Sefer Yechezkel, chapter 19. "And you, take up a lament for the princes of Israel." Take up a lament: the Malbim says that from here until verse 9 we will see the prophet speaking about the sons of Yoshiyahu: Yehoachaz, Yehoyachin, and Yehoyakim. From verse 9, the Malbim says, he speaks about Tzidkiyahu. Israel, as is well known, is compared in the words of the prophets to a lion, and also compared to a vine. A lion because of the might of the lion, and mainly the tribe of Binyamin, the tribe of Yehudah, the kingdom of the house of David, who are the mighty ones, "a lion's cub is Yehudah." They are also compared to a vine because the Holy One planted them in the land, as it is written, "My beloved had a vineyard on a fruitful hill, and He hoped it would produce grapes," which is justice and righteousness, "but it produced sour grapes," as we learned. The prophet here will speak about both of these possibilities, both the parable of the lion and the parable of the vine. At first, the Malbim says, he will speak in terms of their being compared to a lion, and afterward he will speak about their being compared to the vine.
Let us begin with the parable of the lion. "And you shall say, what was your mother? A lioness; she crouched among lions, among young lions she raised her cubs." "What was your mother, a lioness?" Your mother is compared to a lioness. Consider: the parable of the lion refers to the aspect of the might that a lion possesses. The lion instills fear in those around it. This is true regarding Nevuchadnetzar and those destroyers of lands who instill terror; it is not true regarding Israel. On the other hand, the lion is called a lioness when it has lion cubs. When it has lion cubs it is called a lioness, and this is also the expression we use today, "lioness," for the female. So he says here, "your mother is a lioness," she resembles a lioness, she crouches among lions and she raised her cubs, meaning she raised, that is, she reared them, like "whom I have nurtured and reared my enemies have consumed," yes? So she reared her cubs, she raised her little cubs among young lions.
The Malbim asks: what is the difference between a lion, a cub, and a young lion? These are three expressions that essentially express the same thing. Part of this we already understand on our own, familiar to us from Lashon HaKodesh; we know that a cub is the nursing lion, that does not yet prey, and therefore it is called a cub. There was once someone who came to a psychologist and told him that he feels like a lion, he wanted the psychologist to get him out of it a bit; he goes about with such thoughts that he is a lion. So the psychologist asks him, since when have you had this? He said, since I was a cub. Well, in any case, a cub is the little lion, the nursing lion. When it grows more it is called a young lion. The young lion is the lion young in years, and the Malbim in several places brings that the way of the young lion is not to go out for prey, but rather it lies in wait in its den, waiting for some prey to pass by, pounces on it, drags it to its den, and there it devours it. It does not yet have the strength and might to go out and prey outside; this is called the young lion. On the other hand, afterward when it grows more it is already called a lion, and then it travels far to hunt prey, going out to distant places to bring back prey wherever it finds it.
Here he describes for us that this lioness crouches among lions, and her little cubs, whom she raises, are among young lions, for the young lions are bigger than the cubs. What in fact is the meaning of this whole matter? He tells you it comes to speak about Yoshiyahu. Yoshiyahu was a mighty king like a lion; he is the one compared here to a lion. He crouches among the other kings, and his little sons are counted among the mighty kings, that is, "among lions she crouched, among young lions she raised her cubs." When she raises the cubs, she raises them among the mighty kings, so that in fact we are speaking here of a king who is a mighty king, "your mother a lioness among lions crouched," the mighty king who is among the great and important kings.
"And she brought up one of her cubs; it became a young lion, and it learned to catch prey; it devoured men." Now he describes how one of the cubs, who is this cub? According to Rashi, yes, essentially they are speaking here, according to the Malbim, about Yehoachaz. Yehoachaz was made king in place of his father Yoshiyahu. Yes? And Rashi too follows the same approach: this lament was said about the sons of Yoshiyahu, the first being Yehoachaz. And he now describes how Yehoachaz, who is essentially one of the cubs, ruled in place of his father Yoshiyahu, therefore he is called, they define him as, a cub, and he already grew more, he is not a cub, therefore we say "it became a young lion." "And she brought up," at first when he only began to rise we defined him as "one of her cubs," but at the next stage "it became a young lion." "It became a young lion," he already grew and already learned to catch prey like a young lion. "And it learned to catch prey; it devoured men."
