Sefer Hoshea, chapter 5: "Hear this, O priests, and attend, O house of Israel, and give ear, O house of the king, for the judgment pertains to you, for you have been a snare at Mitzpah and a net spread out upon Tavor." "Hear this, O priests, and attend, O house of Israel." The Malbim explains that the priests here refer to the priests of the Baal, the priests of the calves. They would incite the people not to make the pilgrimage up to Jerusalem, but rather to remain where they were and worship the Baalim and the calves instead of ascending to the Beis HaMikdash. The House of Israel would be seduced by them and accept their words. The royal house also hearkened to them and placed guards along the roads - these guards stationed at roadblocks (parosda'ot), as we have mentioned several times in the past, would kill anyone who nonetheless insisted on making the pilgrimage. Concerning this he says: "Hear this, O priests, and attend, O house of Israel, and give ear, O house of the king, for the judgment pertains to you." Hashem's judgment will come on your account; you are the cause. If there will be strict judgments and tribulations, if there will be troubles and exiles, the judgment is yours, for you caused all this evil. "For you have been a snare at Mitzpah." The Malbim explains that Mitzpah and Tavor were two mountains through which people would travel toward Jerusalem. They stationed guards there to ensure that no one ascended for the festival pilgrimage. And where are guards always stationed? At mountain passes, where travelers must cross. Thus, at Mitzpah they placed a snare. The Malbim explains that a snare (pach) is a trap in which you capture the one you seek - a fowler's snare. So at Mitzpah they set a snare to trap those passing through. Tavor was an expansive, wide area, so a simple snare was not suitable; it was not a narrow passage where you could set a snare. It was a broader area, so there they spread a net around. This does not necessarily mean a literal net; it may be a metaphor, meaning that because the area was wide, it was as though you spread a net before the pilgrims' feet to prevent them from passing through that area. And you, the royal house, you are the snare, you are the net, because all of this was done by your decree: "For the judgment pertains to you, for you have been a snare at Mitzpah and a net spread out upon Tavor."
The Malbim notes that there is a variation in terminology here. First the verse says: "Hear (shimu) this, O priests," then "attend (hakshivu), O house of Israel," and then "give ear (ha'azinu), O house of the king." What is the difference between shemi'ah (hearing), hakshavah (attending), and ha'azanah (giving ear)? The Malbim explains in several places that the progression is as follows: first one listens from afar (hakshavah); then one gives ear (ha'azanah), meaning bending an ear, wanting to discern what was caught from a distance; and finally one hears (shemi'ah), meaning complete focus and full comprehension. This does not necessarily align with how we use these terms in everyday modern speech, but it is the precise nuance of Scripture. Shemi'ah also denotes understanding of the heart, an internal listening. It is far deeper than mere physical hearing. For example, Shlomo HaMelech prayed: "Give Your servant an understanding heart" (lev shome'a, literally a hearing heart). Hearing represents the reception and internalization of the message. Therefore, when addressing three entities, the primary and most significant one receives the term shemi'ah. For the intermediate level, Scripture uses ha'azanah. And for the secondary, least prominent party, it uses hakshavah, because hakshavah is listening from afar; then one draws near and inclines an ear (ha'azanah); and finally one truly hears (shemi'ah), which includes the heart's internalization. Based on this, the Malbim explains the verse: The primary instigators, those who caused the people to despise the pilgrimage, were the priests - the idolatrous priests. They were the main seducers, so the prophet tells them: "Hear this, O priests" - this prophecy is addressed primarily to you, and therefore you must fully hear it. The house of Israel is the least central in driving this sin, so he says to them: "Attend, O house of Israel" - as noted, hakshavah is the lowest tier, merely listening from a distance. And who is the intermediate party? The royal house, to whom he addresses the term ha'azanah. Why? Because the priests were the primary movers, seducing the royal house as well. The royal house acted upon the priests' incitement and set up roadblocks, physically preventing the people from going. Thus, on the one hand, they were incited by the priests, so they are not the primary cause; on the other hand, they enforced the ban upon the people, so they cannot be considered entirely secondary. Therefore, they are intermediate, and concerning them it says: "O house of the king, give ear." By contrast, the common people were incited by the priests and physically restrained by the king; there was not much point in directly reprimanding them, so they are addressed with hakshavah, as one listening from a distance. The primary accountability rests with the priests, followed by the royal house, and lastly the house of Israel.
