In this section of the fourth chapter, the lamentation shifts from the description of the famine and the siege to the great question: How could it be that Jerusalem was conquered? The verses before us address the astonishment of the nations of the world at the sight of the city's conquest, the root sin that brought it about - the sins of the false prophets and the priests, and the shedding of blood - and the result: streets filled with blood, an exiled and estranged nation, and a futile anticipation of human aid. Let us proceed in the order of the verses.
לֹא הֶאֱמִינוּ מַלְכֵי אֶרֶץ כֹּל יֹשְׁבֵי תֵבֵל כִּי יָבֹא צַר וְאוֹיֵב בְּשַׁעֲרֵי יְרוּשָׁלָ͏ִם - The kings of the earth did not believe, nor did any of the inhabitants of the world, that an adversary and enemy could enter the gates of Jerusalem.
The Elon Bachut explains: The kings of the earth did not believe that such a thing was possible, for even Sennacherib had been unable to conquer Jerusalem. Everyone had seen how an angel of Hashem came and struck down one hundred and eighty-five thousand commanders of the legions at the gates of Jerusalem, leaving none behind except Sennacherib and his two sons, Sharezer and Esarhaddon; and some say that Nebuchadnezzar and Nebuzaradan were also spared.
Because of this, when the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded Nebuchadnezzar to come and destroy Jerusalem, he did not want to. Getting entangled in this matter was a perilous ordeal one does not walk away from; he had already seen what happened to Sennacherib. Instead, he sent Nebuzaradan, chief executioner (the captain of the guard), who besieged Jerusalem for three and a half years and could not prevail against it. It is written that Nebuchadnezzar sent Nebuzaradan four hundred mules laden with iron hammers - iron that overpowers iron, specially tempered, hardened iron capable of shattering iron - in order to batter down the wall. And the Midrash states: all of them were swallowed up in a single gate of Jerusalem. They could not breach even one gate, and all four hundred hammers were swallowed up by it.
Hence: "The kings of the earth did not believe, nor did any of the inhabitants of the world, that an adversary and enemy could enter." "Adversary" (tzar) refers to Nebuchadnezzar, and "enemy" (oyev) refers to Nebuzaradan. It is noteworthy that the letters of oyev are even found within the name Nebuzaradan. They did not believe that after Sennacherib's downfall, these forces would dare come fight against us at all and reach the gates of Jerusalem.
There is another Midrash, an ancient Yemenite Midrash, which explains that the kings of the earth did not believe because they reasoned: The Shechinah rests in Jerusalem, and if so, no enemy could ever overcome them. They did not know that the Holy One, blessed be He, caused His Shechinah to dwell there conditionally. Three things were given to Israel conditionally: the Davidic monarchy, the Land of Israel, and the Beit HaMikdash. Here too, the Beit HaMikdash was given conditionally - the condition being that they walk in the ways of Hashem, observe His commandments, refrain from idolatry, and fulfill all that the Torah stipulates. This the nations did not know, and therefore they could not believe that it would be possible to conquer Jerusalem, the city of Hashem, where the Holy One, blessed be He, dwells in His House. Consequently, what occurred here was something so contrary to nature, something utterly inconceivable.
מֵחַטֹּאות נְבִיאֶיהָ עֲוֺנֹת כֹּהֲנֶיהָ הַשֹּׁפְכִים בְּקִרְבָּהּ דַּם צַדִּיקִים - It was for the sins of her prophets, the iniquities of her priests, who shed the blood of the righteous in her midst.
The Lechem Dim'ah explains that this verse links back to the preceding one. Seemingly, this presents a difficulty: If they had sins, then on the contrary, that very fact should have led people to believe that an adversary and enemy would come! Rather, the meaning is as follows: Although the nations knew of "the sins of her prophets, the iniquities of her priests," they did not believe that such egregious sins existed in Israel. They reasoned: There may be sins of prophets and iniquities of priests, but nothing so severe. For they were unaware of "who shed the blood of the righteous in her midst" - they did not know that we were guilty of the grave crime of bloodshed.
Anyone who reads the accounts of what took place before the destruction will see terrible and harrowing things. Sefer Yosippon relates that people would walk around with small daggers concealed beneath their clothing; a person would walk past his fellow in the marketplace, plunge the blade into his stomach, and keep moving. Suddenly someone was seen collapsing in the marketplace, people would begin searching and attempting resuscitation, yet no one knew who had stabbed him - the marketplace was so packed that no one realized it was a targeted assassination. Today there are snipers and silencers; in those days there were other methods. Clearly Jerusalem was filled with blood from edge to edge, and all three cardinal sins were present: idolatry, immorality, and bloodshed. That is why the kings of the earth did not believe that an adversary and enemy could enter, for they assumed there were only "the sins of her prophets, the iniquities of her priests," unaware that the blood of the righteous was being poured out there like water.
Some commentators explain the opposite: the kings of the earth did not believe that the punishment would be merely conquest, for according to "the sins of her prophets, the iniquities of her priests, who shed the blood of the righteous within her," they deserved a far greater punishment, like the sin of Sodom which was overturned in a moment. According to this, the thought was the reverse: "adversary and enemy" was too light a fate for such iniquities.
The Targum explains that the Attribute of Justice declares: all this came upon them only because of the sins of her prophets. And Rashi clarifies that "her prophets" refers to the false prophets - Heaven forbid that we should think of the true prophets. "The iniquities of her priests" - that they burned incense to idols, and they were the ones who brought about the shedding of the blood of the righteous in her midst.
The Allon Bachut explains, based on Chazal, that "the sins of her prophets, the iniquities of her priests" refers to the blood of Zechariah the son of Jehoiada, whom they murdered in the Beit HaMikdash: "He was a prophet, and he rebuked them with words of Heaven." A prophet was in our midst, rebuking us with the word of Hashem, yet they rose up against him and stoned him with stones inside the Beit HaMikdash - "Shall priest and prophet be slain in the sanctuary of the Lord?"
The phrase "from the sins of her prophets" can be explained in two ways. First: the sin committed against her prophets, that they went and murdered Zechariah the son of Jehoiada. Second: that there was also a subtle shortcoming on the part of the prophet himself. When discussing great spiritual figures, one must know that they are judged with infinite exactitude, fine beyond scrutiny. It is written of Zechariah that he saw himself as greater than all the people - he was the king's son-in-law, a kohen, and a prophet - and he spoke haughtily. A prophet receives a message from Hashem, but the phrasing is his own; no two prophets prophesy in the same style even though both draw from the same source, for the formulation belongs to the prophet. Here, he should have acted like Aharon, who would not approach a person saying, "You sinned, you corrupted your ways," but would approach him gently and pleasantly to restore him to good. Thus, there was something exquisitely minute regarding the prophet: the rebuke was too harsh and too confrontational, and ultimately led to the prophet being killed.
Yet a difficulty remains: if the sin was that they killed one prophet, why does the verse say "her prophets" in the plural? Rather, it refers to his blood and the blood of his descendants, just as the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Cain: "The voice of your brother's bloods cries out to Me from the ground" - his blood and the blood of all his future descendants. So too here: prophets and kohanim were destined to descend from him, which is why "the sins of her prophets" and "the iniquities of her priests" are phrased in the plural.
נָעוּ עִוְרִים בַּחוּצוֹת נְגֹאֲלוּ בַּדָּם בְּלֹא יוּכְלוּ יִגְּעוּ בִּלְבֻשֵׁיהֶם - They wandered blind in the streets, defiled with blood, so that men could not touch their garments.
Rabbi Almosnino explains that the author of the lament mourns here that it is normally the way of people to guide a blind man walking along the road, taking his hand and helping him, but here there was no one to lead them - "they wandered blind in the streets." This stems from the previous verse: "from the sins of her prophets, the iniquities of her priests." Had the kohanim and prophets guided the people along the straight path, they would not have reached this point; but when there is no one to guide them, the nation wanders like the blind in the streets.
Rashi explains that the blind would walk through the marketplace, wandering, and their feet would slip in the blood of the slain whom the wicked had murdered within her. According to this, it does not yet refer to the enemy, but to our own iniquities - to the murderers in her midst. The blind man walked through the marketplace without knowing that someone had been killed there, slipping in the blood, "defiled with blood," until they were so stained with blood that their relatives could not touch their garments, telling them, "Depart, unclean!" as we will see in the next verse.
There is another explanation offered by Torat Chesed, Lechem Dimah, and Allon Bachut: the verse describes the sheer abundance of blood in the streets, so that the people walking in the streets stumbled and faltered like blind men, thereby treading upon the corpses and becoming soiled with blood. They were so weak that they could not even lift their garments to keep them from becoming soiled - "so that they could not touch their garments": they were unable even to grasp their clothing to raise it up, and so their garments dragged along the ground, becoming drenched in blood.
In Midrash Eichah Rabbah, on the phrase "they wandered blind in the streets," it is taught: They would say, "Where is Zechariah? Let us go, embrace him, and kiss him." And the lame among them would say, "Show us the blood of Zechariah, that we may go and wallow in it." To fulfill that which is said, "so that men could not touch their garments." They had already repented and recognized their mistake, and indeed Zechariah's blood bubbled for many long years - yet ultimately, they could not repair what they had destroyed.
סוּרוּ טָמֵא קָרְאוּ לָמוֹ סוּרוּ סוּרוּ אַל תִּגָּעוּ כִּי נָצוּ גַּם נָעוּ אָמְרוּ בַּגּוֹיִם לֹא יוֹסִפוּ לָגוּר - "Depart, unclean!" they cried to them, "Depart, depart, do not touch!" For they quarreled and also wandered; they said among the nations, "They shall no longer dwell here."
According to Rashi, this is a continuation of the previous verse: because the blind walked in the streets defiled with blood, and their close relatives could not bear to touch their blood-stained clothing, their relatives would say to them: 'Depart, unclean!' - turn away from us, you are ritually impure, you are soiled with blood; 'Depart, depart, do not touch!' - do not touch us so that you do not defile us. And the reason: 'for they quarreled [natzu] and also wandered [na'u].' Natzu is an expression of stench and filth, as in mor'ato venotzata ("its crop with its feathers/filth"), which the Targum renders as be'uchelei, referring to excrement; that is to say, they are utterly filthy. 'And also wandered' - for they were slipping and sliding on top of the blood.
The Lechem Dimah explains that there is an allusion here to Israel's exile: we were exiled among nations where, if we touched their vessels, they would break them. 'Depart, unclean! they cried to them' - the gentile says to the Jew: stay away from me so that you do not defile me; 'Depart, depart, do not touch!' - do not touch us and do not touch our vessels. And the cause: 'for they quarreled [natzu]' - from the word matzah, strife and contention, referring to the discord and quarreling that existed among us. And 'also wandered [na'u]' - either that out of strife they went out and wandered into exile, or that 'they moved away from one another,' becoming alienated and keeping their distance from each other, lacking love and closeness, replaced by strife and contention, after which each one moved away and withdrew from his fellow. And in a certain sense, the gentiles' distancing themselves from us is actually for our benefit.
It is told of the Baal Shem Tov that he was once walking with his disciples when they passed by a priest walking with his seminary students. They overheard the priest saying to his students: "Let us steer clear of the Jews, lest unclean saliva fly from their mouths, touch our garments, and defile us." The Baal Shem Tov turned to his disciples and said: "See how much kindness Hashem has done for us, that we do not even need to distance ourselves - they distance themselves from us on their own! For we know who the truly defiling one is and in whom all repulsive filth resides; yet the Holy One, Blessed is He, in His abundant kindness, placed into the gentile's heart the notion that it is beneath him to be near us. Thus, he himself creates the separation without us having to make any effort."
Some explain - as cited by the Alon Bachut - that this contains an allusion to the false prophets, such as Chananyah ben Azur, who prophesied that within two full years all the vessels of the House of Hashem, along with Yechonyah and all the exiles of Judah, would return. They came to undermine the words of Yirmeyahu and dispute him - 'for they quarreled [natzu]', from the language of strife and contention, for they incited conflict against him. 'They said among the nations: they shall no longer dwell' - what is Yirmeyahu warning about, that there will be an exile and that you too will be exiled? Absolutely not! They claimed: exiles are over, and on the contrary, even those who were exiled are about to return. We have already noted how the media loves such rabbis: personable, progressive figures who always speak positively and say exactly what the public wants to hear. This is 'from the sins of her prophets' in the previous verse - the false prophets who peddled illusions to the people.
And the Torat Chesed explains that 'they flew [natzu] and also wandered' relates to a feather (notzah): we were as light as a feather driven into exile; in a single moment we were uprooted and blown away into exile, and from one exile to another.
And what is 'they said among the nations, they shall no longer dwell'? The Chomat Anach explains that this is the reason why the enemies mistreated us so severely without fearing that Israel might return to their land, renew their days as of old, and ultimately take vengeance upon them. For the gentiles said concerning Israel: 'they shall no longer dwell' - they will never again return to dwell in their land. Just as a leader of the Vatican declared some five hundred years ago that the Holy One, Blessed is He, had abandoned Israel because of their sins and chosen the Christians as His people, offering as proof that Israel would never return to their land. Within less than five hundred years, his words were shattered against the rock of reality. When they asked the Pope about this, he replied: "The intent was Jerusalem." Yet the Jewish people returned to Jerusalem as well, in the year 5727 (1967). And when they face a theological contradiction, they bury their heads in the sand: the head of the Vatican visited at the time and refused to enter Jerusalem - as far as he was concerned, Jerusalem does not exist, the Jewish people have not returned, I did not see them, I was not there. See what it means to issue prophecies: a human being does not know what will happen two hours from now. Among them, someone attempted to predict the distant future, and before long his words dissolved into thin air. Thus the nations said, 'they shall no longer dwell,' and the return of Israel is a divine, supernatural strike that defies the ordinary course of the world.
פְּנֵי ה' חִלְּקָם לֹא יוֹסִיף לְהַבִּיטָם פְּנֵי כֹהֲנִים לֹא נָשָׂאוּ וּזְקֵנִים לֹא חָנָנוּ - The face of Hashem scattered them, He will no longer look upon them; they showed no respect to priests, and did not favor elders.
Now you might suggest that the Holy One, Blessed is He, will take pity on them and they will indeed return - to this, the verse responds: 'The face of Hashem scattered them, He will no longer look upon them.' And why? 'They showed no respect to priests, and did not favor elders.' And if so, who will instruct them in the way they should walk so that their captivity may be restored? There is no one.
The Lechem Dimah explains that some interpret 'the face of Hashem' - using the Four-Letter Name, which denotes mercy - as posing a difficulty, since it seems inconsistent with the literal meaning of the text, which speaks of devastation. Rather, 'the face of Hashem divided them' refers to the benevolent aspect of the matter: that the Holy One, Blessed is He, separated Israel from the nations, distinguishing them - 'Yaakov is the lot of His inheritance.' Consider what stature we were granted, all stemming from the attribute of divine mercy. And where have we arrived now? That 'He will no longer look upon them' - we no longer merit even a glance from Hashem. The reason: 'they showed no respect to priests, and did not favor elders' - since Israel did not honor the kohanim nor show grace to the elders, so to speak, the Holy One, Blessed is He, shows no favor to us either. When we do not honor the Torah scholars and elders, everything collapses.
The Lechem Dimah further adds that some interpret this verse as a plea and prayer: Master of the Universe, that same countenance with which You divided and scattered them among the nations - 'let Him not continue to look upon them' with that same face; do not continue gazing upon them in that harsh, critical manner. In other words: just as You have dealt with them until now, do not continue to treat them in this way any longer.
The Lechem Dim'ah cites in the name of his teacher that this verse is a direct continuation of the previous one. "They will no longer dwell [lagur]" is related to "He who gathers [oger] in summer is a wise son" (Mishlei 10:5), an expression of ingathering. It is likewise like "You shall not fear [lo taguru] before any man" (Devarim 1:17), where one of the interpretations is: do not withhold your words before the sage - meaning that if you have something to say, and you know an argument for acquittal or guilt, or you see that the sage is about to rule incorrectly, do not hold back your words, but rather voice your arguments, so that the innocent is acquitted and the guilty is convicted. According to this, the nations are saying: Israel will never be gathered back to their land. The continuation explains the basis for their claim: "The face of Hashem scattered them" - Hashem looked upon them with a countenance of fury, divided them, and scattered them across the world; "He will gaze upon them no longer." And since this was so, the nations felt licensed to inflict every harm upon us, having nothing left to fear.
On that same basis, one can also explain lagur as an expression of fear and dread [magor]: the nations say, we will no longer fear or hesitate to oppress Israel. And what would we fear - Hashem's vengeance? "The face of Hashem has scattered them; He will gaze upon them no longer" - He has already divided them and scattered them, and He looks upon them no more. "They will no longer fear" - the nations will no longer fear touching the apple of the Holy One Blessed be He's eye, as He has seemingly rejected them.
The Lechem Dim'ah further explains that there is an allusion here to the Spanish Expulsion and other exiles, in that "they said among the nations: they will dwell no more" - the nations expelled us from their regions and decreed that Jews would no longer dwell among them. So it was in the Spanish Expulsion, the expulsion of the Jews of England, the Mawza Exile in Yemen, and the Pale of Settlement where Jews were forbidden to enter. "They said among the nations: they will dwell no more" - no Jew may dwell in our lands anymore. This shows us the sheer severity and power of the exile from which the Jewish people have still not been freed.
עוֹדֵינוּ תִּכְלֶינָה עֵינֵינוּ אֶל עֶזְרָתֵנוּ הָבֶל בְּצִפִּיָּתֵנוּ צִפִּינוּ אֶל גּוֹי לֹא יוֹשִׁעַ - As for us, our eyes still yearned for our help in vain; in our anticipation, we looked to a nation that could not save.
The Alon Bachut explains that there is an allusion here to what Chazal relate: when our ancestors sat by the Euphrates River, Moshe Rabbeinu, peace be upon him, came there. When Israel saw him, they said: The son of Amram has come to redeem us from the hand of our oppressors! A Heavenly voice went forth and proclaimed: It is a decree from Before Me. This is the meaning of "our eyes still yearned for our help in vain" - we thought we would have help, but it turned out to be a futile expectation, for we were not privileged to be saved through Moshe. By way of homiletic allusion, based on what is explained in the book Mishnat HaGilgulim, Moshe Rabbeinu was the reincarnation of Hevel (Abel), and "Moshe" (משה) is an acronym for Moshe, Shet, Hevel. According to this, the words are wondrous: "Our eyes yearned for our help" - whose help? That of Hevel. We thought that here comes Hevel, meaning Moshe who is his reincarnation, to redeem us and save us, but then "in our anticipation, we looked to a nation that could not save" - we saw that there was no substance to this salvation.
The Lechem Dim'ah explains that even though it is clear to us that no help will come from the source we look to, nevertheless "our eyes still yearned" out of sheer desperation. We know the reality of a drowning man grasping at straws: a person in distress and hardship relies on things that a rational person would never rely upon or build on. You ask him: What are the chances? And he answers: It is the only chance I have; it is my only hope. He pins his hopes on some inheritance he might receive - and what are the chances he will get it, or that he is even in the picture? Nil. But when a person is in distress, he hopes even for irrational things. This is "our eyes still yearned" - because our eyes were so consumed and there was no one to deliver us from trouble, we looked even to futile help, to something insubstantial. "In our anticipation, we looked to a nation that could not save" - a foreign nation whose natural likelihood of helping you is nonexistent, and why would they ever want to enter into such trouble just to be of support and assistance to you?
This calls to mind our situation today, where whenever trouble strikes, people expect the Palestinian Authority to eradicate terrorism. It is difficult to say this without smiling: an authority that allied itself with Hamas, while hundreds of rockets have been fired in recent days, and people expect them to fight terror. Whenever one hears such an expectation, one must ask who is leading these people. "I expect Abu Mazen to work for the return of the hostages" - really, wake up, where are you living? This began already with Arafat: they would plead with him to eradicate terror, yet he was the one funding it, paying money to suicide bombers, naming streets after "martyrs," and declaring that this is the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah (the war of Quraysh), an arrangement where concessions are made temporarily but the ultimate goal remains the total destruction of the enemy. He spoke plainly, without cosmetic embellishment. And this is "our eyes still yearned for our help in vain" - looking to vanity; "in our anticipation, we looked to a nation that could not save" - there is no salvation there whatsoever. But when a person claims to have no alternative, and lacks God, he hopes that the Palestinian Authority will somehow step up and do what is needed.
Back in his day, when Rabin was asked how he could give rifles to the Palestinian Authority, he said: They will handle them without the High Court of Justice and without B'Tselem. What naivety! That is their narrative and that is their agenda, and to them killing is like handing out sweets, yet people expect them to realize that rocket fire on Israel is not good for them and take care of it. "In our anticipation, we looked to a nation that could not save" - what blindness, and what total failure to comprehend reality! This is reminiscent of the US President's expectation of an "Arab Spring," who traveled to Cairo to deliver a speech on democracy - before whom? Before those who, six months or a year later in their "spring," elected the Muslim Brotherhood to lead them. Where there is Arab rule, there is no democracy; immediately terror and attacks take over; they tried this in Iraq, and everyone saw how successful that was. Our expectation is vain; people look to a nation that cannot save, failing to grasp reality, unable to see clearly, and living inside their own bubble and fantasy. And that is also our reality today: "Still" - we still look to a nation that cannot save.
In the book Ahavat Tzion, it is noted that there is a difference between help [ezrah] and salvation [yeshuah], which is why it says "our eyes yearned for our help in vain" and then "in our anticipation, we looked to a nation that could not save." Help is from close by: a person does something, and another comes to assist him a little. Salvation is from afar: when someone is asked how things are and answers, "We are awaiting salvation," he refers to something not yet present, an anticipation of something arriving from the distance, as it is written, "Behold, I will save you from afar" (Yirmeyahu 30:10). According to this, the author of the lament says: "Our eyes yearned for our help in vain" - the help we might provide ourselves from within, from close by, is futile, for there is no chance we can help ourselves. If so, perhaps we must receive salvation from afar? "In our anticipation, we looked to a nation that could not save" - could one truly think that this foreign nation would come from afar to rescue you?
And so we have seen throughout history: they paid tribute to the nations, they leaned on Egypt, yet the prophet warns them that the Egypt upon which you lean is a staff of broken reed, which, when grasped, its splinters pierce one's hand. And all those upon whom we relied and for whom we waited - the hopes placed in them were dashed, and we came to see that at the end of the day, we have no one to rely upon other than our Father in Heaven, and only for His salvation and His help must we yearn.
And as the Vilna Gaon explains on the verse, "It is better to take refuge in Hashem than to trust in man; it is better to take refuge in Hashem than to trust in princes" (Tehillim 118:8-9): What is the difference between "taking refuge" [lachasot] and "trusting" [bito'ach]? "Trusting" involves a promise: someone promised me salvation, told me, "You have nothing to worry about, I promise you, the matter is settled." "Taking refuge" is like a person during a bombardment, hearing missiles, who runs to seek shelter in the shadow of some structure; that place promised him nothing, yet he tucks himself inside and hopes he will not be harmed. And the Gra says: It is better to take refuge in Hashem without any guarantees than to trust in princes and in a man who promised to take care of me. Better to take refuge in Hashem without a promise than to place trust in a man with a promise. The entire problem began because "our eyes still yearned for our help in vain" and we looked to a nation that could not save; had we only taken refuge in Hashem, everything would have ended differently.
It is worthwhile to read Rashi here: When the catastrophe came upon us, our eyes were still looking out toward Pharaoh's army, regarding whom it is said, "For Egypt's help is vain and empty," for they promised us help and never came, as it is said, "Behold, Pharaoh's army, which has come out to help you, is returning to its land, to Egypt" - those you pinned your hopes on turned back. And we find in Midrash Kinot that they were coming in ships; Pharaoh's army was arriving by sea to help us, and the Holy One, blessed be He, signaled to the sea, which cast up before them bloated waterskins bobbing in the water, resembling human entrails. They said to one another: "These waterskins are our ancestors, the men of Egypt who drowned in the sea on account of these Jews, and we are going out to help them?!" They stood and turned back. Look: Pharaoh had plans to arrive, but they said - they did this to us, and we are going to help them? And as for us - "our eyes still failed," "in our watching we watched for a nation that could not save" - the nation that ultimately returned to its own land, and from whom no salvation ever came.
These verses lead us from the bewildered question - how could an adversary and enemy enter the gates of Jerusalem, after the downfall of Sancheiriv and after everyone knew that the Shechinah rested in the city? - to the answer: the dwelling of the Shechinah was conditional, and through the iniquities of the false prophets, the kohanim, and the shedding of the blood of the righteous, that condition was nullified. From this came the consequence: streets defiled with blood, a people moving like the blind without a guide, regret that came too late, and alienation and contempt from the nations who declared, "They shall no longer stay." And the concluding note is the futility of false hope: as long as we fix our eyes on our own devices and on the salvation of a nation that cannot save - that expectation is dashed. Only one who takes refuge in Hashem, even without guarantees, will never be put to shame.