But he tells you, by nature it is not the way of the lion to eat a man. Why? Because Hashem placed the fear of man upon all the beasts of the field, upon all the beasts of the earth, "the fear of you and the dread of you." And the Gemara says that no animal attacks a man until he appears to it as a mere animal, because if it saw in him the image of man, then here would be "the fear of you and the dread of you upon all the beasts of the field." If it nevertheless preyed upon a man, this is a sign that he appeared to it as an animal. And there are quite a few examples of the great ones of Israel who stood before lions and before animals, and I am not speaking only of the era of Chananya, Mishael, and Azarya, or Daniel; I am speaking also of later eras, where we saw great men, such as the Pnei Yehoshua, from whom a lion escaped from the zoo, and he went and seized it by its collar and returned it. People were afraid, they did not leave their homes, but when it comes to great people they have no fear, for "the fear of you and the dread of you" is upon the beasts of the field. So then, naturally a lion does not eat a man, Hashem placed man's fear upon the beasts of the earth. But here "it learned to catch prey; it devoured men," he went and devoured man. What is "man"? We must know they are speaking of the people of Israel. "And you, My flock, you are man," the Sages say, "My flock, the flock of My pasture, you are man," you are called man. We once explained why: because the word "adam" (man) cannot bear a plural. You cannot say "adamim." So "adam" comes to express unity. The whole of Israel is one aspect. The kelipot are always multiplicity; there are seventy nations of the world, Esav and his cohort are 400 kelipot and 400 forces of the sitra achra, in the kelipah there is always multiplicity. In contrast, holiness is an aspect of unity. So here he tells you clearly, see, "it learned to catch prey; it devoured men," he went and devoured man. Who is "man"? The people of Israel. That is, his reign, of someone who came from among us, as we said Yehoachaz was the son of Yoshiyahu, but with his corrupt deeds he ultimately "devoured men," in the end he corrupted and destroyed the people of Israel.
According to the Malbim, "and she brought up one of her cubs," the Malbim explains that "and she brought up" means the inhabitants of the land are the ones who made him king. And so according to the Malbim, "and she brought up," as he explains in his explanation of the words, is in the causative form: Israel raised him up, "and she brought up one of her cubs," Israel elevated one of the cubs of the kingdom, as we said this was Yehoachaz who was, as it were, a cub of Yoshiyahu, and then we saw that this caused "it learned to catch prey; it devoured men."
"And the nations heard of him; he was caught in their pit, and they brought him with hooks to the land of Egypt." "And the nations heard of him," they are speaking of Pharaoh king of Egypt. And then Pharaoh king of Egypt ultimately captured him, and this is what is written, "he was caught in their pit." Rashi explains what "caught in their pit" means: they would make a pit. What is a pit (shachat)? "Shachat" is like the expression "he who digs a pit." "Shachat" is an expression for a place where they trap animals. Yes? "He dug a pit and hollowed it out, and he fell into the pit he made." Their way was to dig a deep hole and then cover it with thin branches, and then when the lion, the elephant, or any other animal would walk, it would step on it and fall down and then could not get out of that place. This is called a pit. About this he speaks here, "and the nations heard of him; he was caught in their pit." That is, Pharaoh king of Egypt ultimately caught him in his pit. Pharaoh was in the land of Chamat, he heard that he had spread out over the land of Egypt, and when he arrived there he caught him, and this is what is said, "he was caught in their pit," he brought him with hooks, which are iron chains. And this is what is written, "and they bound him at Rivlah in the land of Chamat, and they brought him with hooks to the land of Egypt." This is "and the nations heard of him; he was caught in their pit," and they took him bound to the land of Egypt, this is "he was caught in their pit." The hooks are the iron that they would place in the nose or the cheek of the animal to lead it, like "and I will place My hook in your nose," or "hooks in your cheeks," yes? And from this it is written, "you shall pierce his cheek with a hook," yes? They would pierce the cheek and with this lead it, and then the animal would come because it hurt; if it moved away, they would pierce the nose or the cheek and lead it.