"And in slaughtering, those who turn aside went deep, and I will chastise them all (ve-shachatoh satim he'emiku va-ani musar le-khulam)." There are several explanations for this verse. Rashi explains that shachatoh comes from the root of drawing out or extending, as in zahav shachut (beaten, drawn-out gold), which is soft gold stretched out. Thus, ve-shachatoh satim he'emiku means they deepened the duration of their straying. In other words, their straying from the straight path was not a fleeting or localized lapse; it was prolonged (ve-shachatoh) and deep. Satim is in the sense of straying from the upright path. Chazal comment that the Holy One, blessed be He, said: "I declared that whoever does not ascend for the festival neglects a positive commandment, but they decreed that whoever ascends for the festival shall be put to death - thus they went deeper than I." That is to say: had Hashem decreed death for failing to make the pilgrimage, and they had decreed death for making it, they would have merely equated their laws with Hashem's law. But Hashem says: see how much more severe they were than Me! For failing to make the pilgrimage, Hashem only considered one to have violated a positive commandment, which is comparatively light compared to a negative commandment, let alone offenses punishable by kares or death by the court. Hashem established the lightest penalty; if they had merely said that anyone who comes to worship the calves fulfills a "positive commandment" of the calf, that would be one thing. But they decreed that anyone who insists on making the pilgrimage to Jerusalem must be put to death! Thus they did not merely equate their laws to Mine; they went far deeper and acted with vastly greater cruelty: anyone who heeds Hashem's voice is killed. "And I will chastise them all (va-ani musar le-khulam)" - Rashi explains this as Hashem's words: since they acted in this manner, I will bring chastisement upon them all. The Malbim offers another approach: ve-shachatoh satim he'emiku means that people would see the roadblocks and guards and realize they could not pass along the main roads. What did they do? They would turn aside from the path (satim) to walk through the valley (he'emiku), where there were no guards. And what happened when someone was caught? They would slaughter (ve-shachatoh) him! According to the Malbim, ve-shachatoh is understood literally, meaning slaughter: they would slaughter those who turned aside into the valleys to bypass the guards on the main road. And who is held accountable for this above all? The royal house, for the royal house implemented the priests' agenda, commanding that these pilgrims be slaughtered and murdered. "And I will chastise them all" - the Malbim explains that the prophet is speaking: I knew they would not accept musar (rebuke), that they would refuse to hear the admonition I give them. Yet I was charged with being a man of musar, standing up and rebuking them at the gate. I know that my rebuke will not bear fruit right now, but nonetheless, this is my mission, and I must fulfill it. Where does the prophet express that his rebuke will not help at this time? In the very next verse.
