"For our transgressions before You are many, and our sins testify against us. For our transgressions are with us, and our iniquities, we know them." The Radak says on "For our transgressions before You are many": our transgressions together with the transgressions of our fathers. At first he said that because of the iniquities of the fathers the exile was prolonged, and now he adds and says, yes, I admit it, not only the fathers, but we too are part of the story. Both this and that caused it. "Our transgressions before You are many." Now the transgressions are already coming to confession. "Before You" means truly against the Ribono shel Olam. Not like the fathers who would hide their deeds and, as it were, say Hashem does not see us, but rather we are before You, Ribono shel Olam, I come before You and confess. "And our sins testify against us." Our sins, our many sins, testify against us. What does "our sins testify" (in singular form) mean? It should have said "our sins testified" in the plural, since you are speaking in the plural. The Radak says, do not be surprised. See, it is written "and his eyes stood" (in singular). About whom is this said? About Eli. This is said about Eli. "His eyes stood." "His eyes" is plural, "stood" is singular. "And there came to me men" (with a singular verb). It should say "there came" in plural. "The cities were captured" (with a singular verb). It should say plural. "His steps shall not slip" (with singular). And others like them. So first of all, do not be surprised that it begins in the singular and ends in the plural or the reverse. But here too, says the Radak, I will explain to you the plain meaning. "And our sins testify against us." Our sins, all our sins, each and every one, testify against us. Therefore he concludes in the singular, because each and every one of our sins testified against us. "And behold, our transgressions are with us." We recognize the transgressions, we confess them. This would seem to mean that we should already be more worthy of salvation. The Malbim explains, "For our transgressions before You are many." The Malbim says, "transgressions" (pesha) means rebellion. That which we rebelled against Hashem in the mitzvot between man and the Omnipresent. And also "our sins testify against us." "Our sins" refers to the sins we committed man against his fellow. Theft, oppression, and the like. This too testifies against us. And not only did we sin in the past, but also "our transgressions are with us." This means these sins are still with us, we have not yet returned from them. And also "our iniquities, we know them." What is the difference between a transgression (pesha) and an iniquity (avon)? It is well known, as the Malbim always says, that "avon" is a language of distortion (ivut). "Avon" means not merely that a person sinned out of desire, or even deliberately out of desire, but rather it comes from having a distortion in the intellect. Out of an ideological distortion, he went and did what he did. That is, his opinion is corrupted, this is heretical thinking. So he says, "and also our iniquities, we know them." We know and recognize them. What does this mean? We still hold on to the thoughts and the heresy and all the distortions we had, we hold onto this as before. And if so, what is there to wonder about what he said earlier, that "salvation is far from us"? Because salvation wants to come, it is here, but we flee from it. Because we continue in the intellectual distortion, and we continue in the transgressions and the sins, and still "before You." Even when we are against Hashem, we still commit the iniquities and transgressions against the Ribono shel Olam, and also in matters between man and his fellow, and also iniquities of intellectual distortion. So what wonder is it that salvation is far from us? "Transgressing and denying Hashem, and turning back from following our God. Speaking oppression and revolt, conceiving and uttering from the heart words of falsehood." So "transgressing and denying," all the commentators here say that the intention is the infinitive form. The infinitive means, it is a noun. A noun form. It does not mean the action, "transgressors and deniers," but rather transgression and denial.
"Denying" (kachesh), this means the infinitive form. And the Radak asks how it is possible to explain that they deny Hashem, for we saw earlier that they said "our transgressions before You are many, our sins testify against us." They speak with the Ribono shel Olam, so how can they deny Hashem? The Radak says, when a person denies his fellow he in fact denies Hashem. And the reason is that a person who denies his fellow, saying to him you borrowed from me, or making any false claim against him, is as if he denies Hashem because he treats the Eye Above as if it does not see. As it is written, "and he commits a trespass against Hashem and denies his fellow." When a person denies his fellow, your problem is not only with him; you commit a trespass against the Ribono shel Olam because Hashem sees your deeds and you treat the Eye Above as if it does not see.
Or we may explain as the Targum Yonatan says, which the Radak brings, that "transgressing and denying Hashem" means they deny the mitzvot of Hashem, the word of Hashem. Hashem, the Holy One blessed be He, said do not deny, do not lie, and you do the opposite, so you deny His mitzvot. As if Hashem did not command this mitzvah. So "I deny Hashem" does not mean denying His existence; I deny this mitzvah, as if this mitzvah Hashem did not command. For if not, how do you do the opposite of Hashem's words? "And turning back from following our God," this is the opposite of what is written, says the Radak, "after Hashem your God you shall walk." We did not walk after Him but even turned back, meaning we retreated from following Him.