"And she saw that she had waited, that her hope was lost, and she took one of her cubs and made him a young lion." "And she saw that she had waited, that her hope was lost." The Malbim says, pay attention, there is here the term "nochalah" which is from "to await," and there is "tikvah" which is "to hope." What is the difference between "to await" and "to hope"? The Malbim says one who awaits, awaits something that was promised to him would come. In contrast, to hope: will it happen? I hope so. Am I sure? I am not sure, I hope. But to await means I am sure it will happen, I already await its coming, I have absolute confidence that it will occur. So he says she waited, it seemed to her that she would have expectation here, she is sure that here it is a clear and certain matter. And then in the end it turns out that there is not even hope. "Her hope was lost," for hope is to hope for something uncertain, and it turns out not only that it is not certain but that there is even no point in hoping. And then "and she took one of her cubs and made him a young lion." This means, after we saw that the king was caught with hooks to the land of Egypt, now they take and make for themselves another king, and who is that? Yehoyakim. Yehoyakim was made king by Pharaoh Necho with the consent of the people. And then "she made him a young lion." He was not a young lion, he was weak by nature, and therefore the Malbim says, pay attention, "she made him a young lion." The people made him a young lion. By his nature he was not a young lion. In contrast, when we spoke about Yehoachaz in verse 3, "and she brought up one of her cubs; it became a young lion," he was a young lion in himself, he was mighty in himself. But here he was not mighty in himself, she takes one of her cubs, not "it became a young lion" but "she made him a young lion." He really was still a cub, but they granted him and appointed him to the role of a young lion. And when Pharaoh made Yehoyakim king, he also made Yehoyachin king. It is written that Yehoyachin was eight years old, and they reigned together. Therefore the Malbim says there is no separate reference here to Yehoyachin, but rather when he speaks about the reign of Yehoyakim he includes within it also the reign of Yehoyachin.
"And he walked among lions; he became a young lion, and he learned to catch prey; he devoured men." But since "he walked among lions," because he went about with the kings, through this "he became a young lion." This is not "she made him a young lion" as it was at first, when he really was a cub but they made him a young lion; he became a young lion, even though at the time he began his reign he was weak. Therefore they at first made Yehoachaz king, because Yehoachaz, as we said, was a young lion by nature, whereas he was still a cub. And through Yehoyakim's coming into a covenant with Pharaoh and afterward with Nevuchadnetzar, this gave him might, this gave him the standing of a young lion. And not only that, he too "learned to catch prey," he too learned to catch prey and devoured men, and once again here too "he devoured men," this is the people of Israel, he too devoured from Israel, it is written also "the innocent blood that he shed." And not only did he shed the blood of the people of Israel, he added wickedness upon the wickedness of Yehoachaz.
