Our chapter continues the grand allegory begun by Hoshea: the Congregation of Israel as a wife, and the Holy One, blessed be He, as her husband. From here onward, the prophet sets forth all the stages of the downfall: the dispute, the punishment, the effort to bring her back, and a repentance that falls short of true return. We will follow the order of the verses and explain them according to the Malbim, alongside Radak, Rashi, and Metzudat David.
רִיבוּ בְאִמְּכֶם רִיבוּ כִּי הִיא לֹא אִשְׁתִּי וְאָנֹכִי לֹא אִישָׁהּ וְתָסֵר זְנוּנֶיהָ מִפָּנֶיהָ וְנַאֲפוּפֶיהָ מִבֵּין שָׁדֶיהָ׃ - Contend with your mother, contend, for she is not My wife, nor am I her husband; and let her remove her harlotry from her face, and her adulteries from between her breasts.
The Holy One, blessed be He, addresses the prophets: Go and contend with the people of Israel for forsaking the way of Hashem. "For she is not My wife, nor am I her husband" - meaning, if she does not remove her waywardness from her face, there is no longer a bond of marriage between us; I am not her husband, and she is not My wife. The phrase "from her face" teaches that the betrayal is no longer concealed, but brazen - openly visible on her face for all to see.
פֶּן אַפְשִׁיטֶנָּה עֲרֻמָּה וְהִצַּגְתִּיהָ כְּיוֹם הִוָּלְדָהּ וְשַׂמְתִּיהָ כַמִּדְבָּר וְשַׁתִּהָ כְּאֶרֶץ צִיָּה וַהֲמִתִּיהָ בַּצָּמָא׃ - Lest I strip her naked and present her as on the day she was born, and make her like a wilderness, and set her like a parched land, and slay her with thirst.
Here the inner logic of the punishment is revealed: a husband's obligation to clothe his wife exists only as long as he is her husband. If he is not her husband, he has no obligation to clothe her, and therefore "Lest I strip her naked." I will take back from her the garments that I provided.
The Malbim explains: Consider the initial condition of the Congregation of Israel. When the Holy One, blessed be He, redeemed us from Egypt, we were like a newborn infant whom her parents cast out, naked and wallowing in her blood in the wilderness. Thus the prophet describes in Yechezkel 16: "On the day you were born, your navel cord was not cut" - they did not even bother to sever your umbilical cord; "And I passed by you and saw you wallowing in your blood," "yet you were naked and bare." And the Holy One, blessed be He, washed her of her blood, clothed her in embroidered garments, spread His wings over her, took her to Himself as a wife, brought her to an inhabited land - to the Land of Israel, and gave her a land flowing with milk and honey.
Now, the parable continues: that foundling from the street, whom the husband raised from nothing, clothed, married, and gave a home, goes off and strays with others. What is the punishment? A return to the former state. Therefore, "Lest I strip her naked" - just as you were at your beginning, naked and bare. And more than that: "and present her as on the day she was born" - for on the day she was born she was wallowing in her blood, an even more dire condition. In the allegorical meaning, the garments signify the resting of the Shechinah and Divine Providence, while her splendid ornaments and jewelry represent the gifts granted to her by the Holy One, blessed be He, in the Redemption, the Torah, and the Land of Israel. If you stray after your lovers, I will return you to that initial state.
The Malbim notes a precise distinction: What is the difference between vesamatiah ("and make her") and veshatiah ("and set her")? Seemingly they mean the same thing, lasum and lashit. However, lasum can denote something temporary, whereas lashit signifies permanence. Thus, first He says "and make her like a wilderness" - a temporary state, for a wilderness can be cultivated and sown, making the wasteland bloom. Afterward, He says "and set her like a parched land" - permanently, for a parched land (tziyah) is harsher than a wilderness, an arid place incapable of blooming at all. There will be an enduring state of desolation and thirst, where no water will ever be found: "and slay her with thirst." And the lesson: I will return her to the exile among the nations, which is the wilderness, and there she will wallow in her blood.