"Conceiving and uttering from the heart words of falsehood." What is "conceiving and uttering"? The Radak explains "conceiving" (horo) is like "conceiving toil." We saw above that the intention is "horo" from the language of pregnancy, that they think in their hearts "conceiving toil and giving birth to falsehood." In the heart he plans plans of transgression and afterward, when he brings them into action, this is already called birth. The thought of the heart and mind is considered pregnancy, the action when he brings it into the reality of deed is considered as birth. So this is what he means here, "conceiving and uttering." This means, what they think in their minds, which is "conceiving" from the language of pregnancy as we explained before, they bring also to thought and to speech, from the language of utterance (hagiya), "conceiving and uttering." What he conceived, thought, planned, afterward he also utters, creates, speaks, says words of falsehood.
Another explanation the Radak brings in the name of his father, that "horo" is from the language of teaching (lehorot) the children of Israel. Like the language of instruction (hora'ah). And then "conceiving and uttering from the heart words of falsehood" means the instruction they teach, the thing they teach, is a thing of falsehood. Rashi brings "conceiving and uttering" as referring to the teacher and the student. So he brings in the name of other books cited in Rashi. "Horo" is the teacher, who instructs the student. "Hogo" is the student who studies (hogeh) the matters. As if to say both betrayed. Both the teacher and the student, both "conceived and uttered from the heart words of falsehood." Another explanation Rashi says, that "horo" is from the language of shooting (lirot). "Horse and its rider He cast into the sea," which the Targum renders "horse and its rider He shot into the sea." The intention is from the language of shooting, meaning to throw. So this too is from the language of bringing the matter into action. And "hogo" is from the language of removing (lehagot) from the path. "Remove the dross from silver," to separate the dross from the silver. So they shoot and separate from their hearts and bring out from their hearts words of falsehood.
The Malbim explains, we saw above that they said "our transgressions before You." "Our transgressions before You are many." Corresponding to this, the prophet now says to them, "transgressing and denying Hashem." What is the difference? "Transgression," we explained that "our transgressions before You are many" refers to sins between man and the Omnipresent. The prophet says to them "transgressing and denying Hashem." There was here both transgression and rebellion. Besides that you rebelled against Him, you also denied, they also denied Him. That is, to rebel is against an existing reality, to deny is as if Hashem does not exist. So this is "transgressing and denying Hashem." "And turning back from following our God." What does this mean? You just said "Hashem," now you say "our God." The Malbim has a line he always follows, that when it is written "Hashem" the intention is upon the Holy One blessed be He in general. From the aspect that the Holy One blessed be He is the Creator of the world. The Ribono shel Olam, that is "Hashem." And when it is written "our God," this refers to His relationship toward us. And this generally speaks about the individual providence that Hashem watches over us. Not from the aspect that He is the God of the whole world, but from the aspect of His providence over us, that is "our God." Therefore the Malbim says, note that at first he says "transgressing and denying Hashem," from the aspect that Hashem is King of the world. "And turning back from following our God," from the aspect that the Holy One blessed be He watches over us with individual providence. And even from this we turned back. "Turning back" means we denied also the providence and reward and punishment. For although a person may not have Hashem implanted in his heart, still an inner fear of punishment is naturally in a person. And here this is what he says, not only did we deny Hashem, but we reached a state that we turn back from following our God, even the fear of punishment we no longer have. And "our God" here comes to symbolize the fear of punishment because Elokim is judgment. So from the aspect that He is our God, who watches over us and exacts from us for our bad deeds, even from this we no longer fear.
They said "our sins testify against us." So at first we saw, corresponding to "our transgressions before You are many," "transgressing and denying Hashem." Corresponding to what they said "our sins testify against us," which is the sins between man and his fellow, he says, come and see to what extent transgression and sin between man and his fellow became legitimate among them. And not only legitimate, it became something they boast about. Each one tells another, don't ask what a scheme I pulled on him. Don't ask how I fooled him. Don't ask how I put one over on him, that fool didn't understand. That is, they became so low that this is for them a cause for pride. And this is one more level. There is a worse level, that a person did not manage to fool anyone today. He has nothing to tell. What can be done, the poor wretch didn't manage to fool anyone today. No matter, he will tell a story and invent a fabrication so they will admire him for the swindle he pulled, for the scheme he brought. Do you understand? He will fabricate from his heart a story of how he fooled someone so they will say to him, wow, listen, all respect to you. You played it well, truly, all respect. That is, see what a level of transgression they reached. And this is what he says here. He says look, the people reached a point where they boasted of oppression, and not only that, he says, see, their pride was so great that they would tell stories that never happened. And this is what he says, "speaking oppression and revolt." They would speak oppression and revolt. And when he did not have anything to speak of, then "conceiving and uttering from the heart words of falsehood." He needs to conceive, from the language of pregnancy, and to utter, and to utter means to tell, to invent something from the heart, fabricating it from his heart, words of falsehood. There was no such thing. He did not fool anyone, what can be done, he was not privileged today. He did not fulfill the mitzvah of the day. He was not privileged, but he will tell you a story as if he fooled someone. As if he did such a thing, so they will admire him. How clever and sharp he is and knows how to pull all kinds of schemes. He boasts of oppression even though he did not do it, he boasts of it as if he did it. And these things testify to what extent their confession, "our sins testify against us," which is between man and his fellow, come and see what great and immense sins were among them, to the point that they boast of their iniquities and see in this a cause for honor.