"And he knew his widows, and he laid waste their cities, and the land and its fullness were desolate from the sound of his roaring." "And he knew his widows." The Malbim says he would kill the men and lie with their widows. This is part of how he greatly acted wickedly here in the Land of Israel, here as we said "to catch prey, men," from the people of Israel, he struck Israel. From what expression is this "and he knew"? Like "and Adam knew Chava his wife," where the meaning refers to the matter of coupling. So this too here, "and he knew his widows," he went and killed the husbands and afterward "he knew his widows." Thus too the prophet testified about him that he shed innocent blood, as Yirmiyahu said about him, "for your eyes and your heart are only upon your gain and upon the innocent blood to shed," thus was said about Yehoyakim. So he says, behold you see that there was wickedness in him about which he already rebukes, about which Yirmiyahu already rebukes. There is another explanation of what "and he knew his widows" means, and this is the explanation the Radak brings in the name of Targum Yonatan, "and he destroyed its palaces." "And he knew" he explains as from the expression of breaking and destruction, like "and he taught the men of Sukkot," where the meaning is he struck them and broke them with the thorns. So then "and he knew" is from the expression of breaking and striking, "his widows" he explains as "his palaces." So then he destroyed and demolished the palaces, "bironyata" means fortresses, fortresses meaning palaces. And this is also proven from the continuation, "and he laid waste their cities," he was not content with destroying their palaces but also destroyed their cities, "their cities he laid waste." However, the Radak says, he did not destroy them directly, but ultimately he caused the destruction, as we saw "the city will be burned with fire," so we saw happened with Tzidkiyahu, from where did it come? From his deeds, of Yehoyakim. "And the land and its fullness were desolate from the sound of his roaring." The land of Yehudah was desolate from all his roaring, as we saw he instilled his terror upon people, he harmed and committed atrocities in Israel, and therefore since he compared him to a young lion, he also describes for us the wrongs he did with the description of the sound of roaring.
The Malbim explains what "and he knew his widows" means; the Malbim says, as we saw above, the young lion does not leave its lair, it does not leave its den, it is there inside and waits for prey to pass by, pounces on it and devours it, taking it inside. But here he says "and he knew his widows," he knew to go out to the halls of his gates. The Malbim has another explanation for the expression "his widows," he explains "almenotav" as "ulamotav" (his halls). Not in the sense of his palaces and not in the sense of widowhood, but in the sense of halls. The hall, the Malbim says, is the chamber that is before the house or before the courtyard. And so he describes here that he went out, as it were, from his innermost place, we said the young lion is inside and goes out toward the outside, so he says here he went out beyond his place to the halls that are before the gate, and this is the meaning of "to his halls," to the halls of his gates, these are the outer chambers, as if to say he went and caught prey even outside the Land of Israel. Not only "he devoured men," as we saw that he harmed the people dwelling in Zion, but he also went and caught prey outside, and the cities of the neighbors of the Land of Israel he destroyed. The Malbim says, as we saw that he went and fought against the surrounding enemies, as is brought in Yirmiyahu in chapter 27, that messengers came to him, the emissaries from Edom, from Ammon, from Tzor, from Moav, because he fought against them. So what did you see? That "he knew his halls," meaning he also went out to the hall, he also went outside and struck the surrounding enemies too, he was not content with what he struck only here within the land.
"And the nations set upon him from the surrounding provinces, and they spread their net over him; he was caught in their pit." "And the nations set upon him from the surrounding provinces," this is like it is written "and Hashem sent against him the troops of the Kasdim and the troops of Aram." "And they spread their net over him; he was caught in their pit." Yehoachaz was caught in their pit without a net. Why? Because Yehoachaz did not fight with the king of Egypt, so what is called, he fell into the pit without a net being set for him. But in contrast, with Yehoyakim, Yehoyakim rebelled, Yehoyakim fought, they had to spread for him a net and snares until he was caught. Always the expression of spreading a net and snares means effort had to be invested, much force had to be applied to hunt him, a net and snares had to be spread. In contrast, with Yehoachaz it was very simple, into their pit, he went, fell into the hole, and it was over. But here, to struggle against Yehoyakim, it was necessary that "the nations set upon him from the surrounding provinces, and they spread their net over him," and only then "he was caught in their pit," only then was he caught in the pit and the hole into which they cast him.
"And they put him in a cage with hooks, and they brought him to the king of Bavel; they brought him into strongholds, so that his voice would no longer be heard upon the mountains of Israel." "And they put him in a cage," afterward, regarding Yehoachaz, the Malbim says, pay attention, they only put him with hooks. With hooks they would lead the animal, as we explained above, placing it in the nose or cheeks. But here Yehoyakim they put in a cage. A cage is greater confinement than hooks. They truly locked him up. And not only that, they brought him to the king of Bavel. "And they brought him into strongholds," twice we see that the king of Bavel conquered him. The first time he made him his servant and afterward set him free. The second time "they brought him into strongholds," and therefore it is mentioned twice. Once in a cage, and afterward "they brought him into strongholds." This is the second time he was captured, that Yehoyakim was captured. Another possibility, the Malbim says, is that "and they put him in a cage" refers to Yehoyakim, and "they brought him into strongholds" refers to Yehoyachin, as he explained that Yehoyakim and Yehoyachin reigned together and he refers to them both as one. And this was "so that his voice would no longer be heard upon the mountains of Israel," so that he would no longer continue to roar and harm the mountains of Israel.
The Radak asks: where here is Yehoyachin and where is Tzidkiyahu? Now indeed, according to the Malbim, as we explained just now, he included here also Yehoyachin together with Yehoyakim. But the Radak asks where we find Yehoyachin more clearly, and Tzidkiyahu too, even according to the Malbim, is not mentioned here, yes? Rather we will see him only later. So he explains that Yehoyachin reigned only three months. Therefore he does not refer to him, this is too short a reign for Yechezkel in his prophecy about the future to refer to his reign. Tzidkiyahu too, he says, since the reign of Yehoyakim and Tzidkiyahu were together and both were given into the hand of the king of Bavel and died under his authority, therefore he refers to both as one, because they were handed over as one, they reigned together, so he defines them as one. So Tzidkiyahu, according to his view, is subsumed within Yehoyakim. So according to the Malbim, Yehoyachin is subsumed within Yehoyakim, and according to the Radak, Tzidkiyahu is subsumed within Yehoyakim. In any case, the main destruction began from Yehoyakim, for we see that the king of Bavel led him from there to Bavel and led with him also some of the vessels of the House of God, so that the destruction began from him and therefore he refers to him primarily, and Yehoyachin according to the Malbim, or Tzidkiyahu according to the Radak, are only appended, they are not the main point, and therefore he does not speak about them explicitly.
"Your mother is like a vine, in your likeness, planted by the waters; she was fruitful and full of branches from the abundant waters." Rashi explains that here this is essentially the continuation of the lament, "your mother is like a vine, in your likeness, planted by the waters." What is "in your likeness"? According to Rashi the meaning is from the expression of resemblance. "Your mother is like a vine, in your likeness, planted by the waters," she resembles, you resemble one whose mother was like a vine planted by the waters. A vine planted by the waters means excellent, a place like a tree with a spring at its feet, so too your mother was like a vine resembling a vine planted by the waters. "She was fruitful and full of branches from the abundant waters," as a result its branches grew, its fruits multiplied, fruitful, and this was by the power of what? From abundant waters, the abundant waters that were beneath it.
The Malbim explains, as we saw at the beginning, he draws one parable to a lion and one parable to a vine. Here he begins to move, from verse 10 onward, he continues to move to the parable of the vine. And now he describes, note, the reign of Tzidkiyahu. Now we saw that indeed the Radak in the previous verse asked where Tzidkiyahu is, and it was essentially for this that he wanted to argue that he is subsumed within Yehoyakim, but in contrast the Malbim holds that from verse 10 he begins to speak here already about Tzidkiyahu, so the parable here refers distinctly to Tzidkiyahu as we will explain. The Malbim says, Tzidkiyahu, unlike the previous kings, was righteous. He is not compared to a predatory lion, for as we saw, the predatory lion we spoke of above devoured men, he harmed the people dwelling in Zion, he struck those dwelling in Zion, he knew their widows, and so on. In contrast, Tzidkiyahu, one cannot say this about him, he was not in the category of a predatory lion, he was like a vine planted in the land, not just a vine but a vine planted by the waters. The Malbim explains, and this is a consistent principle of his throughout Tanach, that everywhere the expression "shatul" (planted) appears, "shatul" is in the sense of being uprooted from one place and planted in another place. Not what we mean today, that something planted from the outset in a certain place we call "shatul," we planted it here. The Malbim says no, that is called "natua" (planted). "Shatul" means after we planted it in one place, we uprooted it, moved it to another place, and planted it there. "Shatul" always comes as an expression for something uprooted from a place and set in another place. And here this fits very well with Tzidkiyahu too, since we know that Tzidkiyahu rebelled against Nevuchadnetzar, and Tzidkiyahu went and took as his master Pharaoh king of Egypt. And his goal was so that it would be fruitful and full of branches from abundant waters: here, under Nevuchadnetzar, I will clip my wings, I will go off to Pharaoh king of Egypt, and through this Pharaoh will be my backing, and by this power I will be able to rebel against Nevuchadnetzar, I will not be under his hand. And this is as we saw in chapter 17, he already spoke about this, "to a good field, by abundant waters, it was planted," and there about this very matter he spoke, that he went and planted himself by abundant waters, by Pharaoh, Pharaoh has the Nile, so therefore the parable of abundant waters also fits, and the meaning is a place where I will have abundance and I will not need to suffer under the yoke of Nevuchadnetzar. The Malbim also explains that what is written "your mother is like a vine, in your likeness, planted by the waters," he explains that "in your likeness" is from the expression of resemblance and parable, like "in your image, planted by the waters," as Rashi explained.
"And she had strong rods for the scepters of rulers, and its stature rose above the thick branches, and it was seen in its height with its abundant boughs." "And she had strong rods," he had great power, he joined with the scepters of rulers, these are the rulers of the nations who were around Yerushalayim with whom he made a covenant. And through this "its stature rose," of Tzidkiyahu, "above the thick branches," he became close to the thick-branched trees, and the thick-branched trees, first of all the tree itself is thick, and additionally they have thick branches that are interwoven with one another, meaning it rose and already reached the top of the thick branches of the tree, and through this it already became tall, became great. And this was the opposite of Nevuchadnetzar's wish, as we saw above that he compared Tzidkiyahu, according to Nevuchadnetzar's wish, to a spreading vine. We saw in chapter 17 that he wanted it to be a lowly vine, a low vine. And suddenly he sees that Tzidkiyahu goes and gets strong rods, goes to the scepters of rulers, his stature suddenly rises above the thick branches, and it was seen in its height with its abundant boughs, it was seen in the eyes of all in its height with its abundant boughs. "Its boughs" are the dangling branches of the vine, and then through this he created in Nevuchadnetzar burning anger: I placed you so that you would be subordinate to me, and suddenly I see you have grown, you went and took other friends, you took other rulers, you turned to Pharaoh king of Egypt.
"And it was uprooted in fury, cast to the ground, and the east wind dried up its fruit; its strong rods were broken off and withered; fire consumed it." "And it was uprooted in fury," there was an uprooting here and this uprooting was in fury and great wrath. The Malbim says, "and it was uprooted in fury," it was uprooted from its place, from its greatness. "And the east wind dried up its fruit," the fruit, which is the fruit of the vine that had been planted by abundant waters and therefore naturally gave beautiful fruit, the east wind came and dried up its fruit, this is the soldiers of Nevuchadnetzar. And why is it called the east wind? From which direction is the east wind? Eastward, the east. Nevuchadnetzar came from the east, north of the Land of Israel. So therefore he compares him to the east wind. And then through this "they were broken off and withered." By their being broken off from their place they withered by themselves. And this is essentially a parable, the Malbim says, for the captives who were lost and died on the way. Since the captives were uprooted from their place, the moment they were uprooted from their place it is like fruits that you uproot from the vine, leave them and they will dry up. So too the captives, whom they uprooted from the Land of Israel, ultimately perished on the way. And then "its strong rods, fire consumed it." "Its strong rods, fire consumed it," this is Tzidkiyahu whose eyes they blinded. "Fire consumed it," fire also indicates burning anger. And this is "its strong rods," he thought that he had strength, he had might, the rod symbolizes the scepter of the rulers, he was its strong rod, he was the strength and force of the rod, of the government. Behold, come and see that not only did he not succeed in his alliance against Nevuchadnetzar, as the prophet said, the prophet said not to rebel against Nevuchadnetzar, but he did not listen to him, he went and rebelled against Nevuchadnetzar and took upon himself the yoke of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and in the end this was only to their harm, as we see that afterward "it was uprooted in fury," and this is like it is written, "and Hashem uprooted them from their land in anger and in fury and in great wrath, and cast them into another land as it is this day." We see that this reality was already foreseen in advance by Moshe Rabbenu in his prophecy. So too here, "and it was uprooted in fury, cast to the ground." The Malbim says, let us perhaps bring the explanation of the Radak. The Radak says, we saw above "its stature rose above the thick branches, and it was seen in its height with its abundant boughs," it was visible to all. Now he describes for you the extent of the fall. As the greatness of the rise, so afterward was the greatness of the fall. "Cast to the ground," so after he was so great in his alliance with Pharaoh, now he was cast to the ground, "and the east wind dried up its fruit," yes, afterward he dragged him and took him to Rivlah and there, as we saw, blinded Tzidkiyahu.
"And now it is planted in the wilderness, in a land of drought and thirst." And now it is planted in the wilderness, Nevuzaradan left over from the poorest of the land when the land remained here desolate like a wilderness, remaining here planted in the wilderness.
"And fire went out from a rod of its branches; it consumed its fruit, and there was no strong rod in it, no scepter to rule. It is a lament and has become a lament." "And fire went out from a rod of its branches; it consumed its fruit." Fire goes out from a rod of its branches. "A rod of its branches," Rashi explains, the meaning is from the dwelling of its kings and its princes. From there the evil came to it. And this also fits as we explained that the rod symbolizes the scepter of the rulers; fire goes out from the rod, from that place where the rulers sit, and then through this "it consumed its fruit," this fire consumes also the fruits. The Radak says, who is "a rod of its branches"? This is Tzidkiyahu, as we saw above that he is "its strong rod," this is "a rod of its branches," and he caused the destruction. And afterward there was no strong rod, there was not yet anyone who could grasp the rod with strength, meaning there was no ruler who could any longer lead the people. The Malbim, in contrast, explains that the fire that goes out is the fire of Yishmael ben Netanya. Yishmael ben Netanya, as is known, after only the poorest of the people remained here, and this is what the Malbim explained in the previous verse, "and now it is planted in the wilderness, in a land of drought and thirst," that the meaning is those whom Nevuzaradan left here from the poorest of the people. So we know that Gedalya ben Achikam remained here. And Yishmael ben Netanya conspired against him. And Yishmael ben Netanya killed Gedalya ben Achikam, and through this the settlement was completely cut off, the people of Israel in the Land of Israel, this was the final blow that ended everything. Therefore we also observe a fast, the Fast of Gedalya, since the Fast of Gedalya was the final severance of the Jewish settlement in the Land of Israel at that time. Since this is so, he now describes "and fire went out from a rod of its branches," from a rod of its branches, the meaning is from the branches themselves, that Yishmael ben Netanya was from the branches, he was part of the people of Israel, he was of the royal seed. And then "and it consumed its fruit in the wilderness," he killed those who remained here, and through this "there was no strong rod in it," after Gedalya ben Achikam was killed, the government we still had here was nullified, and there was no longer a strong rod, there was no longer any governing power here for the people of Israel in the Land of Israel, this was, as I said, the final blow to the Jewish settlement in the Land of Israel.
The prophet concludes and says, "it is a lament and has become a lament." What is "it is a lament and has become a lament"? He tells you, the prophecy is a lament, what I am telling you now, what I am prophesying before you is a lament, I lament over the breaking of the people of Israel. And know that, to my sorrow, this lament too will come to fruition, "and has become a lament." This is another lament that they will lament when it actually comes to pass. I am now lamenting over the future calamity, the prophecy is in the aspect of a lament, and know that it will become an actual lament, when this prophecy comes to fruition, then people will lament over the terrible situation, over the awful breaking, over the destruction, this is "and has become a lament."