"I know Ephraim, and Israel is not hidden from Me; for now, O Ephraim, you have played the harlot, and Israel is defiled." The Malbim explains: "I know Ephraim, and Israel is not hidden from Me" means that I know their nature, I know their disposition, and I know that the rebuke I give them will not penetrate their hearts at this time. The reason is: "for now, O Ephraim, you have played the harlot." Ephraim represents the monarchy - the kingdom of Shomron. You incite the people to stray after the calves, and through this, "Israel is defiled" - the people of Israel were defiled by the abominations of idolatry that you set before them. The Malbim notes that there are two expressions here: "I know" (yada'ti) and "is not hidden from Me" (lo nikhad mimeni). These two phrases complement each other: a person may know something in general, yet certain particulars remain hidden from him. Here, however, Hashem says: "I know, and nothing is hidden from Me at all." The Malbim elaborates that normally one knows the central matter, while the myriad details of the multitude remain hidden from him; he does not penetrate into every single detail. Hashem says: "I know Ephraim" - Ephraim is the monarchy, the central core, and I know it. You might think that regarding the general populace of Israel, with its endless individual details, it is hidden from Me? "No, Israel is not hidden from Me either." The countless individual details of the people of Israel are also fully known to Me, and I know all their deeds. Therefore, the Holy One, blessed be He, says: I know that their deeds will not permit them to return to their God, for a spirit of harlotry is within them, and they do not know Hashem. Their corrupt deeds will prevent them from returning. Thus, the prophet says: I am a man of rebuke, and even though I know that my rebuke will not bear fruit right now, this is the mission for which I was sent, and I fulfill it.
Rashi explains the verse: "For I know Ephraim, and Israel is not hidden from Me; for now, O Ephraim, you have played the harlot, and Israel is defiled." Until the reign of Hoshea ben Elah, the people would blame their corruption on their kings. Their kings, after all, had physically prevented them from making the pilgrimage to Jerusalem to visit the Beis HaMikdash. Whenever an accusation was leveled against them, they would plead: "What do you expect us to do? The borders are blocked! We have no way to go up." They had a pretext, an excuse. But later, when King Hoshea ben Elah took power, he removed the checkpoints, opened the borders, and disbanded the roadblocks. Immediately, a severe claim arose against the people: "There are no longer any guards; why do you still not go up?" This created a paradox: seemingly, when a decent king finally arose - one could not call him righteous, for he was not righteous, but he was decent enough to grant what we would call today religious freedom, removing the roadblocks and allowing anyone who wished to go to Jerusalem to do so, and anyone who wished to worship the calves in Beit El to do so - one might have thought this would generate merit and delay the catastrophe. Yet the exact opposite occurred: this became the catalyst that hastened their downfall. Why? Because as long as the roadblocks stood, the people had an excuse: "They will not let us go up." But once the roadblocks were dismantled and the people still did not ascend, the question resonated: "There are no guards; why do you not ascend?" One might argue in their defense that they had become accustomed to not ascending over hundreds of years, so why would they suddenly change? Nonetheless, an undeniable grievance was established: the excuse of being forcibly prevented was gone. Hoshea ben Elah had removed the guards; if you still do not ascend, it is out of pure malice of heart! Thus, the removal of the roadblocks became the damning indictment against the people of Israel for neglecting the pilgrimage. This is the meaning of: "For now, O Ephraim, you have played the harlot, and Israel is defiled" - now that the roadblocks are open and you can freely ascend, it is clear that you willfully choose to stray after the Baalim, and not because you were coerced.
The Radak explains: "I know Ephraim" refers to Yarov'am ben Nevat, who was from the tribe of Ephraim. Yarov'am made the golden calves and initiated the entire rupture. Even though he was an earlier king from centuries before the current period, because he started the corruption and was from Ephraim, the verse says: "You have played the harlot, O Ephraim." How else can we understand why the Northern Kingdom of Israel is called Ephraim? "And Israel is not hidden from Me" - Yarov'am was the primary instigator, but he also took counsel with the princes of Israel, as it says: "Whereupon the king took counsel, and made two calves of gold." Hashem says that what they did as partners is not hidden from Him either: "You have played the harlot, O Ephraim" refers to Yarov'am; "and Israel is defiled" refers to the princes who supported him in setting up the calves, defiling the entire nation with idolatry. We notice that Ephraim is