The Radak explains that the thirst mentioned here is an allegory for the cessation of Torah and prophecy, as it is written: "Her king and her princes are among the nations, there is no Torah; her prophets also find no vision from Hashem," and as stated: "Not a hunger for bread, nor a thirst for water, but for hearing the words of Hashem." That is to say, not only physical ruin, but spiritual desolation - a thirst for spirituality.
וְאֶת בָּנֶיהָ לֹא אֲרַחֵם כִּי בְנֵי זְנוּנִים הֵמָּה׃ - "And upon her children I will not have mercy, for they are children of harlotry."
"She" refers to Knesset Yisrael; and who are "her children" upon whom no mercy will be shown? The Malbim explains that in the allegory, this refers even to the righteous among them. Since the collective strayed from Hashem, and the world is judged according to its majority, and the Jewish people as a whole are judged by their majority - and the majority were wicked - the verse is fulfilled: "If fire breaks out and catches in thorns, so that the stacked grain or the standing grain is consumed." The righteous, too, suffer on account of the wicked, and are likewise considered among the "children of harlotry."
The Metzudat David explains according to the plain meaning: since she was compared to a harlot, it is the way of the world that people have no mercy on her children, who are the offspring of harlotry. If one examines the rational basis for this, there is no real justification: their mother sinned, but what did the children do wrong? Yet human nature is such. Similarly, the righteous are swept away due to the iniquity of the nation as a whole, even though to our eyes this appears unjust - just as the persecution of a harlot's children appears unjust. It must be emphasized, however, that this is only how it appears to human eyes, for there is no such thing as injustice before the Holy One, blessed be He.
כִּי זָנְתָה אִמָּם הֹבִישָׁה הוֹרָתָם כִּי אָמְרָה אֵלְכָה אַחֲרֵי מְאַהֲבַי נֹתְנֵי לַחְמִי וּמֵימַי צַמְרִי וּפִשְׁתִּי שַׁמְנִי וְשִׁקּוּיָי׃ - "For their mother has played the harlot; she who conceived them has acted shamefully, for she said: 'I will go after my lovers, who give me my bread and my water, my wool and my flax, my oil and my drink.'"
The word ki ("for") provides the reason: since their mother committed harlotry, her children are regarded as children of harlotry. Here, however, a question arises, which the Malbim addresses: We have an established halachic principle that "the majority of intimacy is attributed to the husband" (rov be'ilot achar haba'al). If a woman was caught in disgrace and her misconduct was exposed, and the husband comes and claims: "Who says these children are mine? After all, there are witnesses that she committed adultery!" In our day, there are DNA tests that are ninety-nine percent accurate, but in their time this was extremely difficult to ascertain, and it carries many practical halachic ramifications: inheritance, maintenance, and more. The Halachah rules that the majority of intimacy is attributed to the husband, because with whom is she constantly found? With her husband, not with the paramour. Therefore, the greater probability is that she conceived from her husband.
If so, even if their mother strayed, the children should be deemed legitimate; why then does it say, "for they are children of harlotry"? To this, the verse adds: "She who conceived them has acted shamefully" (hovishah horatam) - she brought disgrace upon the pregnancy of the children to the point where their lineage is in doubt (safek mamzerim). Her conduct and actions cast a severe cloud of suspicion over her pregnancies: were they fathered by the husband or by strangers?
And what leads to such suspicion? "For she said: 'I will go after my lovers, who give me my bread and my water.'" The entire principle that the majority of intimacy is attributed to the husband applies only when she strays in secret, while publicly she remains attached to her husband, eating at his table, and living in his home. Here, however, she has already abandoned the home and gone after her lovers, receiving her sustenance not from her husband but from them: "who give me my bread and my water" - her basic food; "my wool and my flax" - her clothing; "my oil and my drink" - the oil used to anoint the body, and beverages such as wine and milk. It turns out, then, that the majority of intimacy was with the paramours and not with the husband, and therefore: "And upon her children I will not have mercy, for they are children of harlotry."
