Chapter 3 of Amos opens with a series of introductory premises in which the prophet lays the foundations for the rebuke: "Can two walk together unless they have met?", "Will a lion roar in the forest when he has no prey?", "Can a bird fall into a snare on the ground when no trap is set for it?" From verse 9 onward, the prophecies themselves begin, and the Malbim demonstrates how each of these opening premises unfolds and is explained within the body of the prophecy. Let us follow the order of the verses and see how each premise finds its meaning.
"Proclaim upon the palaces in Ashdod" - Inviting the Nations to Witness the Downfall
הַשְׁמִיעוּ עַל אַרְמְנוֹת בְּאַשְׁדּוֹד וְעַל אַרְמְנוֹת בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם, וְאִמְרוּ: הֵאָסְפוּ עַל הָרֵי שֹׁמְרוֹן וּרְאוּ מְהוּמֹת רַבּוֹת בְּתוֹכָהּ וַעֲשׁוּקִים בְּקִרְבָּהּ׃ - Proclaim upon the palaces in Ashdod and upon the palaces in the land of Egypt, and say: Assemble upon the mountains of Samaria, and see the great turmoils within her and the oppressed in her midst.
The plain meaning of the text is: you, Philistines, and you, people of Egypt, proclaim this matter in your palaces, that all should gather upon the mountains of Samaria and look down from the mountains to see what wicked deeds are committed here. You shall invite everyone to come and see. Radak explains more precisely: this refers to the kings and princes residing in the palaces; they are the ones who will proclaim, "Assemble upon the mountains of Samaria" - so that they may see what is happening in Samaria, the place of the Ten Tribes, who were the first to go into exile.
Radak notes: this is the exact opposite of what David said, "Tell it not in Gath... lest the daughters of the Philistines rejoice." Do not speak of our defeats in Gath, which is the land of the Philistines, so that they do not hand out sweets and celebrate over what has befallen us, God forbid, as they do after terror attacks. Do not cause the nations to rejoice, for when you see an enemy gloating over our downfall, it hurts all the more and provokes even greater pain. Yet here the opposite is proclaimed: your downfall will be so immense that all the nations will come, hear of it, and gloat over your ruin. The nations will say to one another: Come and assemble upon the mountains of Samaria, which are the mountains of Israel, and see how Hashem exacts retribution from them. This is akin to what is said, "the enemy will rejoice over you" - that the foe rejoices when he beholds our ruin and our punishment.
"The mountains of Samaria" - Radak explains that Samaria was a single mountain, but there were other mountains surrounding it, which is why it is called "the mountains of Samaria." "And see the great turmoils within her" - through this you will know that they are stricken for their sins because of the violence in their midst. This is the meaning of "and the oppressed in her midst": there were oppressed victims and perpetrators of violence here, and for this reason the Holy One, blessed be He, exacts retribution from them.
The Malbim connects this verse to the first premise - "Can two walk together unless they have met?": Do two kings march together to punish you unless someone has appointed them and brought them together for that purpose? Hashem said to them: I brought these nations together to assemble and advance against you because of the evil deeds you have committed. And now he details who are those uniting: here are Ashdod and the Philistines, with someone standing in a palace - an elevated place, as a herald always stands in a high place - making the proclamation, and likewise in the palaces of Egypt, calling upon the nations to gather together for war against Samaria. There you will see that they confer with one another, agreeing that it is fitting to destroy Samaria, because in Samaria there are sins between man and God and sins between man and his fellow: "great turmoils within her" - these are matters between man and God; "and the oppressed in her midst" - these are matters between man and his fellow. If so, observe how the nations assemble - can two walk together unless they have met? Is this not a message that I have gathered these nations here so that you might take instruction and repent?
"And they knew not how to do right" - An Upside-Down World
וְלֹא יָדְעוּ עֲשׂוֹת נְכֹחָה נְאֻם ה', הָאוֹצְרִים חָמָס וָשֹׁד בְּאַרְמְנוֹתֵיהֶם׃ - And they knew not how to do right, says Hashem, who store up violence and plunder in their palaces.
