because of his [inevitable end] … let him die while he is innocent and let him not die when he is guilty [of capital crimes].

There are offenses and attitudes that are so harmful that the damage inflicted on those who are vulnerable is irrevocable.

It is not a punishment per se upon the child, but the consequence of the negativity that dooms its continued existence, removing that child before he becomes a criminal.

The Torah's depiction of the families of Dasan and Aviram standing in defiance of Moshe and Aharon is not within the context of the earth swallowing them alive, but earlier at the initial rebellious stance they took. If the punishment befalling innocents is to be emphasized, wouldn't it be more impactful to portray it during the moment of implementation of their sentence?

The inevitability of their being at the point of no return and incapable of change is when Dasan and Aviram used these children as pawns for their self-gratification in achieving their quest for power and honor. When children are looked upon as personal assets to attain a person's own selfish ambitions, they lose their identity and become irrepairably corrupted.

Perhaps that is Rambam's intent in defining the 'small children who do not possess intellectual maturity and have not reached the age where they are obligated to perform mitzvot are כקנינו — considered as his property.'

Children raised as instruments of their parent's ambition are forever flawed.

When fathers proudly stand alongside their children they raised, viewing them as a פקדון — a sacred deposit, belonging to G-d and entrusted to them to invest their children with the confidence that they are unique and special — an aspect of G-d, raising them with a sense of privilege in being בנים למקום — Children of Hashem, they are aroused with a sense of satisfaction and hope to proclaim this special blessing.

We bless G-d for having successfully navigated the formative years of our child's spiritual growth. We assert that we have traveled through dangerous terrain, where personal aspirations can often conflict with what is best for our child. We hope that we have infused our child with a healthy perspective of his talent, personality, and striving to attain greatness in Torah. The soul that could have been snatched back by the child's true 'Owner', if we had failed in that task, continues his journey enthusing us with all the great prospects that await him.

May we never lose focus on the critical role we play as G-d's trusted emissary in bringing out the best in His children!

באהבה,

צבי יהודה טייכמאן