The allegory corresponds to this: Knesset Yisrael was already serving idols openly, in public - not like a woman who strays in secret. She believed that all her success and abundance stemmed from the celestial bodies and idols she worshipped. "My lovers, who give me my bread and my water" - she was drawn after idolatry and the forces of the constellations, saying: They are the ones who bestow good upon me. In doing so, says the Malbim, she became like all the families of the earth who serve wood and stone, and therefore the Holy One, blessed be He, casts them all away from before Him - including the best among them.
Why did the verse duplicate the terms, saying both "their mother" (immam) and "she who conceived them" (horatam)? Are they not the exact same thing? The Malbim explains that they are not. Often, "mother" (eim) refers to the nurse or adoptive mother who raises the child, even if she is not the biological mother. This distinction is evident throughout Scripture: "concerning their mothers who bore them" - showing that "their mothers" is one concept and "who bore them" is another; similarly, "and your mother who bore you"; and likewise, "to my mother's house and to the chamber of she who conceived me" - "mother" meaning the one who raised him, and "she who conceived" meaning the biological mother who gave birth to him. Therefore, here, the disgrace exists on both fronts: from the perspective of "their mother", it is a profound disgrace that the very woman who raised you acts like a harlot; and the disgrace also extends to "she who conceived them", raising the suspicion that the entire pregnancy came from illicit lovers rather than her husband, casting a heavy cloud of doubt upon the legitimacy of the children.
Rashi, following the Targum, along with the Radak, interpret this differently: "Their mother has played the harlot" refers to the collective congregation of Israel; "she who conceived them has acted shamefully" (hovishah horatam) refers to those who instruct them (hamorim otam), the sages who teach them halachic guidance and Torah. Why were they disgraced? Because to make matters worse, the teachers themselves were corrupt, as the Midrash notes: they tell others, "Do not steal" - yet they themselves steal; they tell others, "Do not lend with interest" - yet they themselves lend with interest. What a disgrace it is when someone who teaches Torah to the public personally commits the very sins he rebukes others for! Perhaps he even tells them "do not lend with interest" merely to eliminate competitors, ensuring everyone comes to borrow from him. At any rate, there was great shame here: the very ones who were supposed to teach the path taught contrary to the way of Hashem, doing the exact opposite in practice.
According to the Malbim, "my lovers" refers to idolatry and to the stars and constellations that they worshiped. The Radak's father explained similarly: the sun, the moon, and the stars, from which they believed abundance flowed, just as they argued, "For since we ceased burning incense to the queen of heaven and pouring out drink offerings to her, we have lacked everything and have been consumed by sword and famine." They genuinely believed that if one worships the celestial bodies properly, one receives abundance.
The Radak adds an explanation of his own: "my lovers" also refers to the foreign nations upon whom they relied at that time. As we have discussed several times, they were convinced they had nothing to fear from the strategic threats surrounding them, since they had external allies to help them. They relied on Egypt, and the prophet rebuked them repeatedly, showing that this was futile trust and a broken reed of a staff that pierces the hand of anyone leaning upon it. They paid vast fortunes to these nations for salvation; at best, the foreign powers took the money and offered no aid, and at worst, they pocketed the funds and subsequently joined the enemies to strike us. Assyria and Egypt were nations with whom they forged alliances to escape Hashem's decrees, akin to a mutual defense pact. And why are they called "the providers of my bread and my water"? Because when there is security, one can sow, harvest, gather vintage, and thresh; thus, their entire livelihood seemed to depend on the power of these allies. Regarding this, it is said that "she has acted shamefully" (hovishah) - for these hopes would be dashed, and from great expectations of salvation would come immense humiliation, as it is written in Eichah: "Our eyes still failed, looking in vain for our help." Our eyes yearned for those we trusted, yet we received neither help nor salvation from them.
לָכֵן הִנְנִי שָׂךְ אֶת דַּרְכֵּךְ בַּסִּירִים וְגָדַרְתִּי אֶת גְּדֵרָהּ וּנְתִיבוֹתֶיהָ לֹא תִמְצָא׃ - "Therefore, behold, I will hedge up your way with thorns, and I will wall her in with a wall, so that she shall not find her paths."