"And justice is turned back, and righteousness stands afar off. For truth has stumbled in the street, and uprightness cannot enter." Rashi explains "justice is turned back," we would expect that Hashem would help us take revenge on our enemies, but the Holy One blessed be He does not execute judgment upon them. "And righteousness stands afar off," Hashem's righteousness toward us, that He should take revenge from our enemies, stands afar off. We, as it were, cry out to Hashem to come and save us, to assist us, and there is none, "justice is turned back, righteousness stands afar off." What is the reason? The iniquity is within us. "For truth has stumbled in the street." There is no truth in our streets. And since truth has stumbled from the earth, then also from heaven truth has stumbled. And this Elokim made corresponding to that. When we behave with truth and honesty, the Holy One blessed be He behaves with us in truth and honesty. But when we distort in our speech and behave in a way of deceit and falsehood, then also from heaven they do not execute justice and do not execute judgment. But Ribono shel Olam, see what injustice they do to us. And You are upright and honest? And You do truth and justice? When we come to claim against the UN that it lies and deceives and fabricates things against us, is it not exactly the same thing that the government behaves toward its citizens and subjects here? Against the mitzvah-keepers, against the chareidi public, against the settlers, against all those whose line or belief does not suit you, do you not fabricate things against them, invent stories, pin accusations? When you do injustice inwardly, then do not expect that there will not be injustice toward you also from outside. "Truth has stumbled in the street," so consequently there also will not be justice and righteousness from Hashem toward us.
The Radak says, what is written "justice is turned back," this is like pulling forces backward. This is by way of metaphor, that justice already has no place among us, so it, as it were, has retreated backward. Righteousness has no place among us, and so it, as it were, stands afar off. And he explains what the definition of justice and righteousness is. The Radak says, justice is between man and his fellow. Between two litigants, to justify the righteous, to condemn the wicked, this is called executing justice. Righteousness is to give charity to the poor, to lend to him, to give him money. Acts of kindness, says the Radak, are both to the poor and to the rich. For there may be here some rich person carrying a burden, and I go and help him and lift it. So I did kindness with him, even though he is a rich person. Truth, says the Radak, truth is to be a speaker of truth between man and his fellow, not to lie to his fellow, in a deposit, in a pledge, that he should not be one way in his mouth and one way in his heart. And what is "uprightness"? This is "truth has stumbled in the street." And what is "uprightness cannot enter"? Uprightness is the honesty, that he should be honest between himself and his fellow. As it is written, "and you shall love your fellow as yourself." That he should be honest with every person, this is the definition of uprightness. The matters are "uprightness," "plain (nechochim) to the one who understands." And what is "truth has stumbled in the street"? What does the street come in for here? The Radak says, since in secret there were among them people of truth. And behold we have a verse in Yirmiyahu, "and seek in her streets if there is a man seeking faith." What does this mean, were there not such people among them? There were, but not in the street. That is, the seekers of faith made themselves modest. They were at home, inside. Because apparently it was not respectable to be a seeker of faith in the street. To be a man of truth in the street, that was not the mood of the times. So the men of truth were hidden away. The men of truth, yes, they were inside. It was not, it was not considered respectable to be a man of truth and faith. They would define him as a simpleton. What kind of fool, just a simpleton, what, what did you go and return? What did you give? What? No, listen, I found a lost object. What a fool, so what, what did you go and return? I'll tell you, just a wretch. So the person who was honest and upright was already ashamed to walk in the street, was ashamed to display his honesty. It was not in fashion to be an honest and upright person. The Radak says, they would not show themselves before others because they were despised and lowly in their eyes. Whoever was honest was considered despised and lowly. And he brings from the Targum Yonatan, that "justice" means the executors of judgment. And the executors of righteousness stand afar off, "righteousness" is the executors of merit. And "truth" is the doers of truth. And "uprightness" is the people doing matters of faith. All these were no longer among them.
