"Where is your king now, that he may save you in all your cities, and your judges of whom you said: Give me a king and princes?" What does "Where is your king now" (ehi malkecha efo) mean? There are several explanations here. Rashi first cites Targum Yonatan: ayei malkecha, reading ehi like ayei ("where"): where is the king you appointed over yourself? Why does he not save you? Rashi notes, however, that one need not depart from the literal meaning, for ehi is not identical to ayei ("where"); it literally means "I shall be." Therefore, Rashi explains that "ehi malkecha efo" means: I will stand at a distance to see where your king is. That is to say, I will observe from the sidelines to see what your end will be. I will stand aside, and let us see where your king is. Here, I am not doing anything; let us see your king help you! Thus, ehi means "I shall stand aside," and malkecha efo means "where is your king?" Radak explains that ehi means: I will exist forever. That is ehi, full stop: I will exist for all eternity. But "where is your king?" Where is the king you appointed for yourself? That is, the Holy One, blessed be He, says to him: You rejected My kingship. You asked for a king to save you. Where is he? I endure forever, but you sought for yourself a king of flesh and blood who is here today and gone tomorrow. Go on, why does he not help you?
"Where is your king now, that he may save you in all your cities, and your judges of whom you said: Give me a king and princes" - you appointed judges of your own accord, yet you see that they cannot help you: neither the king, nor the rulers, nor the judges, nor the ministers. The Holy One, blessed be He, says: help, if it comes at all, comes only from Me. The Malbim explains that the Holy One, blessed be He, says to him: We saw earlier, "You have destroyed yourself, O Israel"; the Holy One, blessed be He, tells him that this ruin came about because you have no king. For we saw above that they went and informed on Hoshea. They were displeased that Hoshea ben Elah prevented them from worshiping the calves and removed the roadblocks, permitting them to go up to Jerusalem. But they were already bound to the calves with all their 248 limbs and 365 sinews, so they went and informed on him to the king of Assyria. It follows that they rebelled against Hoshea in order to topple him so that a king to their liking would arise, a king according to their will, who would indeed maintain the worship of the calves. So the Holy One, blessed be He, says to him: You rebelled against Hoshea and informed on him to the king of Assyria; will I now be your king to save you from the hand of the king of Assyria? "Where is your king now, that he may save you in all your cities?"
The Holy One, blessed be He, says, as it were - the Malbim explains - as though the text reads: "Where in all your cities and among your judges is someone who will save you?" The meaning is: search throughout all your cities and among all your judges for where the king is who can save you. "Of whom you said: Give me a king and princes." What does this mean? The Malbim says: in ancient times, the Holy One, blessed be He, reigned over them and saved them, but in the days of Shmuel they came and asked for a king of their own. Not the salvation of Hashem, not the kingship of Hashem, but a king of flesh and blood. Then Shmuel said to Him: Master of the Universe, they have rejected me; after all, I save them, I am their prophet, I lead them. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him: It is not you they have rejected; they have rejected Me, as Hashem says, "For they have rejected Me from reigning over them." For until then they were under supernatural Providence; when they ask for a king, what are they really asking for? To be subject to the natural order, under natural leadership like all the nations. We have elaborated on this elsewhere, and whoever wishes may hear it in the lessons on Sefer Shmuel. Therefore He says to him: How can you now ask that I be your king? "Where is your king now?" Are you asking that I be your king? You rejected Me and chose for yourself those who would save you by natural means. You said: "Give me a king and princes." So please, as the verse says: "Let them arise and help you, let them be your shelter" (Devarim 32:38). Turn to those you chose and ask them to come to your aid.