Sirim, shikim, and tzeninim are all types of thorns, as in the phrase, "as thorns in your eyes and thistles in your sides." From this comes the root sach: it was common practice to construct a hedge from briars and thorns. The Holy One, blessed be He, says: the road will be paved with thorns, making it impassable for you. Furthermore, "and I will wall her in with a wall," and "she shall not find her paths" - she will search for the path and fail to find it. According to the Radak: you will be unable to reach those lovers, Assyria and Egypt, to obtain their help. According to other commentators: regarding the constellations you rely upon, I will prevent them from bestowing goodness upon you.
The Malbim explains that this verse describes the efforts the Holy One, blessed be He, makes to bring the congregation of Israel back to Him, like a husband trying to reclaim his wayward wife. In the parable: how does a husband prevent his wife from going to her lovers? If there is a wide, main highway along which she travels, he scatters thorns across it so that she cannot pass. Even then, she might still jump over a wall where there are breaches; to prevent this, "I will wall her in with a wall." Even if narrow trails remain that are not primary roads, He ruins those paths so that "she shall not find her paths." Through these measures, he cuts her off from those who consort with her.
The deeper meaning: if this refers to the stars and constellations in which they believed, the Holy One, blessed be He, will alter the celestial order so that they cannot exert any influence over her, and He will build a fence around her so that she derives neither success nor abundance from them. We find a similar idea during the era of the destruction of the Temple, when the people were unconcerned by the dire prophecies. They thought: we know the secret names of the angels who channel divine influence from above, and we will adjure them by oath not to bring harm upon us. What did Hashem do? He changed their names! When someone attempted to adjure a specific angel not to bring hail, the address was no longer valid; it was as if the angel had changed numbers, moved to a different area code and a different network, leaving no connection whatsoever. The paths were altered - "He has made my paths crooked" - and they were powerless to affect the celestial system. The same occurred in the Generation of the Flood: they were certain they had mastery over the angels on high through incantations over angels and demons, believing they could alter nature and the heavens, but the Holy One, blessed be He, changed the angels' names.
The Malbim explains that the same principle applies here: Hashem will erect a barrier against the planetary arrangements and their governing forces so they channel no goodness to Israel, and He will nullify all the rituals, amulets, and talismans - those astrological practices through which they sought to draw down bounty. Furthermore, He will instill enmity between Israel and the neighboring powers on whom she relied. This aligns with the Radak's view: Israel relied on Assyria and Egypt and forged covenants with them, but the Holy One, blessed be He, will build a wall around her so that she can no longer reach them.
Here the Malbim follows a principle he has laid out several times: a "derech" is a major, permanent thoroughfare used by the public - in our terms, a highway; "netivot" are paths used occasionally by individuals, narrow trails that are not public roads. A major road cannot simply be erased, for the public constantly treads upon it. Therefore, the verse does not say that she will not find the road; rather, what can be done? Scatter thorns along it - "Behold, I will hedge your path with thorns." By contrast, an individual path can indeed become blurred and unrecognizable, which is why it says, "she shall not find her paths" - I will erase the paths until they are completely unrecognizable, and consequently she will not be able to reach her lovers through them, neither the nations in which she trusts nor the cosmic forces to draw influence from them.
An additional proof for this distinction comes from the verse in Eichah: "He has enclosed my ways with hewn stone" - a major road cannot be lost or erased, so He placed hewn stones in the middle of it; whereas "He has made my paths crooked" - individual paths can be distorted and erased entirely, forcing one to walk on a crooked trail. But a major road cannot be distorted, since it is a public thoroughfare and will remain evident in any case.
We must emphasize: although the mashal describes an unfaithful wife, it is not an exact parallel from a halachic perspective. After all, a woman who willingly commits adultery while married - even if her husband is a Yisrael and not a Kohen - becomes forbidden to him. If so, how can the husband go and hedge her paths with thorns and hewn stones in order to bring her back to him, when this is halachically forbidden? The answer is that we are not dealing here with the halachic dimension, for such categories do not apply to the bond between us and the Holy One, blessed be He. Indeed, the Jewish people themselves once raised this very argument: once the Holy One, blessed be He, sent us away and we went and strayed willingly, how can we return and rebuild our bond with Him?