The Malbim, in contrast, does not follow the Radak's line. And the Malbim has an approach that always "justice" is between man and his fellow, and "righteousness" is between man and the Omnipresent. "Righteousness" is in the sense of being a righteous person. That is the meaning of "righteousness." To be righteous before Hashem. While "justice" is in matters between man and his fellow. Only what is not understood here, "and justice is turned back, and righteousness stands afar off." "Justice is turned back," that is, justice was near and it retreated. In contrast, righteousness was never near. For "righteousness stands afar off." It was not near and then became distanced; it was far, but rather from the outset it "stands afar off." The Malbim asks what is the difference? The Malbim says, if you understand the difference between justice and righteousness, you understand excellently. For justice, as we said, is between man and his fellow. Honesty in the laws between man and his fellow, even a person without truth and faith recognizes it. Even a gentile understands it. Between man and his fellow, not to cheat, not to steal, not to do an act of injustice, one does not need a Jew for this. One does not need Torah for this either. In principle a person with a little conscience understands that one must be honest and upright. So this is what he says, justice, human nature inclines toward it. The intellect obligates it. Naturally a person inclines toward honesty and toward justice. If they educate him in a certain way then he will hate it, he will distance himself from it, he will seek deceptions. But we see it in children that naturally their inner sense of justice is developed. So he says, if so, it turns out that everyone is born with justice. And if we managed to do actions that caused us not to behave with justice, what did we in fact do? We distanced justice from ourselves. In contrast, righteousness between man and the Omnipresent, a person is not born with it naturally. It is not found in us naturally. And a person needs to do actions in order to add fear of Heaven to his heart, in order to serve Hashem properly. He says now see how wonderful. "And justice is turned back." For justice, as we said, is between man and his fellow, and everyone has it inside. If we do not have it, apparently it was turned back. We distanced it, because it was here. Naturally we have it. In contrast righteousness, as we explained, is between man and the Omnipresent. Naturally a person does not have fear of Heaven. A child grows up without education, he will not suddenly be righteous. A person does not naturally have fear of Heaven. Therefore of righteousness one cannot say that it was among us and was turned back. Rather what? We did not call it. And if you do not call it, then where is righteousness, the fear of Heaven? Far. Therefore "and righteousness stands afar off." It was never among them.
Now he describes, says the Malbim, that justice goes before righteousness. Since justice, as I said, is an intellectual matter, in contrast to righteousness which requires learning. Justice, every person understands that it is not nice and not honest and not upright to steal, to damage, to perform actions contrary to matters between man and his fellow. And behold he says, see, after justice retreated from them, which is what we said, the elementary matters, this retreated from them, even though it was already among them, then consequently righteousness that was never among them, consequently it "stands afar off." Therefore it is one after the other. The most required thing they do not have, how do you ask for the additional level, which is righteousness between man and the Omnipresent? How do you expect them to have it? And the Malbim says, that if we observe, we will see that the halves of the verse are parallel. As we explained several times, that a verse divided into four, we divide it into a, b, c, d. It is divided into four clauses, so clause a its continuation is c, and clause b its continuation is d. This is the meaning of "the halves of the verse are parallel." The Malbim says, also here the halves of the verse are parallel. "And justice is turned back," why? Because "truth has stumbled in the street." "And righteousness stands afar off," "and uprightness cannot enter." And he explains the connection between the matters. The Malbim says, justice, its foundations are built upon the pillars of truth. If there is no truth, there is no justice. If I do not search and strive for truth, I cannot execute righteous justice between man and his fellow. If the litigants lie, one makes claims that never happened, one says he gave and he did not give, that one tells stories, how will it be possible to execute justice when there is no truth? We bring witnesses, the witnesses are not speakers of truth. How is it possible to execute justice when there is no truth? The ABC of justice is truth. On this he says, "and justice is turned back," do you know why? Because "truth has stumbled in the street." Even though the street, says the Malbim, is the place where truth is most found. Note, the Malbim explains the opposite of the Radak. The Malbim says, the place where truth is found is in the street. Why? Because when I want to cheat you, I will do it in secret. In the street it is uncomfortable for me to say words of falsehood, words of deception and the like. What is called in public, this will be revealed. If we reached a point where already in the street there is no truth, in public there is no truth, that is, we reached a very very deteriorated state regarding matters between man and his fellow, to the point that falsehood rules in public. And this is what he says, "justice is turned back," do you know why? Because "truth has stumbled in the street." Because there is no truth even in the street. So how do you want there to be justice? How do you want there to be righteousness between man and his fellow, if even in the street there is already no truth? "And righteousness stands afar off, and uprightness cannot enter." The Malbim says, "righteousness stands afar off," why? Because "uprightness cannot enter." What is uprightness (nechochah)? "Pour out your heart like water before (nochach) the face of Hashem." "Nechochah," says the Malbim, means opposite Hashem, facing Hashem. The mitzvot between man and the Omnipresent, since a person sanctifies Hashem and a person feels that the Holy One blessed be He is here