"I give you a king in My anger, and take him away in My wrath." Radak explains: your asking for a king was not according to My will, as we saw and mentioned, "they have rejected Me from reigning over them." The Holy One, blessed be He, says: from the very start, when I gave you a king, it was in My anger. It was in wrath; it was against My will. "And take him away in My wrath" - and I also took him away in My fury; evrah likewise denotes anger. What is "and take him away"? That very king whom I gave you. Whom did Hashem give them? Shaul. And afterward He took him away; he died in the war against the Pelishtim, having reigned only two years. Hashem says to them: through this you can recognize that you have no other king except My kingship. As for the king I appoint over you, if he fulfills My will, you will be saved and he will be saved, and it will be only good for you; but if not, look: I gave you a king in My anger, and took him away in My fury. Some commentators explain that "I give you a king in My anger" refers to Shaul, and "and take him away in My wrath" refers to the last king - speaking of Tzidkiyahu, as Radak cites according to this view. He was the last reigning king; that is, I began the monarchy in My anger and ended it in My wrath, with the final king who brought the monarchy in Israel to a close. Other commentators offer another explanation: that this refers to the kings of the ten tribes, Yarov'am and Hoshea ben Elah. And when He says, "I give you a king in My anger," it refers to Yarov'am. But why? Was not Yarov'am righteous at first? True. But if you consider: why did Hashem take the monarchy away from the Davidic dynasty, leaving them with only two tribes, and give Yarov'am kingship over ten tribes? Because Hashem had anger and wrath against Shlomo. So "I gave them a king" - the fact that I initially gave the kingship to Yarov'am ben Nevat was in My anger against the House of David, against Shlomo and what he had done. Giving them a king was in My anger, in My fury, says Hashem: "I give you a king in My anger, and take him away in My wrath" - and ultimately those kings were taken away in Hashem's wrath.
The Malbim explains: when I gave you a king in the time of Shmuel, it was in My anger. Why? Because I knew that ultimately the kingdom would be divided and they would worship the calves; therefore it was a king given in anger. Had you continued under the prophets, they would never have reached a situation where a king ruled over them and commanded them to worship idols. Only a king can order the worship of idols. A prophet certainly would not say such a thing, and even if he did, they would not obey him. But from a king one cannot refuse to obey; one cannot defy his decree. It turns out, then, that the entire chain of idolatry originating from Yarov'am's kingdom began with your request for a king. Had you not asked for a king, Shmuel and those who followed him would have led you through supernatural guidance, and you would never have needed to descend into the deterioration of idolatry and the calves. So look: I gave you a king - Shaul - in My anger. "And take him away in My wrath" - Hoshea ben Elah, who was the last king of the Kingdom of Samaria, was better than the kings before him. He did not personally deserve that the punishment should fall specifically in his days. Why then was it precisely he - the one who had already done something good by abolishing the roadblocks and allowing people to ascend to Jerusalem - in whose days the kingdom was ultimately exiled? Hashem says: "And take him away in My wrath [be'evrati]." To understand this, says the Malbim, one must understand the difference between af [anger] and evrah [wrath]. Af is anger directed against the sinner. Evrah is a general wrath that Hashem directs against the collective. And what is the difference? Af is bounded. Evrah crosses the boundary - that is also the root of the word evrah, from over et hagvul, exceeding the limit. It is an outburst of fury where Hashem is angry, as it were, even with one who did not sin. For to be angry within limits is to be angry at the sinners; to be angry also at one who did not sin is to exceed the limit. Thus Hashem says: "And take him away in My wrath" - I subsequently took away King Hoshea ben Elah because I had a collective wrath against the nation for their deeds. On another occasion, by the way, we mentioned the explanation of why there was such great anger against them specifically in the time of Hoshea ben Elah, given that he permitted the pilgrimage. We explained that while it is true he permitted the pilgrimage, the reality was that no one went up. What this created was a severe indictment. For as long as there were kings who prevented the pilgrimage, you had an excuse: "I cannot go up for the festival; there are guards, and whoever goes is killed." But now that Hoshea ben Elah removed the guards, why did you not ascend? On the contrary, realize that what Hoshea ben Elah did exposed their iniquity and ultimately brought about the exile.
"The iniquity of Ephraim is bound up; his sin is hidden away." The Holy One, blessed be He, says: I have not overlooked the iniquity of Ephraim; it is hidden away and bound up with Me. The Malbim says: Ephraim does not abandon his sins; rather, his iniquity is bound up within him, and his sin is hidden away with him. Note that this is completely different from Rashi and Radak. Rashi and Radak explain that it means with Me: the iniquity of Ephraim is bound up with Me, preserved, and I remember everything he did; his sin is hidden away with Me. By contrast, according to the Malbim's explanation, it means with him. The Holy One, blessed be He, says: Ephraim does not forsake his sins; rather, his iniquities are bound up with him and his sins are hidden away within him. He guards them, refuses to abandon them, and has no interest in repenting. The Malbim asks: What is the difference between tzarur [bound up] and tzafun [hidden away]? Tzarur refers to something bundled inside something else, as in "their kneading bowls bound up in their garments" (Shemot 12:34) - something wrapped inside another object. Tzafun, by contrast, is something placed in a hidden spot; it does not need to be wrapped inside something else. I can take an object, place it behind a wall, and say it is tzafun - I hid it from you. Yet it is not covered, it is exposed: to anyone coming from the other side it is visible, but from your side it is hidden. Thus, tzarur is covered within something else, whereas tzafun does not need to be covered, only concealed from your sight. The Malbim explains: avon [iniquity] describes a distortion of thought. We have explained this several times: avon is intentional sin, a distortion of the mind, where a person has already built an ideology around his sin. Chet [sin], on the other hand, stems from passion, an unintentional slip, where one truly wished to overcome it but stumbled. That is the dimension of chet. The Malbim says: look, regarding avon it says, "The iniquity of Ephraim is bound up [tzarur]." The iniquities of Ephraim are bound up inside their deeds. Why? Because avon, as we said, is a distortion of the heart, an internal reality that cannot be seen from the outside; you see only the actions. But the wickedness of his heart, and the fact that he has built an ideology around the sin with justifications for why it must be committed, is hidden within - it is tzarur, concealed inside: "The iniquity of Ephraim is bound up." "His sin is hidden away [tzafuna]" - even the chatat, which is his actual sins, is hidden away; he conceals it and commits it in secret.
"The pangs of a woman in childbirth shall come upon him; he is an unwise son, for when the time comes, he does not present himself at the birthstool." The Malbim explains that he compares the troubles that befell the people of Israel to birth pangs coming upon a woman in labor. "Pangs" means labor pains - pangs that have not fallen to me in pleasantness, pangs that are not pleasant at all, but harsh and bitter. On the other hand, as the pangs intensify, as the troubles press closely and the pain increases, there is comfort. What is that comfort? That the birth is on its way. As long as it is mild pain, they tell the woman: walk around a bit, rest, in short, there is time. But once severe pains begin, they know it is imminent, it is arriving. So he says, as the birth pangs multiply, hope grows that at long last the child will be born and the pangs will cease. Yeshayahu already expressed this in his metaphor: "For children have come to the birthstool, and there is no strength to give birth" (Yeshayahu 37:3). That is, the multitude of pangs that the nation has reached makes it appear as though the child in the womb has arrived at the birthstool. "Birthstool" refers to the seat upon which the birthing mother sits, and it seems as though the newborn is about to emerge. But what can be done when the mother has no strength to give birth? The birthing mother has no strength, and in order to give birth, she must exert strength; she must use her muscles. And if there is no strength to give birth, children have arrived at the birthstool yet the woman remains in labor, unable to bring forth her child. This is the direst situation, for then the contractions become more and more intense, and Heaven forbid, in such a state it ends either in the death of the child or the death of the mother. If there is no strength to give birth - today they perform a cesarean section and the like, but in their days one was forbidden to harm the mother to extract the child, for one does not set aside one life for another. If the fetus was still in the womb it could be aborted to save the mother, but once the fetus began to emerge - once its head emerged - one life is not set aside for another. The reality was that frequently the woman would die during childbirth: one could not cut open her abdomen to take out the child, nor could one dismember the child to save her. That is the situation Yeshayahu describes: "children have come to the birthstool, and there is no strength to give birth." Thus, while frequent contractions are a good sign that a baby will soon arrive, what happens when there is no strength to give birth? Woe to them - it is an ominous sign that soon someone will die. The Malbim explains similarly in our passage.
Here too, he describes that the time had arrived for the nation to emerge from distress; the time had come for a people saved by Hashem. Yet the mother lacks the strength to expel the fetus, to bring forth the redemption. And what is that strength? Our strength is Torah and mitzvot. A nation that wishes to bring about redemption must possess the strength to do so. The strength to bring the redemption consists of merits, of our being worthy and upright. This is what he means: there is a reality of birth pangs. And look at the child in the womb, as Hoshea says: "The pangs of a woman in childbirth shall come upon him; he is an unwise son." He is not wise - what does this mean? Had he been wise, he would have emerged. That is the meaning of "he is an unwise son." The moment and hour of birth arrived; he should have come out and stood outside. "For when the time comes, he does not present himself at the birthstool." He should have already emerged onto the birthstool - that is, when the baby emerges, the woman sits on the birthstool, and the infant is delivered onto the birthstool. "He does not present himself at the birthstool" - the son should have come out and stood at the birthstool, but he remains inside. He is an unwise son: he did not repent and did not bring the redemption to fruition. But alas, what is the problem? "The iniquity of Ephraim is bound up" - the reality is that their sins are like clotted blood in a full womb that prevents the fetus from emerging. Therefore, iniquity and sin are still hidden away with them, preventing them from repenting. And if they cannot repent, here is a woman who is pregnant and about to give birth, writhing and crying out in her pangs, yet no birth takes place. That is why it says, "for when the time comes, he does not present himself at the birthstool." He should have already emerged onto the birthstool, but he remains inside; he is an unwise son who did not repent and did not bring the redemption to its completion.
"Shall I ransom them from the power of the grave? Shall I redeem them from death? Where are your plagues, O death? Where is your destruction, O grave? Regret shall be hidden from My eyes." "Shall I ransom them from the power of the grave?" The Malbim explains: here he describes what could have been at the time of birth. Hashem says: I thought to ransom them from the power of the grave. I thought they would repent. They experienced troubles, birth pangs, and through that I would ransom them from the king of Assyria and redeem them from death. The "grave" [she'ol] here, says the Malbim, is a metaphor for exile, and "death" is a metaphor for the slaughter wrought among them. For some went to the grave, into exile, while others were killed by him. Hashem says: I thought to save them from the king of Assyria, so that they would neither be killed nor exiled. Then there would have been a rebirth: the pains of labor would have led the nation to renewed reflection, to perform mitzvot, to repent, so that Ephraim's iniquity would not be bound up and his sin hidden away, but rather that he would mend his ways; then she would not remain trapped on the birthstool, but the child would emerge and redemption would arrive. But they did not repent. Hashem says: And now, "where are your plagues, O death?" As it were, the Malbim explains, there is a metaphor here in which the Holy One, blessed be He, addresses Death and the Grave directly, as if they were personified beings. The Holy One, blessed be He, says to the Grave: Not only did I not ransom them from your hand, but I will now execute your word! You, Death - I will fulfill your bidding! What does this mean? I will be your agent to put them to death. That is what is meant by "where are your plagues, O death" - I will fulfill your word, O Death, and deliver them into your hand. "Where is your destruction, O grave?" You, the Grave, possess the bitter destruction [ketev meriri], which is well known; the Malbim explains that this is a venomous, toxic gas by which the Grave consumes people. The Holy One, blessed be He, says: I will be your agent to bring them this bitter destruction - which corresponds to the exile and its terrible, agonizing bitterness. Thus, "I will be your plagues, O death; I will be your destruction, O grave" - I will be the One who brings your desires and aspirations to fruition, O Death and Grave, and I will chastise the people.
That is to say: not only will I not ransom them because they failed to repent - which in itself is reason enough not to ransom them - but I will also consume them with death, exile them from the land through Divine Providence, and actively assist in this matter. The Holy One, blessed be He, assisted Assyria, as it were, in exiling the people of Israel. Hashem says: "Regret shall be hidden from My eyes." Nocham relates to vayinachem - Hashem relented. It means to reconsider, to regret. The Malbim explains that regret and remorse are always the reason for rescinding an evil decree. There is an evil decree, Hashem relents from it - "and Hashem relented concerning the evil He spoke of doing to His people" (Shemot 32:14) - and He turns back and does not execute the decree. Through regret, wrath is turned away. It is interesting that the Hebrew words nocham and chamah [wrath] share similar letters. When they regret their evil deeds, Hashem relents from the calamity. It is measure for measure: we regret our deeds, and Hashem relents from His decree. But now He tells them: "Regret shall be hidden from My eyes." This means: since they do not regret their evil deeds, regret is likewise hidden from My eyes; I, too, will not relent from the intention to bring calamity upon them.
"Though he flourish among his brethren, an east wind shall come, the wind of Hashem coming up from the wilderness, and his spring shall become dry, and his fountain shall be dried up; it shall spoil the treasure of all pleasant vessels." Radak explains: "Though he" - meaning Ephraim - "flourish among his brethren." What does this mean? Ephraim, who symbolizes the tribe of Ephraim led by Yarov'am who made the calves, was fruitful among brethren. Yafri comes from periyut, fruitfulness, growing and flourishing, as Yaakov said of him: "Nevertheless, his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his seed shall become a multitude of nations" (Bereishit 48:19). That is, he flourishes, he grows. That is the meaning of yafri Ephraim. But see how ultimately his actions ruined him: Ephraim was meant to flourish, and before making the calves he grew and prospered; but once he made the calves, it diminished him, degraded him, and dwarfed him, and he no longer grew. That is one explanation. A second explanation is offered by Rashi: "though he flourish among his brethren" means, as Targum Yonatan translates, that those called sons multiplied their evil deeds. According to Targum Yonatan, achim [brethren] can denote evil, as in "an ach made for lightning" or "and say: Alas [ach]! for all the abominations" (Yechezkel 6:11). This is an unfamiliar expression to us, but achim can mean harmful things. Thus, "he flourishes among evils" means that he perpetrates evil deeds, flourishing like a root bearing gall and wormwood. That is the meaning of yafri according to Rashi. A third explanation is brought by Radak: Yarov'am was a son who disrupted [hifri] the brotherhood of Israel. Until then, Israel lived in brotherhood: there was one kingdom under the House of David, one kingdom under Shlomo. Then Yarov'am came and divided the kingdom. It turns out, then, that he shattered the brotherhood of Israel. Hifri is related to pere adam - a wild man. Until then we were united, and suddenly he became wild, causing the kingdom to split. Thus Ephraim hifri among brothers: he went among brothers who were united, became wild, and scattered their unity.
And now that he sinned, "an east wind shall come, the wind of Hashem coming up from the wilderness." Radak explains: "An east wind shall come, the wind of Hashem" refers to the king of Assyria. He is compared to an east wind because the east wind is the wind from the east [kedem], and Assyria is east of Eretz Yisrael. Therefore it says, "an east wind shall come." The east wind is a harsh wind. And scripture tells you that this is not just any wind, but "the wind of Hashem." Whenever the text wishes to denote greatness - as Rashi mentions in several places - it attaches the Name of Hashem to it: harrei El [mountains of God], shalhevet-Yah [a flame of God]. Why? To convey that it was something immense, something vast. When you append the Name of Hashem, it signifies greatness. Here too, when it says "the wind of Hashem," it means a mighty and powerful wind. The king of Assyria is compared to this: he will come like a mighty, violent wind to exile them. And why does it say "the wind of Hashem"? Radak offers another explanation according to the inner meaning: what prompted him to come here? Hashem aroused his spirit! Thus it is truly "the wind [or spirit] of Hashem," as it is written: "And the God of Israel stirred up the spirit of Pul, king of Assyria, and the spirit of Tilgath-Pilneser, king of Assyria..." (Divrei HaYamim I 5:26). You see that Hashem aroused their spirit. Therefore it is most fitting to say, "an east wind shall come, the wind of Hashem." It is not only that he comes with full force like a mighty wind, but it is also by virtue of the spirit of Hashem that was upon him, stirring him to come and exile Ephraim. "Coming up from the wilderness, and his spring shall become dry, and his fountain shall be dried up" - that wind comes up from the wilderness, meaning Assyria approached through the desert. Consequently, "his spring shall become dry, and his fountain shall be dried up." At first, Ephraim was like a tree planted by many waters; he was fruitful, growing and thriving, as in "Yosef is a fruitful bough, a fruitful bough by a spring [ayin]" (Bereishit 49:22). What is ayin? A spring. So initially he flourished by many waters, growing and fruitful. But now his spring will run dry, his fountain will be parched. That wind will come - this is an allegory, for a scorching wind dries up a spring. In the same way, this wind will come and dry up the source and the fountain; it will dry up Ephraim.
The Malbim explains: "Though he flourish among his brethren" - this refers back to the "regret" with which the previous verse concluded: "Regret shall be hidden from My eyes." Hashem says: I will have no regret; I will not relent from the evil decree I pronounced against them. He tells you: this regret bears fruit only "among brethren." That is, when do I relent from calamity? "Though he flourish among his brethren" - when does this relenting bear fruit? When they act as brothers, when they unite with one another; then Hashem relents from the evil He intended to bring upon them. This is as explained regarding the days of Hoshea ben Elah: they had already abandoned the calves, he abolished them, and he removed the roadblocks that prevented them from going up to the Beit HaMikdash. Despite all this, they did not make the pilgrimage. But what was the main grievance against them? That they were divided among themselves, plagued by internal strife. After all, they went and informed on Hoshea to the king of Assyria so that the king of Assyria would exile Hoshea and give them another king who would allow them to worship idols. It turns out that what consumed us was internal strife. Hashem says: When do I relent from calamity? When the people of Israel are united: "Ephraim is joined to idols; leave him alone" (Hoshea 4:17). But "their heart is divided; now they shall be found guilty" (Hoshea 10:2). As long as they are joined together, even to idols, leave them alone: the Holy One, blessed be He, leaves them be. It does not say He forgives them or that they will not pay a price, but for the moment He does not punish them. But once their heart is divided - the moment there is internal dissension - "now they shall be found guilty," meaning Hashem exacts retribution immediately. This is what scripture means in explaining why the Holy One, blessed be He, does not relent from the decree of exile: "Though he flourish among his brethren" - relenting from an evil decree bears fruit only among brothers. That relenting from calamity blossoms and develops when you are brothers. But when you are not brothers, regret does not bear fruit, and therefore the evil decree will surely come. This is also related in Divrei HaYamim II, chapter 30, where Chizkiyahu sent messengers to the ten tribes urging them to return to Hashem so that Hashem would redeem them, and it is written that they laughed him to scorn. A few humbled themselves and came to Jerusalem, but most mocked him. What do you see? That even then they were divided into two factions. Since they did not regret their evil deeds, Hashem likewise did not relent from the calamity. Therefore Hashem says: "An east wind shall come" - as we said, this is the king of Assyria, who came from the east across the Jordan through the desert - "and his spring shall become dry," destroying Eretz Yisrael, which was the source of Israel, "and his fountain shall be dried up," referring to the people of Israel dwelling in the land who drew from that source; it will be dried up, they will be scattered to the four winds of heaven, and their existence and prosperity will come to an end. "It shall spoil the treasure of all pleasant vessels" - that wind will plunder the treasure of all desirable items. "Shoseh" [spoil] always denotes someone who not only takes spoil but also destroys whatever remains. That is the difference between shosim [spoilers] and bozezim [looters], as the Malbim explains several times: a looter takes plunder for himself, whereas a spoiler destroys and ruins whatever is left behind. Whatever he can take he takes; whatever he cannot or does not want to take, he destroys. That is why "Hashem delivered them into the hand of spoilers." Here too, "it shall spoil" - this wind, the king of Assyria, will spoil all the treasures and all the precious vessels; thus they have no further hope, but will perish and be cast away in their iniquity. All of this came about because Ephraim was unwilling to mend his ways and refused to repent.