The answer is that with the Holy One, blessed be He, this does not apply, for several reasons. One reason is that there is no true substance to the lovers - neither in idol worship nor in the help of Egypt. When a woman commits adultery, her husband and the paramour are both human beings of equal standing, meaning she betrayed one man for another. But in relation to the Holy One, blessed be He, with whom did she betray Him? With idols, which possess no true reality and have no independent power to grant influence; they are mere illusions. Consequently, there is no real "other" here at all. Therefore, this entire depiction is strictly an allegory, and one must not deduce from it that among human beings a husband would be permitted to prevent his wife from straying and take her back - once she has strayed willingly, she is forbidden. And this itself is what the Holy One, blessed be He, is doing: He hedges our paths so that we realize we are living in an illusion, chasing after something devoid of reality.
וְרִדְּפָה אֶת מְאַהֲבֶיהָ וְלֹא תַשִּׂיג אֹתָם וּבִקְשָׁתַם וְלֹא תִמְצָא וְאָמְרָה אֵלְכָה וְאָשׁוּבָה אֶל אִישִׁי הָרִאשׁוֹן כִּי טוֹב לִי אָז מֵעָתָּה׃ - "And she shall pursue her lovers, but she shall not overtake them; and she shall seek them, but shall not find them; then shall she say: I will go and return to my first husband, for it was better for me then than now."
The Radak continues along his line of interpretation: this refers to Assyria and Egypt, to whom they turned and upon whom they relied. She will pursue their aid but will not attain it, and she will suddenly realize that she invested in the wrong place; there is no relying on the nations, and Egypt will not come to her rescue. And if we interpret this as referring to the celestial constellations or the false prophets who deal in them, they will be of no avail to her. No matter how much incense she burns to the Queen of Heaven, offers sacrifices, and performs rituals to draw down influence apart from the Holy One, blessed be He, she will attain nothing and receive nothing.
Here a major difficulty arises: "Then shall she say: I will go and return to my first husband, for it was better for me then than now" - this sounds like teshuvah! If so, the continuation is baffling: "For she did not know that it was I who gave her the corn, and the wine, and the oil... Therefore will I take back My corn in its time, and My wine in its season... And now will I uncover her shame in the sight of her lovers... I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feasts, her New Moons, and her Sabbaths, and all her appointed seasons." You just said that she returns, and immediately punishments follow?
The Radak resolves this: examine the precise phrasing - it says, "then shall she say: I will go and return," not that she actually returned. She reached a realization, but she did not translate it into action. In fact, the verse is leaping forward in history: only after all the punishments and exile will the message sink in, and she will say: "How foolish I was! I will go and return to my first husband; look what came of relying on Egypt and the Ba'alim." But at present, she still does not understand, which is why the ensuing punishments apply. It is as the Torah states: "When you are in distress, and all these things have come upon you in the end of days, you will return to Hashem your God" - this will occur only in the end of days. To what can this be compared? A person says to a companion who turns to others instead of him: "Go ahead, go - in the end you will come crawling back to me." He does not mean that the companion has already returned, but that after taking blows, he will return. So too, the prophet says here: in the end they will repent, but for now this does not deter them from being drawn after Egypt and idol worship.
The Malbim takes a different path. After Hashem hedges her path with thorns and builds her wall so that she cannot find her pathways, this will cause her lovers to distance themselves from her as well. Whereas initially they were drawn to her, now they will flee from her, and she will pursue them.
A point of grammar: there is the light conjugation (Binyan Kal) and the intensive conjugation (Binyan Piel). "Radaf" versus "Rideif"; "Rotzei'ach" versus "Meratzei'ach". The intensive conjugation is called such because it puts greater weight on the organs of speech and features a dagesh, and the commentators explain that it denotes persistence and intensity. Murder can occur gently, but "meratzei'ach" indicates great force and continuous action. So too here: "Ve-ridfah" - pursuit with full force and over an extended period, not an ordinary pursuit. The Ibn Ezra does not accept this rule and brings proofs from other verses, but this is the accepted rule among the commentators.
Those same lovers with whom she once enjoyed a close connection suddenly want nothing to do with her. "And she will not overtake them" - they will flee from her; and ultimately they will even disappear from her sight - "and she will seek them but not find them." And the nimshal: the success she previously derived from nature, the celestial order, and the stars - she will not know where they are in order to seek them out, and she will be unable to receive aid or support from those spiritual powers upon which she relied; and as for the assistance and alliances of the surrounding nations - she will seek them, but they will not help her.
And what of "I will go and return to my first husband"? The Malbim explains: examine the wording of the verse closely and you will realize that her repentance is merely lip service - spoken only from the mouth because she is under pressure. She has no choice; a gun is held to her temple. The Holy One, blessed be He, says: Is this the repentance I seek? Is this the acknowledgment of sin I desire? You do not truly feel that you acted corruptly, but merely that you have no other choice. This was the stumbling block of their repentance, which is why it was not accepted, and why distress was added upon their distress.
The parable is clear: an unfaithful wife whose lovers have distanced themselves from her pursues them and cannot find them, and has no one to provide for her - so, lacking any alternative, she returns home and tells her husband: I have repented. And what actually happened? "I really went looking for so-and-so, but the door was locked, so I came back." Is that repentance?
Furthermore, look closely at her wording: "For it was better for me then than now." She is lamenting the very necessity of returning to her first husband, saying that it was truly better for her in the house of her lovers than in her husband's home - except that now, since they refuse to open the door for her, her husband's home is the lesser of two evils. That is: in the predicament I find myself in now, where the paramours have abandoned me, it is indeed better in my husband's home; but had they not abandoned me, I certainly would have preferred them! It turns out that her repentance is so flawed that there is no chance it could be accepted.
וְהִיא לֹא יָדְעָה כִּי אָנֹכִי נָתַתִּי לָהּ הַדָּגָן וְהַתִּירוֹשׁ וְהַיִּצְהָר וְכֶסֶף הִרְבֵּיתִי לָהּ וְזָהָב עָשׂוּ לַבָּעַל׃ - "And she did not know that it was I who gave her the grain, the new wine, and the oil, and multiplied silver for her, and gold, which they used for the Baal."
And why does she think this way? Because she believes that all the good she enjoyed came from her lovers and not from her husband. In her mind, had they opened the door for her, she would have received all that bounty from them; and only because they shut it in her face does she return to her husband. This is what the verse states: "And she did not know that it was I who gave her" - everything she had, even while she was in the house of her lovers, I gave to her, yet she believed they had provided it. Thus her repentance stems from error and from a lack of recognizing the truth; therefore it is not accepted, and therefore the punishments that follow ensue.
We have seen how the parable of the straying woman unfolds across all its stages: the punishment is a return to the starting point - "yet you were naked and bare" - reduced to a parched land and a thirst for Torah and prophecy; and even the righteous are ensnared in the guilt of the collective, as the world is judged by its majority. "For their mother has strayed, she who conceived them has acted shamefully" teaches that the infidelity was not in private but in public, to the extent that one cannot apply the principle of "most relations are attributed to the husband" - which in the nimshal represents overt idol worship and reliance on foreign nations and astrological forces. Then the Husband comes and hedges: thorns on the highway, a wall across the breach, and the obscuring of pathways - an upheaval of the celestial order, the nullification of occult charms and adjurations of names, and separation from the nations. Finally, when the lovers flee, comes the declaration, "I will go and return" - which according to the Radak refers to the repentance of the End of Days that has not yet arrived, while according to the Malbim is merely lip service, borne of distress and lack of options, rooted in the fundamental error: "And she did not know that it was I who gave her." This is the message: repentance that does not stem from recognizing the truth - that all abundance is entirely from His hand, blessed be He, and there is none besides Him - is not true repentance.