before him, and this brings him to the service of Hashem. For the ABC of the service of Hashem is "I have set Hashem before me always." The actions and deeds of a person when he is by himself are not the same as when he sits before a king. So the ABC in order for us to be within the category of righteousness, that we be within the category of righteous conduct, that we be servants of Hashem, is that a person should feel that he is facing the face of Hashem, that he stands before the Holy One blessed be He. But the person is far from this. "Uprightness cannot enter." How will he come facing the face of Hashem when "righteousness stands afar off"? He is far from the service of Hashem, from seeking the ways of Hashem, from the righteousness between man and the Omnipresent, from being righteous. So "uprightness cannot enter." He cannot come to uprightness, meaning to be facing the face of Hashem. For the ABC of the level of the righteous is that the righteous person is with the Ribono shel Olam. Standing facing the face of the Ribono shel Olam. Feeling in all his deeds that the Ribono shel Olam sees his ways, sees his actions. And if a person fails in this, how will he be facing the face of Hashem? For he pursues desires, pleasures, material matters. Such a person, "uprightness cannot enter." In no way will he be able to come to be facing the face of Hashem. Since to be facing the face of Hashem, this is, as we said, not in nature. To do righteousness is not in nature. To be righteous, meaning between man and the Omnipresent, is not in nature. And if you do not exert yourself, "righteousness stands afar off," certainly "uprightness cannot enter."
The Malbim explains that there is a difference between "upright" (yashar) and "facing" (nochach). What is the difference between them? The Malbim says, "upright" is what is familiar to us from geometric definitions, that the line passing between two points, the shortest line between them, that is the straight line. "Upright" comes to symbolize the shortest line between two points. "Facing," in contrast, says the Malbim, means something that is parallel. It is parallel opposite something else. "Facing" means that this thing deliberately stands opposite it. Stands facing it. According to this the Malbim says, the difference is that in matters grasped by logic and the senses, we say "upright." A line passing between two points, these are things grasped by the senses, we say "upright." A thing that can be examined, and we see that they act the opposite, I will say it is crooked. It does not act uprightly. Since here the line of uprightness can be seen, can be examined. And if you do not walk uprightly in a matter that can be examined, then this is called not upright. So upright and not upright is in matters that can be examined by the senses. In contrast, note, says the Malbim, "facing" is in matters not recognized by the senses and the intellect. I can say I am standing facing the face of Hashem. Where is Hashem? Did you see Him? Certainly not. So we see that also toward abstract things we express ourselves with the word "facing." But I will not say "upright toward the face of Hashem," because "upright" is an expression that comes only upon things that are, as I said, tangible, things grasped by the senses. On this the verse says, "all of them are plain (nechochim) to the one who understands, and upright (yesharim) to those who find knowledge." And this is most wonderful according to the foundations the Malbim delivers to us in Sefer Mishlei. Whoever wishes can listen on the disc on Mishlei, that the one who understands (mevin) is the understanding of the heart. And in contrast knowledge (da'at) means clear and solid proofs, that everyone can feel them and know them in the aspect of science. Science means a proven matter. So he says, note, "plain to the one who understands." Because the one who understands cannot bring proofs for it. But he tells you to understand it, I understand it in myself, but I do not have proofs for it. Therefore the expression "facing" fits it. For "facing" is opposite an unproven matter, a matter that is not physical, not grasped by the senses. So I can say this is "facing to the one who understands." In contrast "those who find knowledge," it already reached the aspect of knowledge. Knowledge is the high level, where the matter is understood not only in the intellect and I understand it, but I can bring proofs and demonstrations for it. And this is the difference between understanding and wisdom, and between understanding and knowledge. Wisdom is what a person receives from outside. So the Malbim explains in several places, that a person cannot reach wisdom on his own. He needs to receive it from outside, from a prophet and the like. And wisdom means not comprehension of learning, but wisdom always according to the Malbim means the way of the upright. What is moral, what is not moral. This is the definition of wisdom. A person can do the greatest injustices and be sure that he is moral. This person has not attained the ways of wisdom. Wisdom means to know what is the conduct of the upright. Understanding, even what they did not deliver to me. We said that wisdom must be received from another source. Even what they did not deliver to me, when I delve into the matters, I will understand one thing from another, and I will know that this thing too is not honest and upright. This thing too is not moral. Knowledge, after I delve into the matters, I will also have proofs that this is the correct thing. Even though, as I said, moral matters would seem not to be given to proof. You think this is moral, that one thinks the other thing is moral. You think that to have compassion on Jews is moral, he thinks that to have compassion on Palestinians is moral. For in moral matters this is something very elastic. But when a person reached the high level of the investigation of wisdom and understanding, this will reach in him the aspect of knowledge. Knowledge means clear knowing with signs and demonstrations. This is the meaning of knowledge. And he says therefore understand what is written in the continuation, "and upright to those who find knowledge." Since this matter is already tangible to him, then consequently when I see it, it is upright. For "upright" as we explained is a matter grasped by the sense, it is clear, it is upright. But at first this was only understood inwardly, so this is "plain to the one who understands."
