44

Spiritual Family Therapy

Our Gemara on Amud Aleph wonders why the entire Jewish people were punished for Achan’s sin, given the principle that collective responsibility only applies when the sin is known publicly. If nobody knew about Achan’s crime, how could they be held liable?  

The Gemara answers: Achan’s offense was not entirely secret because his wife and children knew about it, and they did not protest.  

This answer is difficult to understand and seems overly legalistic. It implies that, since his wife and children knew, the act was technically not considered secret. But if the point of collective responsibility and punishment is that people should have protested, it follows that those unaware of the sin should not be punished. How, then, does the fact that Achan’s immediate family knew make the rest of the Jewish people liable?  

The Mei Shiloach (I:Devarim:Nitzavim 5) offers a deeper, spiritual explanation. A sin that is entirely hidden is a private matter between God and the sinner. However, if providence allows the sin to be observed, there must be a reason. There is a Hasidic tradition that when a person observes another’s sin, it is also a signal for the observer to engage in introspection and repentance. Even seeing a sin is not accidental; it reflects some connection between the observer and the sin itself.  

In Achan’s case, because his wife and children witnessed his transgression, the sin took on a communal dimension. For them, it was a direct call to reflect on their own moral failings and how they may have contributed to the spiritual environment that allowed such a sin to occur. Beyond them, the broader community—friends, family, and neighbors—might not have known about this specific sin, but their general relationship to Achan’s family created a collective responsibility. On some deeper level, they, too, should have been attuned to the spiritual weaknesses or moral lapses that made Achan’s sin possible. Their failure to sense or address these issues rendered them liable to some extent.  

This teaches a profound lesson about collective psychology and moral responsibility. Sometimes, when one individual sins, the responsibility radiates outward in concentric circles. Direct observers bear the greatest responsibility, but even the broader community is called to consider in what ways they may have contributed to the spiritual decline that led to the sin.  

This idea is fascinating because it reflects a form of systems thinking, an approach later adopted by family therapists in the 1970s. Moving away from the traditional clinical model, where one individual is labeled as the “patient” or “problem,” family therapists began examining the entire system. They saw how unresolved tensions, pains, and conflicts within the family unit could manifest through one individual who became the “identified patient.” For instance, a child........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)