Here too, the two parts of the verse are parallel. "They knew not how to do right [nechochah]" - this pertains to matters between man and God. What does "nechochah" mean? The Malbim explains: it is the opposite of "turmoil" [mehumot]. Nechochah means straight forward, facing directly - before the presence of Hashem, as in the phrase, "pour out your heart like water before the face of Hashem." They do not walk uprightly before Hashem, but turn away from Him. That is the very definition of turmoil: a person walks about agitated and restless, rather than walking uprightly toward Hashem, and that is a turmoil of wicked deeds. Corresponding to the realm of interpersonal relations between man and his fellow - "who store up violence and plunder in their palaces," meaning that inside their palaces lie treasures amassed through violence and robbery. This is what the nations will say: We are shocked by the violence and plunder in Samaria, by the appalling deeds committed there.
The Malbim adds: this is the exact opposite of what occurred in the past. The Holy One, blessed be He, brought us out of the land of Egypt so that we would not learn from Egypt's abominations, and He destroyed the Amorites before us - including the Philistines - so that we would not follow the abominations of the seven nations that inhabited this land: "You shall not do according to the abominations of the land of Canaan." We were set apart from them to preserve our spiritual elevation, yet now they stand astonished by our corruption, viewing us as worse than themselves. They confront the violence, plunder, oppression, and the failure to walk uprightly before Hashem - and they are bewildered. Hashem says to Israel: Who gathered these nations who took counsel together to march against the mountains of Samaria? Can two walk together unless they have met? Do you not understand that the Holy One, blessed be He, designated them for this purpose?
Radak adds an insightful point: after the nations speak of the grave deeds committed in Israel, one might have reasoned - perhaps they do not always follow an evil path, but at times do evil and at times do good. To counter this, the verse states: they never do good at all; "they knew not how to do right" in any way, and "who store up violence and plunder in their palaces" - this is their habitual way of life.
"An adversary all around the land" - The enemy encircles from every side
לָכֵן כֹּה אָמַר אֲדֹנָי ה': צַר וּסְבִיב הָאָרֶץ, וְהוֹרִיד מִמֵּךְ עֻזֵּךְ וְנָבֹזּוּ אַרְמְנוֹתָיִךְ׃ - Therefore, so said the Lord God: An adversary shall surround the land, and he shall bring down your strength from you, and your palaces shall be plundered.
Rashi explains: The adversary is prepared; he is already surrounding the land, poised to come and attack. And Radak adds: The adversary will come and encamp all around, leaving you no escape - "around" means that he encircles and encloses the land, so that you cannot even consider fleeing. "And he shall bring down your strength from you" - those very treasures mentioned earlier, "who store up violence and destruction in their palaces" - do you imagine they will serve as your stronghold and defense? The enemy will strip everything from you, and that is "and your palaces shall be plundered."
The Malbim explains: Various nations will come against you, and the adversary will bring down your strength and plunder the palaces. Now, if you ask: nowhere in Scripture do we find that the Philistines and Egypt invaded Samaria, so how is such a scenario described here? The Malbim answers: You should know that the historical narratives of Kings do not record every detail, but only the general events, and this is among the details omitted from the text. Reason also dictates this: after the Philistines raided Judah in the days of Achaz, when the king of Assyria marched against Pekach ben Remalyahu, logic suggests that they subsequently crossed into Israel's territory as well. Even if there is no explicit mention of this in Scripture, when we see such an impending threat in prophecy, it is a sign that it indeed occurred. Likewise with Egypt: at that time they maintained a foothold here, continually coming and going through the land, and it is highly likely that they besieged us as well.
"As the shepherd rescues from the lion's mouth" - What will remain of Samaria
כֹּה אָמַר ה': כַּאֲשֶׁר יַצִּיל הָרֹעֶה מִפִּי הָאֲרִי שְׁתֵּי כְרָעַיִם אוֹ בְדַל אֹזֶן, כֵּן יִנָּצְלוּ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל הַיֹּשְׁבִים בְּשֹׁמְרוֹן בִּפְאַת מִטָּה וּבִדְמֶשֶׂק עָרֶשׂ׃ - Thus said Hashem: As the shepherd rescues from the mouth of the lion two shinbones or the tip of an ear, so shall the children of Israel who dwell in Samaria be rescued, at the corner of a bed and on a Damascus couch.
When a lion comes to devour a sheep from the flock, how much can the shepherd manage to rescue from its jaws? Barely two shinbones, or the tip of an ear. Radak explains: The shinbones are the last part the lion consumes, because when tearing a sheep apart, it begins with the head and throat in order to strangle it first, and only then moves to the hind parts until reaching the lower legs. All the more so the ear, which is hard cartilage - as the Targum renders, "chaschusa d'udna," ear cartilage - having no meat, which gives the lion no pleasure to eat. He leaves that for dessert, if he remains hungry and needs to finish off whatever is left. But generally, that is all that remains at the end.
That is to say: almost nothing will remain. Whatever survives will merely be remnants left behind after a lion's mauling, and that is what will remain of the kingdom of Samaria - those meager few whom the enemy does not even bother with, who are of no consequence to him and whom he therefore does not mind leaving behind. But all the strong and mighty - every one of them will be taken. Samaria is mentioned here because it was the royal capital: it would be conquered last, and those who remained in it would be very few, along the lines of "I have left in Israel seven thousand, all the knees that have not bowed to Baal." The kingdom of Samaria was a wicked kingdom, never having a single righteous king; that was where they set up the golden calves, where corruption was at its worst - and therefore, only a tiny fraction will remain there.
And who are those few? "At the corner of a bed." Radak explains: When a sick person lies in bed and the enemy enters, he presses himself into the corner so that he will not be struck. These are the sick confined to bed, huddled into the corner - that is what will remain.
And what is "and on a Damascus couch"? Rashi cites Targum Yonatan: "with strong authority and relying upon Damascus," explaining that the plain sense of the Targum refers to the days of Jehoahaz son of Jehu, about whom it is said: "For he did not leave Jehoahaz an army, except for fifty horsemen, ten chariots, and ten thousand foot soldiers, for the king of Aram destroyed them and made them like the dust of threshing." They reached the brink of total eradication. What is fifty horsemen? Even if one were to count each horseman like a tank, how does one wage war with fifty tanks? And ten chariots, and ten thousand foot soldiers - this is still not an army with which one can go out to war. Yet it says there: "Hashem did not say to blot out the name of Israel, and He saved them by the hand of Jeroboam" - Jeroboam saved them somewhat, sparing them from total destruction. This was not Jeroboam son of Nebat, but Jeroboam II, who ruled toward the end of the kingdom of Israel. And this is "at the corner of a bed" - Rashi explains it as the corner of the house. Why is a corner called pe'ah? Because the corner is the strongest part, as in "The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone," and as in the liturgical phrasing where corners denote the most prominent leaders. The corner is always the primary, strongest part of the house - and in it a little will survive, which is all the king of Aram will leave behind.
The Surviving Eighth - The Words of Chazal
Chazal expound: Rabbi Nehorai says in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua: These are the Ten Tribes who relied upon Chizkiyahu, king of Judah, and upon Judah, escaping along with them. From among the Ten Tribes, there were those who went to the kingdom of Judah, which was exiled only years later, and whose kings were relatively righteous - not all of them, but there were righteous ones among them. Thus, part of the kingdom of Israel fled to the kingdom of Judah, and they are the ones mentioned here: "who dwell in Samaria at the corner of a bed" - those who fled to take refuge in the kingdom of Judah are the ones who survived. And how much is "the corner of a bed"? Chazal say: This teaches that no more than one out of eight of them remained, an eighth. And what of the rest of the "couch"? "And on a Damascus couch" - the rest of the couch went into exile to Damascus.
And from where does the calculation of one-eighth come? Rashi cites an explanation in the name of Rabbeinu Menachem: How many corners (*pe'ot*) does a bed have? Four. If so, "the corner of the bed" (*pe'at hamitah*) is one-fourth. But when it says *bif'at hamitah* ("at the corner of the bed"), the prefix implies part of the corner rather than the entire corner - half of one-fourth, which amounts to one-eighth. This eighth represents those who were sustained and remained, while the other seven-eighths are "the rest of the couch" (*she'ar ha'eres*) that was exiled to Damascus.
Rashi also brings another explanation citing Rabbi Meir: "In the corner of a bed" (*bif'at mitah*) - for the sin of Ahaziah son of Ahab, who sent to inquire of Baal-zebub, the god of Ekron, and was told, "Is it because there is no God in Israel?" Ahaziah was so wicked that to inquire about his illness, he sent to consult Baal-zebub. There is a prophet in Israel, and he sends to consult mere flies? Therefore it says, *bif'at mitah*: for the sin of the one lying on the corner of the bed, Ahaziah, who lay sick on his bed and sent to inquire of an idol - for his iniquity they were punished. By contrast, "and in Damascus on a couch" (*uvedameshek eres*): Ben-hadad king of Aram sent to inquire of the God of Israel. An upside-down world: the king of Aram sends to inquire of the God of Israel, while the king of Israel sends to inquire of an idol, Baal-zebub of Aram. These two extreme opposites are alluded to here.
Why It Is Easy for a Gentile to Turn to the God of Israel
As has been explained before, so that this will not raise an accusation: how could it be that a king from here goes to inquire over there, while from there they come to inquire here? One must understand that a gentile has no issue believing in the God of Israel as well, because it does not obligate him to anything. If you tell him that someone there can solve his problem, he will go search for the cure there. Thus Naaman also had no hesitation coming here to find healing through the prophet. It contradicted none of his agenda, for gentiles recognized that there was a God and that there were many forces in creation, and they had no problem with that.
For Jews, however, out of the innate trait of truth within us, a person knows that the ultimate truth is the service of Hashem. If a Jew inquires of Hashem, it becomes a binding obligation: you are a son of the Master of the Universe, He granted you a solution, and the prophet delivered you - so how can you act so corruptly? For a Jew, this posed a profound dilemma and a stinging slap in the face. Consequently, he preferred to consult a fly-god rather than inquire of the God of Israel. But the gentile - what does he care? It places no demands upon him; he is not a son of the God of Israel, his worldview accommodates many forces, and he feels no obstacle in turning to another deity. The kings of Israel, meanwhile, did not concern themselves with *chilul Hashem* (desecration of God's name), sunk as they were in such spiritual degeneration, engaged in actual idol worship.
This is comparable to a scenario today where an outspoken secularist - a prominent media figure or one of the country's fiercest scoffers - suddenly makes a gesture displaying faith and trust in Hashem. That would be a complete repudiation of everything he has preached and his entire agenda, so he could never allow himself to do it. By contrast, the President of the United States, for example, has no hesitation standing up and saying "thank God," because in his eyes it changes nothing - God exists, but how does that affect daily conduct? It does not. Yet for us, if God exists, then why are you not keeping the mitzvot? Why are you not serving Him with vigor? For him, acknowledging this would be a devastating slap in the face, so he refuses to permit it. This, in essence, is what happened with the kings of Israel.
The Second Premise: "Will a Lion Roar in the Forest"
The second premise was: "Will a lion roar in the forest when he has no prey?" Malbim noted that its explanation would follow later. Each such statement serves as a rebuke and carries a message, and now it is clarified: "Thus said Hashem: As the shepherd rescues from the lion's mouth." Who is the lion roaring against them? As seen earlier, it is the king of Assyria, who was already preparing to march here for war. "Will a lion roar in the forest when he has no prey?" A lion roars when he has prey - and if he comes here, it means he will leave with prey. It is impossible for the shepherd to save the mauled sheep; what can he rescue? Two shanks or a piece of an ear. But the sheep as a whole cannot be saved.
Malbim offers an insightful explanation: What is the purpose of rescuing two shanks or the cartilage of an ear; what can one do with them? Rather, Scripture states: "If it is torn to pieces, let him bring it as evidence." When a watchman claims to the owner who entrusted him with the flock that the animal was mauled by a predator, he must produce evidence by presenting the remains. This is like the brothers saying to Yaakov, "Please examine: is this your son's tunic?" When remains are presented, they serve as testimony that it was indeed mauled, and through this evidence the watchman is exempt from paying the owner for what was torn by unavoidable force.
Thus the prophet tells them: Know that those who will be spared are only the frail, "those dwelling in Samaria at the corner of a bed" - only they will be spared from death. "And in Damascus on a couch" - those dwelling in Damascus at the corner of a couch. Malbim explains: On an *eres* (couch) lies one who is critically ill, whereas on a *mitah* (bed) lies even someone who is merely somewhat weak and not fully bedridden. That is, in Israel, even those lying at the corner of a bed, who are only mildly ill, will be spared; but in Damascus, none will be spared except those lying on an *eres* - in the sense of a sickbed (*eres devai*), one who is completely bedridden - whereas the mildly sick will meet with no mercy either.
It turns out that there are two stages here: one stage in which he strikes Israel, and a second stage in which he strikes Damascus. Indeed, says Malbim, these were the two historical phases: at first, the king of Assyria exiled many to Damascus, as Scripture records, "and he exiled Aram to Kir," and he settled Israelites in Damascus in their place. First he exiled Aram to a place called Kir, and later he exiled the Ten Tribes there. Alternatively, Malbim suggests, many from Israel went and settled there voluntarily, for it is written of Jeroboam son of Joash that he restored Damascus to Israel, as recorded in the Book of Kings, and subsequently the king of Assyria exiled them from Damascus. This is what is meant by "I will exile you beyond Damascus" - that from Damascus he transferred the Ten Tribes to Chalah, Chavor, the river Gozan, and the other places of their exile. In Damascus, he would not even leave the weak behind, only those who were truly bedridden on their sickbeds. And from where do we know that the term *eres* refers specifically to the sick? From verses such as "Hashem will sustain him on his sickbed (*eres devai*)," "I have decked my couch (*arsi*) with coverings," and "Behold, his bed (*arso*) was an iron bed" - showing that this is a type of bed designated for the infirm.
The Third Premise: "Does a Bird Fall into a Snare"
שִׁמְעוּ וְהָעִידוּ בְּבֵית יַעֲקֹב, נְאֻם אֲדֹנָי ה' אֱלֹהֵי הַצְּבָאוֹת׃ - "Hear, and testify against the house of Jacob," says the Lord God, the God of Hosts.
The Holy One, blessed be He, says to the prophets: Go and testify against the house of Jacob. And here, explains the Malbim, the third premise is clarified - "Does a bird fall into a snare on the ground when there is no trap for it?" If you see that you have fallen into a trap, into the snare set by the king of Assyria, it is a sign that there is a trap here. And what is the trap? It is written in Hoshea: "And Ephraim has become like a silly dove, lacking understanding; they called to Egypt, they went to Assyria. As they go, I will spread My net over them; I will bring them down like the birds of the sky."
And we have already explained there: Hoshea ben Elah abolished the altars of idolatry, and this stirred up unrest, since the worshippers of the Baal and the various influencers of the day did not like it. They turned against him and went and informed on him to the king of Assyria - as is their way, both today and of old - claiming that Hoshea ben Elah was rebelling against him, that he turned to Egypt for aid and support, and that he no longer accepted his sovereignty. And all this because he abolished their idolatrous altars! Following that betrayal, the king of Assyria came here to deal with the one who rebelled against him. When Hoshea ben Elah heard this, he went down to meet him - after having sent messengers to call upon the king of Egypt for help - just as a bird flies directly into a net. This is the meaning of "I will spread My net over them; I will bring them down like the birds of the sky." And this trap was laid for him by the wicked among his own people: the wicked among them set the snare for him, and through them he fell.
It turns out that the primary trap was the sin of the golden calves, and that is what ultimately caused Hoshea ben Elah to go down to the king of Assyria and be captured like a bird walking into a cage. This is the meaning of "Does a bird fall into a snare on the ground when there is no trap for it?" But do not think that those who stoked the fire got away clean: the king of Assyria came and took everyone, including the informants. Those who thought they would destroy Hoshea ben Elah while remaining untouched - those who live in glass houses should not throw stones, and in the end it reached them as well. Whoever plays with fire gets burned.
"And I will punish the altars of Beit-El"
כִּי בְּיוֹם פׇּקְדִי פִשְׁעֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל עָלָיו, וּפָקַדְתִּי עַל מִזְבְּחוֹת בֵּית אֵל, וְנִגְדְּעוּ קַרְנוֹת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְנָפְלוּ לָאָרֶץ׃ - "For on the day I punish the transgressions of Israel upon him, I will visit punishment upon the altars of Beit-El; and the horns of the altar shall be cut off and fall to the ground."
When is this day? Radak explains: This is the day of the earthquake in the days of Uzziah, and regarding it the verse says, "on the day I punish." "And I will visit punishment upon the altars of Beit-El" - similar to what is stated: "And upon their gods the Lord executed judgments." When the Holy One, blessed be He, exacts punishment from idolaters, He also exacts punishment from the idol itself, to demonstrate that it has no substance. Therefore, the first to be struck in Egypt was the Nile, for they believed the Nile was a deity, and afterward Hashem executed judgments upon all their gods. So too here: the altars of Beit-El will also be punished, for when the earthquake struck, they all crumbled.
"And the horns of the altar shall be cut off" - the horns of the altar are the corner pillars, and as we explained, the horn (keren) is the corner, the strongest and most stable part of the structure, the corners of the house. Sometimes a house shakes and at least the central pillars hold, but here, even the horns of the altar, which are the strongest part, will not withstand the shock and will collapse. Another explanation: the horns of the altar are a central element of the sacrificial service, just as in the service of Israel and - lehavdil - in the service of the Baal, for the sprinkling of the blood takes place upon the horns of the altar. The kohen proceeds to the southeast corner, the northeast corner, the northwest corner, and goes around sprinkling blood on the horns of the altar - either "two applications which are four" or "four separate applications." What is meant by "two which are four"? He approaches the corner of the altar and dashes the blood against the corner so that it spreads to both adjacent walls, so that from one application two sides are covered; then he goes to the diagonally opposite corner and dashes the blood there as well, and it spreads likewise - resulting in two applications that cover all four sides of the altar. And "four upon the four horns" means that he approaches each corner individually and places the blood there in four distinct applications. In any event, we learn that the blood was applied to the horns of the altar, and therefore it says, "and the horns of the altar shall be cut off" - the horns of the altar of the Baal will be severed, for that was the focal point of the sacrificial service.
The Malbim explains: On the day I punish the transgressions of Israel, I will hold them accountable for their sins, and I will visit punishment upon the altars of Beit-El, and the horns of the altar will be cut off - this refers to what we saw earlier: that Hoshea ben Elah, before he was betrayed, severed the horns of the altar, and Scripture is speaking of this time. As a result, they could no longer apply the blood of their offerings to the horns of the altar. Thus, the snare of idolatry led to another snare: you informed on him, and consequently the king of Assyria came and destroyed you.
"And I will strike the winter house along with the summer house"
וְהִכֵּיתִי בֵית הַחֹרֶף עַל בֵּית הַקָּיִץ, וְאָבְדוּ בָּתֵּי הַשֵּׁן וְסָפוּ בָּתִּים רַבִּים נְאֻם ה'׃ - "And I will strike down the winter house along with the summer house, and the ivory houses shall perish, and the great houses shall come to an end," says the Lord.
In their day, people did not have air conditioners; at best, a water cooler. What did they do? They had a winter house and a summer house. The winter house was built with heavy insulation, low ceilings, a fireplace and heating elements, and small windows. The summer house was built the opposite way: on elevated ground with natural breeze, high ceilings, and large windows to ensure ample ventilation so they would not swelter in the summer, often with stone and marble walls, which are known to stay cooler. We find this with several kings who kept both a winter house and a summer house - sitting in the winter house before the burning hearth, or being struck down there in the summer house.
The Malbim explains: "And I will strike the winter house along with the summer house" - the rebels destroyed the royal palace, both the winter palace of Hoshea son of Elah and the summer palace. "And the ivory houses will perish" - what were these ivory houses? Targum Yonatan explains: houses paneled with elephant ivory, in which the walls were lined with a special covering, an extraordinary luxury. This, by the way, is the source of the phrase "ivory towers", as they would inlay and adorn towers with precious ivory. The verse means: even the palaces will collapse.
"And many houses will come to an end" - what is meant by "many"? Radak offers two explanations: either many in number, or great in stature, from the word rav, referring to grand palaces and estates. The Malbim explains that through the internal turmoil among themselves, they destroyed many houses, as it says, "and the people shall be as fuel for the fire," Menashe against Ephraim and Ephraim against Menashe - may Hashem protect us from each man's sword turning against his fellow. Alternatively, it occurred because they informed on Hoshea son of Elah to the king of Assyria, who then marched against him and imprisoned him - and that was the trigger that set off the trap in which everyone was ultimately ensnared.
It turns out, then, that the sin of idolatry in their midst was the main snare that trapped the bird - namely Ephraim and the tribes of Israel - and as a result, "great houses will come to an end, says Hashem."
In summary:
From verse 9 onward, Amos expands upon the premises he laid down at the beginning of the chapter. "Can two walk together?" - Hashem is the One Who summoned the Philistines and Egypt to gather and proclaim, "Assemble upon the mountains of Samaria," until the nations themselves stand shocked by the turmoil between man and God and the oppression and robbery between man and his fellow, the very opposite of the purpose for which we were set apart from them. "Will a lion roar?" - this is the king of Assyria, who will not let prey slip from his jaws, leaving behind barely anything, like two leg bones or a tip of an ear: the weakest at the edge of the bed in Samaria, and the sick on their deathbeds in Damascus, a tiny remnant that leaned upon the kingdom of Judah. "Will a bird fall into a snare?" - the snare was the sin of the golden calves and idolatry, which triggered the betrayal of Hoshea son of Elah and the downfall of all into the trap. In the end, the horns of the altar were hewn down, the winter house and the summer house were destroyed, the ivory houses perished, and many houses were brought to an end. And the message is one: this entire summoning of the nations is no accident, but a call to return in repentance.