"And truth is lacking, and he who departs from evil is made a prey. And Hashem saw, and it was evil in His eyes that there was no justice." "And truth is lacking." The Radak says, that truth was not found among them, as if it never existed. "Lacking" (ne'ederet), from the language of absence (he'eder), a thing that never existed. "And he who departs from evil is made a prey (mishtolel)." What is "he who departs from evil is made a prey"? The Radak says, "he who departs from evil," honest people who depart from evil, are not found in the world, as if they were removed from the world. There are no longer in the world people who depart from evil. This is the meaning of "mishtolel." Not in the sense familiar to us today as "runs wild," but in the sense of being removed (nishlal). People who depart from evil were removed from the world. Rashi explains, "he who departs from evil is made a prey," the intention is he is held to be a fool by people. Like "Elika Shalal." And this is from the language of error (shegagah). How does the Targum render error? "Shalu." "Shalu," so the Targum says. Error is "shalu." And this too is a word in the Holy Tongue. "And he struck him there on account of the shal." Very good. "Shal" there means from the language of error. He did not pay attention, he struck him without paying attention. He erred and did not observe and he struck him. So then "shal" and "shalu" is from the language of error. And if so, he tells you, a person who would be within the category of one who departs from evil, is considered a fool. Considered as one who errs, he does not understand what he is doing. He, this happened to him by error, he is not, he is not in his right mind. Considered as a fool by people.
"And Hashem saw, and it was evil in His eyes." The Radak says, behold there is no justice. Why specifically justice? "And He saw, and it was evil in His eyes that there was no justice." Behold we saw that there were also many other things. Why specifically for this is He caught? The Radak says, because this is the hardest of all. We see that the Holy One blessed be He does not demand, for example, from the nations regarding matters between man and the Omnipresent. About what does He? About justice. Why did the Holy One blessed be He destroy the generation of the flood? Because the earth was filled with violence (chamas). Why did the Holy One blessed be He send Yonah to Nineveh? Since there was theft among them. Since there was transgression among them in matters between man and his fellow. Why did Hashem destroy Sodom? "The hand of the poor and the needy she did not strengthen." This means, matters between man and his fellow, justice, this is the hardest of all. And why? As long as there is justice in the world, the world is viable. Even if you say they are not servants of Hashem, but the world is viable. The moment there is no justice in the world, it is chaos. A world with no justice, that is Afghanistan. That is Iraq. That is Syria. The moment there is no justice, there is no possibility at all for the existence of the human race in the world. And the Holy One blessed be He created the world so that there should be existence in it. Therefore a gentile, the necessary minimum He requires of him is that the world should be able to function. And how can the world function? That there should be justice. That there should be honesty. A person murdered, they judge him. A person stole, they judge him. That there should not be a state of lack of justice, of transgression running wild in the streets. For this state causes that it will not be possible at all to sustain a world. Therefore the Radak says here, therefore "it was evil in His eyes" over what? Because there was no justice. For justice is the thing that cannot be passed over on the agenda. Justice is not a thing that the Holy One blessed be He says, fine, they will repent, we will forgive, there is no such thing. When there is no justice, this is the most terrible thing of all, and over this, as it were, the Holy One blessed be He does not extend His patience. Chazal say, great is the power of violence, for the generation of the flood transgressed everything and their sentence was sealed only over the violence. "For the earth is filled with violence because of them." So Chazal expound. The Radak says, what did you learn? That this matter of the lack of justice is the most despised of all.