often used as the designation for the Northern Kingdom in general, as distinct from Yehudah. The kingdom split after Shlomo's death under Rechavam and Yarov'am. Rechavam retained the Kingdom of Yehudah (meaning Yehudah and Binyamin), while the Ten Tribes were ruled by Yarov'am ben Nevat. From that point on, all the kings of the Ten Tribes were wicked idolaters, which is why the Ten Tribes were exiled first and did not return (there is a dispute whether they will return at the coming of Mashiach, and we believe they will). Thus, the wicked kingdom of Israel - Shomron, Achav, and the kings who followed - is called Ephraim. Why Ephraim specifically, when Ephraim was only one of the ten tribes? Why not Menasheh or Reuven? The Radak explains: because the first king, Yarov'am ben Nevat, was from Ephraim. Consequently, all subsequent kings and the northern nation as a whole were called Ephraim. Ibn Ezra suggests another reason: Yaakov said regarding Ephraim and Menasheh: "and let my name be named in them." Because he said "let my name be named in them," the nation is called by their name, specifically Ephraim, who was given primacy. Ibn Ezra also gives a third explanation, which he favors: when our ancestors entered the Land of Canaan, Yehudah settled on the southern border, and the House of Yosef (the entire tribe of Ephraim and half the tribe of Menasheh) settled on the north. Thus, the first territory settled by the Ten Tribes was Ephraim. Consequently, the entire collective of the Ten Tribes was named after the first region settled, just as an entire region is sometimes named after the first city settled within it. That is why Scripture mentions Yehudah and Ephraim; just as Yehudah represents the southern kingdom without mentioning Binyamin, because Yehudah was the primary initial territory, so Ephraim represents the northern kingdom. This is why we find expressions such as "Is Ephraim My precious son?" and similar verses where Ephraim serves as the name for the Ten Tribes. "Their deeds will not permit them to turn unto their God, for a spirit of harlotry is within them, and they have not known Hashem." Rashi and the Malbim explain: "their deeds will not permit them" (lo yitnu ma'allehem) means they will not abandon their wicked path. How does yitnu mean abandon? Rashi demonstrates this from the phrase natan reicho, which Chazal interpret as "relinquished its pleasant fragrance"; similarly, "and did not permit him (ve-lo netano) to do me harm," or "and Sichon did not permit (ve-lo natan Sichon)." Targum translates it lo yishbok, from the root of leaving or relinquishing. The Malbim explains that whenever the verb natan is negated and followed by an infinitive or verbal noun, the Targum always renders it yishbok, meaning to allow or abandon. Thus, their evil deeds will not allow them to return to their God; alternatively, they will not abandon their wicked deeds, but continue to cling to them. Therefore, the prophet's rebuke will not be effective right now. Two causes prevent them: first, "a spirit of harlotry is within them" - they are filled with heresy, lust, and idolatry; and second, "they have not known Hashem" - they are deeply entrenched in sin over generations, having never witnessed the true service of Hashem in their parents' generation. At this moment, rebuke will not avail. Nevertheless, a time will come when they will finally accept the rebuke and the words will make an impact.
"And the pride of Israel shall be humbled to his face; and Israel and Ephraim shall stumble in their iniquity; Yehudah also shall stumble with them." "And the pride of Israel shall be humbled (ve-anah) to his face" - the Malbim explains that ve-anah comes from the root of submission and humiliation (hachna'ah), as Targum Yonasan renders it, and similar to: "How long will you refuse to humble yourself (le'anot) before Me?" When the pride of Israel is humbled before Him - that is, when they suffer afflictions for their wicked deeds, and Israel and Ephraim stumble and fall - they will finally realize that this was the very rebuke spoken to them, the consequence of the prophet's warnings. And when Yehudah stumbles along with them, they will accept the rebuke. "Yehudah also shall stumble with them" - as we will see later, Yehudah was under the dominance of the Kingdom of Israel at that time; there was a period when the rulers of Israel held sway over Yehudah as well. It is to that era that the verse refers: "Yehudah also shall stumble with them." There is another explanation of "and the pride of Israel shall testify (ve-anah) to his face," proposed by Dunash ben Labrat and cited by Rashi, where ve-anah is an expression of testimony (edus), as in "You shall not bear (lo ta'aneh) false witness against your neighbor," and "my leanness rising up testifies (ya'aneh) to my face." According to this, Israel's pride itself testifies against him to punish him. It is like a person who obstinately clings to something out of sheer arrogance and ultimately falls because of his stubbornness. Who punished him? His own arrogance punished him: because he refused to yield, he ultimately suffered loss.
To illustrate: there is a well-known kind of incident where a municipality needs to widen a road and must buy out several homeowners. Some held out a bit and received a little more compensation. But one owner dug in his heels: while everyone else settled for, say, a million shekels, he demanded four million shekels - not a shekel less! He figured they had no choice; they couldn't build the road without his plot. He held out and refused to budge. In the end, the highway was simply routed around his house, creating a bypass. Today, he cannot sell his house even for half a million shekels; an expressway runs right beneath his window. Sometimes, "the pride of Israel testifies to his face" - a person's arrogance is the very thing that brings about his downfall. You thought you would extract more by refusing to compromise, and in the end you cannot even get the original amount, because no one wants a house adjacent to a roaring highway. It is pride itself that inflicts the punishment. "And Ephraim shall stumble in their iniquity; Yehudah also stumbled with them." The Malbim explains the grammatical nuance between kashal (past/simple) and yikashel (future/passive-intensive). Kashal in the kal (simple) conjugation indicates intrinsic weakness, whereas yikashel means that one is not inherently weak, but is caused to stumble through external forces. Regarding Ephraim, who were mighty, the verse says they will be made to stumble by their iniquities (yikashelu). But regarding Yehudah, who was already weak at that time, it says: "Yehudah also stumbled (kashal) with them." Yehudah was subordinate to Ephraim's kingdom, and that intrinsic vulnerability is reflected in the verb kashal.
"With their flocks and with their herds they shall go to seek Hashem, but they shall not find Him; He has withdrawn from them (chalatz mehem)." Rashi explains: "With their flocks and with their herds they shall go to seek Hashem" means they will bring sacrifices to seek Hashem, but "they shall not find Him" - the Holy One, blessed be He, will not answer them. Why? Because "He has withdrawn (chalatz) from them." Chalatz means slipping away, as in removing a shoe (chalitzah). Hashem, so to speak, has slipped away from them, leaving and abandoning them. Do not assume that the door is always open and that one can simply bring a sacrifice and have it accepted; a time comes when one goes with his flocks and herds only to find that Hashem is not there: "they shall not find Him; He has withdrawn from them." The Radak explains that this refers to the tribe of Yehudah. Yehudah would eventually return to the service of Hashem in the Beis HaMikdash in the days of Yoshiyahu. They would bring sacrifices after Yoshiyahu eradicated idolatry entirely, and they celebrated Pesach, as described in Melachim II (23:22): "For such a Pesach had not been kept from the days of the judges who judged Israel, nor in all the days of the kings of Israel, nor of the kings of Judah." There was an era when the people drew close and brought flocks and herds for sacrifices, undergoing a process of purification. Yet despite all this, "they shall not find Him." Why? Because He had already withdrawn from them. As Scripture records there, the decree had already been sealed; once a decree is sealed, subsequent actions cannot overturn what has been definitively sealed: "Notwithstanding, Hashem turned not from the fierceness of His great wrath, wherewith His anger was kindled against Judah... And Hashem said: I will remove Judah also out of My sight, as I have removed Israel." In simple terms: it was too late. He had departed (chalatz) from them. The Malbim explains that "with their flocks and with their herds they shall go to seek Hashem" corresponds to what was said earlier. The prophet first rebuked them for setting up roadblocks to prevent the pilgrimage. Then he stated: "for now, O Ephraim, you have played the harlot" - when the road was reopened, why did you not go up? That was the basis of their indictment. Now he says: a time will come when they will go with their flocks and herds to seek Hashem. The guards will be gone, and they will want to go to Jerusalem, bringing livestock to offer before Hashem. But it will no longer avail, because He has withdrawn from them. On a deeper level, the Malbim explains - as he elaborates on the verse "Does Hashem take delight in burnt-offerings and sacrifices as in obeying the voice of Hashem?" - that a sacrifice is merely an instrument to bring a person close to Hashem, not an end in itself. If someone seeks to offer a sacrifice without submitting to Hashem's will, it achieves nothing. The offering will not find favor. What does Hashem care for burnt-offerings if His voice is not obeyed? As the Malbim writes: Hashem is not found merely in His physical Temple, but within the heart of the nation and the depth of their souls; that is His true dwelling place when they sanctify themselves and follow His commandments. But because He has withdrawn from them - because the internal sanctuary within the heart was absent - the sacrifice cannot help. Sacrifices are effective only when Hashem resides within one's heart, when one obeys His voice. If Hashem is not in your heart - not because He arbitrarily abandoned you, but because you abandoned Him by disregarding His will - then "He has withdrawn from them," and sacrifices can no longer atone.
"They have dealt treacherously against Hashem, for they have begotten strange children; now shall a month devour them with their portions." Whenever a verse is cryptic in its literal sense, we find a multiplicity of commentaries, each seeking to understand it according to his approach. "They have dealt treacherously against Hashem, for they have begotten strange children." The Radak explains "they have dealt treacherously against Hashem" literally: by intermarrying with idolaters and worshipping idols, which is an act of betrayal against Hashem. As we have seen throughout Hoshea, Israel's chasing after the Baalim is likened to an unfaithful wife straying from her husband. Furthermore, Hashem commanded them not to intermarry with the nations, warning: "for they will turn away your son from following Me" - the child would be raised as a priest of idolatry, just as we see in contemporary times when a Jewish woman enters an Arab village and her son or grandson ends up in the mosque. When intermarriage occurred, the child was raised in the foreign faith. Thus: "They have dealt treacherously against Hashem" by worshipping idols, and consequently "they have begotten strange children" through foreign marriages. Targum Yonasan renders: "They have lied against the word of Hashem, for they have raised children from the daughters of the nations" - they rebelled against Hashem's explicit command forbidding intermarriage. The Radak offers another explanation: "they have begotten strange children" is a metaphor meaning they adopted the ways and customs of the heathens, as in the verse: "and they please themselves in the children of strangers" (Yeshayahu 2:6). What is meant by the cryptic phrase: "now shall a month devour them with their portions"? The Radak explains that soon a specific month will arrive in which the enemy will devour them and their portions. What is this month? The month of Tammuz, when the city walls were breached, or the month of Av, when the Temple was destroyed - the designated month of retribution. "Their portions" refers to their property - their fields, vineyards, and homes. Alternatively, "a month" means within the span of a single month: the destruction will occur swiftly, in a very short time rather than dragging out over years. In one month, the enemy will devour them and their portions, similar to the verse in Zecharyah (11:8): "And I cut off the three shepherds in one month," where "a month" denotes a swift event. According to Targum Yonasan, the Radak notes, "month" means "month by month," continuously, just as "day" can mean day by day; month after month the nations will constantly consume them. The Malbim interprets this as describing the downfall of the dynasty of Yehu. In the first chapter of Hoshea, it was prophesied: "For yet a little while, and I will visit the blood of Yizre'el upon the house of Yehu." This was fulfilled during the reign of Zecharyah ben Yarov'am, who ruled for only six months before Shallum ben Yavesh conspired against him and assassinated him publicly. Shallum ben Yavesh then reigned in Shomron for "a month of days" (a single month). Concerning this, the prophet says: "They have dealt treacherously against Hashem, for they have begotten strange children" - referring to Zecharyah, who was foreign to Hashem in his wicked deeds. Therefore: "now shall a month devour them" - Shallum ben Yavesh, whose reign lasted only one month, devoured and brought an end to their portions, wiping out the entire house of Yehu during his one-month rule.