The Malbim says, "and truth is lacking." At first, says the Malbim, truth was still among them. But it, so to speak, stumbled. In the second stage, it is lacking. Do you hear? This is a continuation of the previous verse. The Malbim explains it wonderfully. For above we saw, "justice is turned back for truth has stumbled in the street." What is "stumbled"? Truth is so pitiful, walking, limping, crash, falls. Again, crash, falls. It exists, but what can be done, it limps. But now, "and truth is lacking." In the second stage, it no longer limps, it is no longer at all in the street. It no longer exists at all. This is the next stage, lacking from them completely. That they do not know at all what truth is. At first he said "uprightness cannot enter." In the second stage he says, the service of Hashem is forgotten from them completely, until "he who departs from evil is made a prey." What does "he who departs from evil is made a prey" mean? The Malbim says, if sometimes it would happen that there was some person who departed from evil, refrained from doing some transgression between man and the Omnipresent, he says, know, this is not his fault. He truly wanted to do the transgression, but what can be done, he was made a prey, from the language of error. By error he did not do the transgression. Understand him. He truly wanted to do the transgression, but by error he did not do it. Terrible to the one who observes. That is, at first there was a state of "uprightness cannot enter." They do not serve Hashem. He cannot come facing the face of Hashem. But they deteriorated to such a state, that if he did not commit a transgression, one must judge him favorably that apparently he forgot. Apparently he forgot. He came to commit a transgression, understand him, he forgot to do the transgression. And this is "he who departs from evil." If you see that he departs from evil, this is out of error. Understand, it was by error, it is without intention. He wanted to do the transgression, so take him into consideration. "And Hashem saw, and it was evil in His eyes that there was no justice." As we said, that the moral matter of between man and his fellow, this is the most despicable in the eyes of Hashem. For in this, says the Malbim, one departs entirely from the category of a human being. And this is harder than a person not doing righteousness, that righteousness means being righteous between man and the Omnipresent. Why? Because as we explained, that righteousness, says the Malbim, is within the category of the person of religion. In order to be a person of righteousness, meaning righteous in matters of the service of Hashem, one must learn the matters of religion, the commands of Hashem, what Hashem requires of you. But in order not to execute justice, one must be a person distorted in his personal, private conduct, which he has from birth as we said. Justice is conscience. Justice is honesty. Not to steal, even a gentile understands. How do you not understand this? Therefore he says, this is more distorted in the eyes of Hashem, because this matter entirely nullifies from him the form of a human being. A person created in the image, has within him the simple understanding that to steal, to damage, to harm, to insult, to do harm to another, this is a thing that is forbidden. This a person understands in a simple way. And if there is no justice, says the Malbim, they are likened to beasts of the forest. For only beasts of the forest do whatever comes into their spirit according to their momentary pleasure. They do not seek justice, they do not seek what conscience says.
In fact, in the Ten Commandments we see that the Holy One blessed be He commanded commands that would seem entirely not to require understanding. "I am Hashem your God," "you shall not serve idolatry," simple and understood. "You shall not steal," "you shall not murder." The gentiles come and ask, what, this is what the Holy One blessed be He gave you in the Torah? Thank you. We have seven Noahide commandments. This, this is what was innovated at the giving of the Torah? "You shall not commit adultery," "you shall not steal," "you shall not murder"? If the Holy One blessed be He had come and innovated some way in fine detail, something in the service of Hashem, some enhancement and stringency, some precision, even "you shall not bear a grudge." That already, I would say listen, that is a high demand, that a person did something to you and even in the heart do not remember it against him. That, that I still understand. But what do they tell me? "You shall not covet your fellow's wife." Says a gentile, well, what, so among us too this is understood. Among us too this is understood. We too have seven Noahide commandments. Among us too it is understood not to steal. And by the way, note, there is no society in the world, and this is anthropologists who researched tribes and... there is no society in the world where the foundations of morality are not, are not understood among them. Not understood among them. There is no society in the world that says it is legitimate to steal and every person can steal from whomever he wants. Legitimate to murder and every person can walk around the street and kill whomever he wants. There is no such society in the world. That is, these are things that the Holy One blessed be He implanted in the conscience of a person, and every person has it. And if he reached a state where he removes it from himself, and he can. If he opposes and does actions contrary to morality, he can be a person who gives legitimacy to murder, like Hitler. Who determines that whoever murders is the moral one. But one must do many actions for this. For naturally, the Holy One blessed be He implanted in a person the "you shall not steal," the "you shall not murder," the "you shall not commit adultery." The Holy One blessed be He implanted this in a person. Why, if so, did the Holy One blessed be He specifically give this at the giving of the Torah? Because the Holy One blessed be He wanted to teach, all your "you shall not murder" is worth nothing if it is without "I am Hashem your God." If it is without the Holy One blessed be He giving the Torah. For behold you can always find a justification for every murder.
This one, what can be done, this is an unwanted idea, and there is nothing to be done, this is the woman's right over her body. What, this person, what can be done, for years he only plunders the public resources, because he is connected to machines and there is no benefit from him and he is not productive, he needs to be sent to Havat HaShikmim. By the way, an interesting point, no one said such a thing. And this is one of the articles that was in the chareidi press following the story of Sharon, that it is interesting that no one spoke about the fact that they never considered disconnecting him from the machines. This person, his driver received a fixed salary for eight years while he sits at home. Whom should one take? This person is driving in one direction. Why do you need a driver? But we, what, a public fund, we paid him a driver. And no one considered, listen, this person will not return to life. Breathing on his own, not on his own, to life he will not return. Let us end his story. No, in no way did they consider it. But what can be done that apparently babies in their mother's womb do not have these rights, and a law was passed that a woman does not need committees and does not need anything, and there is a subsidy for a woman who wants to have an abortion. She apparently, this baby was not a prime minister apparently, and it does not have the abundant rights of the prime minister, such as the evacuation of Gush Katif, which is mainly the rights that were caught for him in the media, therefore they made such celebrations. For Shamir passed away a year ago, did anyone hear about it at all? Did anyone even know about it? He has no rights, what can be done. He stood for the right of the people of Israel, he was not, he was in favor of the Land of Israel. That, that is not rights. Sharon, so he has rights, he evacuated Gush Katif. That, look, bring real rights. What are you telling me, Etzel, Lechi, Haganah, Mossad, that is not, that does not pass muster. Tell me real rights. He evacuated Gush Katif, that is a right. And then suddenly the person becomes a legacy, he already has a legacy. He has a legacy. What legacy? At every government meeting, his first question was where are the burekas. And who is responsible for buying the falafel. A legacy. Well, a legacy. As they said at the time when they eulogized Rabin, Ezer Weizman said about him true things and plain to the one who understands. He said we ate a few good things together, we drank a few good things together, that is what we truly remember of him. How many drinks he drank together, how many things he ate. But to come and turn things around because the person now passed away, so now suddenly everything was fine, everything was honest, everything was upright. Rav Shach never wanted to meet with him, never. They asked him why the Rav meets with others as well? He told them he is a wild man (pere adam). A wild man. Do you know what a wild man is? A person without boundaries. A person without boundaries means he will do the worst things, he has no boundaries. And at the time Rav Shach said, they asked him Rav, the evacuation of territories and Gush Katif, he told them they will evacuate everything. He told them they will evacuate everything. They will return everything. The Rav, they asked, also Jerusalem? He told them also Jerusalem. He says, it seemed to me that Rav Shach exaggerated a bit. It seemed to me that he was not reading things correctly. He says, and afterward, I already understood, after years passed, and Olmert already stood with a signed document with Arafat and with those who came after him, on the evacuation of Jerusalem. They only fled at the last moment. It was the Sharm document. At the last moment they fled, but, but everything was already ready. That is, he says, what Rav Shach said, everything was correct. And he said, Rav Shach told me, the one who will return Gush Katif, he says will not be from the left. It will be from the right. He told me the left has no legitimacy among the people to do this. But the right has legitimacy among the people. So Rav Shach told me. And how right he was. The one who built them, also destroyed them. And he entered into the very debate whether one needs to sit there or not needs to. He entered into the essence of the person. That is, see that there is a state where a person can reach such a state, that when there is no justice, a person can do whatever he wants, whatever comes into his spirit, in the words of the Malbim, in the absence of justice they are likened to beasts of the forest. A person can do whatever comes into his spirit. And by the way it fits very well what Rav Shach said. Whoever knows, for in the war of, I do not remember, you surely remember better, which war it was, the War of Independence? That he encircled the Egyptian army, Yom Kippur. Yom Kippur. He received a clear order to return. And his luck was that he succeeded. Because if not, they would have hung him on an electric pole. Disobeying an order from the Chief of Staff in the middle of a war. And he does not listen to what they tell him, does what he wants. Rav Shach defined it, these are the great ones of Israel, their definitions are precise. What a wild man is. And a wild man, do not expect him to have loyalty. Those who were with you in the government today, the next day he kicked them to the dogs, brought in Lapid. He acted in all his actions exactly the opposite. But so you should have a little loyalty, these people accompanied you, these people were with you. He kicked everyone, spared no one. This is a person without Torah. And this is what he tells you, a person who has no justice, honesty, righteousness, is likened to beasts of the forest. Such a person is like beasts of the forest, this is a wild man. And this is the most terrible of all. "And Hashem saw, and it was evil in His eyes that there was no justice." When there is no justice, this is the worst of all.
The following is the full and literal transcription of the recording, divided into readable paragraphs and including punctuation marks: