Our chapter deals with the failure of the generation and its soul-searching. After the prophet declared that Hashem's hand is not too short to save, but rather sins create the barrier, the people themselves arrive at confession. In the section before us, we read the words of confession, the prophet's response to them, and the dreadful description of the deterioration of justice and truth in that generation - until reaching a state where "truth is missing."
כִּי רַבּוּ פְשָׁעֵינוּ נֶגְדֶּךָ וְחַטֹּאותֵינוּ עָנְתָה בָּנוּ כִּי פְשָׁעֵינוּ אִתָּנוּ וַעֲוֺנֹתֵינוּ יְדַעֲנוּם׃ - For our transgressions are multiplied before You, and our sins testify against us; for our transgressions are with us, and as for our iniquities, we know them.
Radak explains: "For our transgressions are multiplied before You" - our transgressions combined with the transgressions of our fathers. Initially, it was said that the exile was prolonged due to the sins of the fathers, and now the people add and admit: it is not only the fathers, we too are part of it, both factors contribute. "Before You" - directly against the Master of the Universe. Unlike the ancestors who concealed their deeds and said, as it were, Hashem does not see us, we come before You and confess openly.
"And our sins testify against us [anatah banu]" - ostensibly it should have said "anu banu" in the plural. Radak explains: do not be surprised, for such is the manner of the verses - "and his eyes were set [kamah]" (by Eli), where "eyes" is plural and "set" is singular; "and there came [vayavo] men to me"; "the cities were captured [nilkedah hakiryot]"; "his steps shall not slip [lo tim'ad ashurav]", and similar instances. Furthermore, here there is a specific plain meaning: each and every sin among our sins, each one on its own, testified against us. Therefore, it ends in the singular. "And our transgressions are with us" - we recognize the transgressions and confess them, and ostensibly, if so, we are already more worthy of salvation.
The Malbim distinguishes between the terms: a "pesha" (transgression) is rebellion - how we rebelled against Hashem regarding mitzvot between man and God. "Our sins [chatoteinu]" refers to the sins we committed against one another, such as robbery and extortion. And it is not only that we sinned in the past, but rather "our transgressions are with us" - the sins are still with us, and we have not yet repented of them. And "avon" (iniquity) - as is known from the Malbim's regular approach - comes from the concept of distortion (ivut): not merely someone who sinned out of desire or even willfully, but a sin that stems from an intellectual distortion, a corrupted ideological outlook, or heretical thoughts.
According to this, "and as for our iniquities, we know them" means: we still know and acknowledge them, meaning we still cling to those same heretical thoughts and distorted ideas as before. If so, what wonder is there in what was said earlier, "[we look] for salvation, but it is far from us"? Salvation is right here, but we flee from it: continuing in our intellectual distortion, continuing in our rebellions against Hashem, and continuing in our sins between man and his fellow. What wonder is it that salvation remains far from us?
פָּשֹׁעַ וְכַחֵשׁ בַּיהֹוָה וְנָסוֹג מֵאַחַר אֱלֹהֵינוּ דַּבֶּר עֹשֶׁק וְסָרָה הֹרוֹ וְהֹגוֹ מִלֵּב דִּבְרֵי שָׁקֶר׃ - Transgressing and denying Hashem, and turning away from following our God, speaking oppression and revolt, conceiving and uttering words of falsehood from the heart.
All the commentators agree that "pasho'a vechachesh" are infinitive forms, meaning abstract nouns rather than active verbs: not "we transgress and deny," but transgressing and denying.
Radak asks: How can it be said that they deny Hashem, when we just saw them say, "our transgressions are multiplied before You, and our sins testify against us" - they are speaking directly to the Master of the Universe? He answers: when a person denies his fellow, he is essentially denying Hashem. A person who raises a false claim against his fellow, saying to him, "I lent you money," when no such thing ever occurred, is in effect denying Hashem, for he acts as though the Eye above does not see. As it is written: "And commits a trespass against Hashem, and deals falsely with his fellow" - when you deal falsely with your fellow, your issue is not only with him; you are committing a trespass against the Master of the Universe.
Radak brings an additional explanation from Targum Yonatan: "And denying Hashem" - in the word of Hashem, meaning denying Hashem's commandments. The Holy One, blessed be He, said, "You shall not deal falsely," "You shall not lie," yet you do the opposite - it turns out that you deny the commandment, as if Hashem never commanded it. The intention is not that he denies His existence, but rather that he denies that the commandment was spoken, for otherwise, how could he act in direct contradiction to Hashem's words?
"And turning away from our God" - the exact opposite of what is commanded: "After the Lord your God shall you walk." Not only did we fail to follow Him, but we drew back and turned away from behind Him.
"Conceiving and uttering from the heart words of falsehood" - Radak explains that horu ("conceiving") is like "they conceive mischief" mentioned earlier, related to pregnancy (herayon): what a person thinks and devises in his heart is considered conception, and bringing it into action is akin to birth. Vehogu ("and uttering") comes from expression and speech - what he conceived, thought, and planned, he then also articulates, speaks, and utters: words of falsehood.
Radak brings another explanation in the name of his father: horu is related to instruction (hora'ah), as in "to instruct the Children of Israel" - the teaching they impart and the lesson they convey is falsehood. Rashi cites from other works that horu vehogu refers to teacher and student: horu is the teacher instructing his student, while hogu is the student meditating on the words - and both betrayed together, both conceiving/teaching and meditating on words of falsehood from their heart. Rashi brings yet another interpretation: horu is from the root of shooting or casting, as the Targum translates "horse and its rider He cast into the sea" as yera veyamma, meaning bringing the matter into action; and hogu is related to "remove (hago) the dross from silver", separating dross from silver. That is, they shoot out, extract, and bring forth words of falsehood from their hearts.
The Malbim frames the prophet's words as an answer to the confession. They had said, "Our transgressions have multiplied before You," and in response, the prophet says to them: "Transgressing and denying Hashem." Pesha (transgression) is active rebellion - which still acknowledges reality, as one rebels against a king whose existence he recognizes. But kachash (denial) is worse: acting as though, heaven forbid, Hashem does not exist at all. Beyond rebelling against Him, you also denied Him.
And further: "And turning away from our God." The Malbim consistently maintains that the Tetragrammaton refers to the Holy One, blessed be He, in a general sense, as Creator and King of the universe; while Eloheinu ("our God") refers to His direct relationship with us, His individual Divine Providence (hashgachah pratit) over us. Therefore: "transgressing and denying Hashem" addresses His role as King of the universe; "and turning away from our God" addresses Divine Providence, meaning they also denied Providence and reward and punishment. For even if awareness of Hashem is not deeply rooted in a person's heart, a natural, internal fear of punishment usually remains. Yet here they reached a state where even fear of punishment was lost. Eloheinu represents the attribute of Justice, the One Who oversees us and holds us accountable - and even this they no longer feared.
And corresponding to what they said, "and our sins testify against us," which refers to interpersonal sins, the prophet shows how interpersonal wrongdoing had become not merely accepted among them, but a badge of pride. Each person brags to his friend: "You won't believe the scheme I pulled off on him, how I cheated him, how I conned him and the fool never even caught on!" They sank so low that this became a source of pride in their eyes.
And there is an even worse level: a person who failed to cheat anyone that day and had nothing to brag about. What would he do? He would invent a story and fabricate a tale of deceit from his imagination, just so others would respect him and say, "Well done, you really pulled it off!" This is the meaning of "speaking oppression and revolt" - they speak of oppression and boast of it; "conceiving and uttering from the heart words of falsehood" - he has to conceive and formulate, fabricating an imaginary story out of whole cloth, pretending he cheated someone and pulled off a scam, just so people would admire how shrewd and clever he was. He boasts of oppression even when he did not commit it! This illustrates just how vast and profound were the interpersonal sins they confessed, to the point that they saw their iniquities as a source of honor.
וְהֻסַּג אָחוֹר מִשְׁפָּט וּצְדָקָה מֵרָחוֹק תַּעֲמֹד כִּי כָשְׁלָה בָרְחוֹב אֱמֶת וּנְכֹחָה לֹא תוּכַל לָבוֹא׃ - Justice is turned back, and righteousness stands afar off; for truth has stumbled in the street, and uprightness cannot enter.
Rashi explains: we would expect Hashem to help us take vengeance on our enemies, yet the Holy One, blessed be He, does not execute judgment against them. "And righteousness stands afar off" - Hashem's righteousness toward us, in executing justice upon our foes, remains far away. We cry out for Him to come, save, and assist, but nothing comes. And what is the cause? The fault lies within us: "for truth has stumbled in the street." There is no truth in our streets, and because truth has stumbled on earth, truth from Heaven is withheld as well. God has made one corresponding to the other: when we act with truth and integrity, the Holy One, blessed be He, deals with us in truth and integrity; but when we distort our words and act deceitfully and falsely, Heaven likewise withholds justice and righteousness from us.
There is a profound moral lesson here. We cry out: "Master of the Universe, see the injustice being done to us!" Yet when we protest against the United Nations for lying, deceiving, and fabricating libels against us, is this not precisely how the government behaves toward its own citizens, toward Torah-observant Jews, toward the Chareidi public, toward the settlers, toward anyone whose faith does not align with its agenda? Are falsehoods not fabricated against them, stories concocted, and baseless accusations leveled? When you commit injustice from within, do not expect to be spared injustice from without. Truth has stumbled in the street, and consequently, justice and righteousness from Hashem are withheld from us.
Radak explains that "was driven backward" (hosag achor) is used in the sense of retreating forces, metaphorically speaking: justice no longer has any place among us, so it has, as it were, retreated backward, and righteousness has no place among us, so it stands afar off. He defines the terms: "mishpat" (justice) refers to interpersonal matters between two litigants, to vindicate the righteous and condemn the wicked. "Tzedakah" (righteousness/charity) means giving to the poor, lending to him, and providing him with money; whereas gemilut chasadim (acts of loving-kindness) applies to both the poor and the wealthy, for even if a wealthy person is carrying a heavy load and I help him lift it, I have performed an act of chesed with him. "Emet" (truth) means speaking truth to one's fellow, not deceiving one's neighbor regarding a deposit or a pledge, and not speaking deceitfully with one thing in the mouth and another in the heart. "Nichocha" (uprightness) is honesty, being upright with every person, in the spirit of "you shall love your fellow as yourself."
And why does it specifically say, "truth has stumbled in the public square"? Radak explains: because in secret, there were still truthful people among them. Similarly, Yirmiyahu states: "and seek in its broad places if you can find a man... who seeks faithfulness" - did no such people exist at all? They did exist, but not in the public square. Those who sought faithfulness kept a low profile and remained inside their homes, because it was no longer respectable to be an honest person out in the open. Anyone honest and upright was branded a naive fool: "What, you went and returned it? You found a lost object and brought it back? What a fool!" An upright person was already ashamed to display his integrity; it was simply not in fashion. And as Radak phrases it: they would not show themselves before others, because they were despised and base in their eyes. He also cites Targum Yonatan, which renders "mishpat" as those who administer justice, "tzedakah" as those who do good deeds, "emet" as those who act truthfully, and "nichocha" as people of faith and integrity - and none of these were to be found among them anymore.
The Malbim does not take this approach. According to his consistent system, "mishpat" always pertains to interpersonal relations (bein adam l'chaveiro), while "tzedakah" pertains to man's relationship with God (bein adam laMakom) - being righteous before Hashem. From this distinction, he deduces: "Justice was driven backward" implies that justice was once close at hand and then retreated; whereas "righteousness stands afar off" implies that it was never close to begin with. Why the difference?
The Malbim explains: Justice, the basic fairness between human beings, is recognized even by a person devoid of truth and faith; even a gentile understands it. Not cheating, not stealing, not committing an injustice - one does not need to be Jewish or possess the Torah to realize this. Anyone with a modicum of conscience understands that one must be honest and fair. Human nature naturally inclines toward justice, and intellect obligates it; this can be observed in children, whose internal sense of fairness is naturally developed. Granted, if a child is raised corruptly, he will despise this and seek out deceit, but fundamentally, every human being is born with an innate sense of justice. If we took actions that caused us to abandon justice, we actively pushed it away from ourselves, and thus "it was driven backward."
In contrast, righteousness (tzedakah), which relates to man and God, is not inherent in human nature. A child who grows up without an education will not suddenly become righteous; fear of Heaven is not something a person possesses naturally, and one must actively cultivate awe in his heart to serve Hashem properly. Therefore, one cannot say that righteousness was once present among us and was driven backward; rather, we never invited it in the first place. Thus, "righteousness stands afar off" - it was never among them to begin with.
The order of the verse is precise: justice precedes righteousness because justice is intuitive to human reason, whereas righteousness requires deliberate study and training. Once even justice - the most basic standard they once possessed - retreated from them, it naturally follows that righteousness, which was never theirs, stands afar off. If they lack even the most fundamental human baseline, how can one expect them to attain the higher level of devotion to God?
The Malbim further notes that the clauses of the verse correspond alternately. In biblical poetry, when a verse contains four clauses, the continuation of the first clause is often found in the third, and the continuation of the second in the fourth. Here as well: "Justice was driven backward" - why? "For truth has stumbled in the public square." "And righteousness stands afar off" - why? "And uprightness cannot enter."
The explanation of this connection is clear: the foundation of justice rests upon truth. Without truth, there can be no justice, for if we do not pursue the truth, it is impossible to administer fair judgment between human beings. If litigants lie and bring fabricated claims, if one claims to have given money when he did not, and if witnesses do not speak the truth, how can justice possibly be executed? Truth is the very ABC of justice. Therefore, "justice was driven backward" - "for truth has stumbled in the public square."
Here the Malbim explains directly opposite to Radak: the public square is actually the place where truth is most commonly found. Why? Because when a person intends to cheat, he does so in secret; in the street, out in the open, he feels uncomfortable speaking lies and deceit lest he be exposed. If things have deteriorated to the point that even in the public square there is no truth, and falsehood reigns openly, it is a sign that interpersonal relations have completely decayed. How can one expect justice to endure if truth has stumbled even in the street?
Corresponding to this is: "And righteousness stands afar off, and uprightness (nichocha) cannot enter." What is "nichocha"? It is related to the phrase, "pour out your heart like water before (nochach) the presence of the Lord" - facing Hashem, directly before Hashem. The mitzvot between man and God stem from a person's acute awareness that the Holy One, blessed be He, is standing right before him, which inspires him to serve Him. The ABC of serving Hashem is "I have set Hashem before me always" - a person's conduct when alone is vastly different from his conduct when sitting before a king. To reach the level of "tzedakah," to be a true servant of Hashem, one must feel that he stands directly before the presence of Hashem. But someone who is distant from serving Hashem and pursuing His ways, who chases desires, pleasures, and material pursuits - "nichocha cannot enter"; he cannot possibly place himself before the presence of Hashem. Since this awareness is not natural, if one makes no effort, then "righteousness stands afar off," and certainly "nichocha cannot enter."
The Malbim distinguishes between the two concepts. Yashar (straight or upright) corresponds to the geometric definition: the shortest distance between two points. Nachoach (facing or aligned), by contrast, refers to something parallel to another entity, intentionally standing directly opposite and facing it. Accordingly, when dealing with things perceptible to the senses and to logic, we use the term yashar - the line of uprightness can be seen and examined, and if a person acts contrary to it, he is deemed crooked rather than straight. However, regarding matters that cannot be perceived through physical senses, we use the term nachoach: one can say, "I stand opposite the presence of Hashem (nochach pnei Hashem)" - yet who has seen Him? One would not say "yashar before the presence of Hashem," because yashar applies only to tangible realities.
Based on this, the verse in Mishlei (8:9) is clarified: "They are all straightforward to the discerning (mavin), and upright to those who find knowledge (da'at)." According to the Malbim's principles in Mishlei, a mavin possesses intuitive understanding of the heart (binat halev), whereas da'at denotes clear, solid proof that anyone can perceive and verify, akin to empirical science - a demonstrable fact. Thus, "they are all straightforward to the discerning": the discerning person cannot present external evidence; he grasps it intrinsically within himself. Therefore, the term nachoach is fitting, as it describes something not tangibly perceived or empirically proven. But "upright to those who find knowledge" - for one who has already attained the level of da'at, the truth is clear and tangible, making the term yashar appropriate.
In this manner, the Malbim delineates the differences between Chochmah, Binah, and Da'at. Chochmah is wisdom received from an outside source - a person cannot attain Chochmah entirely on his own; it must be received from a prophet or teacher - and it means knowing the proper path, what is moral and what is immoral. A person could commit grave injustices while being convinced of his own righteousness; such an individual has not acquired the ways of Chochmah. Binah is the insight that was not explicitly transmitted: through deep contemplation, one deduces one concept from another (davar mitoch davar), realizing that a certain matter is neither fair nor proper. Da'at means that following deep reflection, one also possesses concrete proofs that this is indeed the truth. Although matters of morality may appear subjective and incapable of proof - where one person considers something moral while another considers the opposite moral, or one believes mercy toward Jews is just while another believes mercy toward Palestinians is just - nevertheless, when one reaches the lofty heights of investigating Chochmah and Binah, it crystallizes into Da'at: unmistakable knowledge supported by undeniable conviction.
וַתְּהִי הָאֱמֶת נֶעְדֶּרֶת וְסָר מֵרָע מִשְׁתּוֹלֵל וַיַּרְא יְהֹוָה וַיֵּרַע בְּעֵינָיו כִּי אֵין מִשְׁפָּט׃ - And truth is lacking, and one who departs from evil is despoiled; and Hashem saw it, and it was evil in His eyes that there was no justice.
The Radak explains: Ne'ederet derives from the root of absence (he'eder) - truth was no longer present among them, as though it had never existed at all. "And one who departs from evil is mishtoleil" - upright people who turn away from evil vanish from the world, as though they were plundered (nishlelu) and removed from existence. This is not used in the modern Hebrew sense of "running wild," but in the sense of being stripped away or despoiled.
Rashi interprets differently: "One who departs from evil is mishtoleil" - he is regarded by people as a fool, as in the phrase "He leads counselors away stripped (sholal)" (Iyov 12:17), which stems from the concept of inadvertent error (shegagah). The Targum translates an error (shegagah) as shalu, and this term appears elsewhere in Scripture: "And He struck him down there for the error (al ha-shal)" (II Shmuel 6:7) - an expression of inadvertence, struck down without intent. According to this view, someone who shuns evil is dismissed as a lunatic, regarded as mentally unhinged whose choices are mere folly.
The Radak asks: "And Hashem saw, and it was evil in His eyes that there was no justice" - yet were there not many other sins present? Why did the verse focus exclusively on this? He answers: Because this is the most severe offense of all. We find that the Holy One, Blessed be He, does not hold the nations of the world accountable primarily for sins between man and God, but rather for failures of justice. Why was the Generation of the Flood destroyed? "For the earth was filled with violence (chamas)." Why did He dispatch Yonah to Nineveh? Because of the robbery rampant among them, the crimes between man and his fellow. Why was Sodom destroyed? "Nor did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy."
The reason is that as long as justice exists, society can endure. Even if people do not serve Hashem, the world can still function. But the moment justice dissolves, total chaos ensues; human existence cannot be sustained. The Holy One, Blessed be He, created the world so that it would endure, and the bare minimum He demands of humanity is a functioning framework: that there be law, justice, and order - that a murderer be tried, a thief be judged, and that violent crime not run rampant in the streets. Therefore, the absence of justice cannot be overlooked, and regarding this Hashem does not delay retribution. As Chazal expounded: Great is the severity of robbery, for the Generation of the Flood transgressed every boundary, yet their final decree was sealed only on account of robbery, as it states, "for the earth is filled with violence through them."
The Malbim reads this verse as a direct continuation of the previous one, unfolding in two distinct stages. In the first stage, the verse said, "for truth has stumbled in the street" - truth was still present among them, but it was faltering: limping along, falling, rising, and collapsing again, struggling to survive. In the second stage, "and truth is lacking" - it is no longer merely limping; it is gone entirely. It has vanished from their midst, to the point that people no longer even knew what truth was.
And so too on the other side: first it was said, "and uprightness could not enter," and in the second stage, divine service was forgotten completely, to the point that "one who turns away from evil is considered mad [mishtolel]." And what does "mishtolel" mean? The Malbim explains: if it occasionally happened that someone turned away from evil and refrained from committing a sin between man and God, know that it was not his fault! He really wanted to commit the sin, but he was "mishtolel," from the language of unintentional error (shegagah) - it was by accident that he did not commit it. Understand him, it happened unintentionally.
And this is terrible for one who reflects upon it: they reached a point where if a person did not commit a sin, one had to judge him favorably, assuming he had simply forgotten! He intended to commit a sin and forgot, hoping people would cut him some slack.
"And Hashem saw it, and it was displeasing in His eyes that there was no justice" - because the moral realm between man and his fellow is the most reprehensible in Hashem's eyes, for through it a person loses his very status as a human being. And this is worse than a person not performing tzedakah, which is righteousness between man and God. Why? Because tzedakah belongs to the realm of the religious person: to be a person of tzedakah, one must study religious matters, Hashem's commandments, and what Hashem requires of you. But to lack justice, a person must be corrupted in his innate, personal conduct, which is given to him from birth. Justice is conscience; justice is integrity; not to steal is something even a gentile understands. A person created in the divine image understands intuitively that stealing, damaging, harming, and insulting are forbidden. Therefore, this is more distorted in the eyes of Hashem, because it strips away from him the very form of a human being. And in the absence of justice, as the Malbim puts it, they are likened to the beasts of the forest - for only wild beasts do whatever they please based on momentary gratification, seeking no justice and never asking what conscience dictates.
From here, a wonderful insight regarding the Ten Commandments becomes clear. Seemingly, some of the commandments introduce nothing new: "I am Hashem" and the prohibition against idolatry are understandable; but "do not steal," "do not murder," "do not commit adultery"? The gentiles come and ask: Is this what the Holy One, blessed be He, gave you in the Torah? We have the Seven Noahide Laws, and this is self-evident to us as well! Had the Holy One, blessed be He, introduced an innovative path of subtlety, meticulous embellishment, and strict stringency in divine service - even "do not bear a grudge," where someone wronged you and you may not even hold it against him in your heart - I would say this is an elevated demand. But "do not covet your neighbor's wife"?
Indeed, anthropologists who have studied tribes and cultures have found that there is no society in the world where the foundations of morality are not understood. There is no society that says stealing is legitimate and anyone can steal from whomever he wishes, or that murder is legitimate and anyone can walk around in the street killing whomever he pleases. These are things that the Holy One, blessed be He, instilled into the human conscience. However, if a person engages in many actions contrary to morality, he can purge this from himself and legitimize murder, like Hitler, decreeing that the murderer is the moral one. But it takes a great deal of effort to reach that point.
Why, then, did the Holy One, blessed be He, give specifically these at the Giving of the Torah? To teach you: your entire "do not murder" is worth nothing if it lacks "I am Hashem your God," if it lacks the fact that the Holy One, blessed be He, gave the Torah. For a justification can always be found for any murder. A fetus in its mother's womb? They say: it is an unwanted pregnancy, it is a woman's right over her body. A sick person on life support? They say: he drains public resources, he serves no purpose, he is not productive.
And it is interesting to note what was written in an article in the charedi press following the Sharon affair: no one ever dreamed of disconnecting him from life support for years, and even his driver received a regular salary for eight years while sitting at home - the public purse paid for a driver for a bedridden, comatose man! Nobody said, "This man will not return to life, let us bring this to an end." But unborn infants in their mother's womb apparently lack these merits: a law passed allowing a woman to bypass committees entirely, with subsidies for abortions. That baby was not a prime minister, nor does he possess the vast merits credited to Sharon in the media - primarily the evacuation of Gush Katif, which prompted such widespread celebration. Shamir passed away, and who even heard about it? He has no merits, what can one do: he stood up for the rights of the Jewish people and championed the Land of Israel, and that is not considered a merit. The Irgun, Lehi, Haganah, Mossad - none of that has currency. Evacuating Gush Katif - that is a merit! And then suddenly a man acquires a "legacy." What legacy? Every cabinet meeting opened with the question of where the bourekas were and who was responsible for buying the falafel! Likewise, at the time, when Ezer Weizman eulogized Rabin, he uttered words that were candid and honest to anyone who understands: we ate a few good meals together, we drank a few good drinks together - that is what is truly remembered. But to come along and invert everything simply because a person passed away, pretending as though everything had been righteous, decent, and upright?
In these verses, the people confess - "For our transgressions are multiplied before You" - yet the confession is not accompanied by the abandonment of sin: the transgressions are still with us and the intellectual distortion remains within us, and therefore salvation is far off. The prophet reveals that the rebellion reached the point of denying Hashem and His providence, and that oppression became a source of pride, to the extent that they fabricate lies to boast of it. "And justice is turned back" - justice, which is natural to man, is pushed backward because truth stumbled even in the street; and tzedakah, which is not innate and requires exertion, remained far off, for "uprightness could not enter" - man does not stand present before Hashem. And in the final stage, truth is entirely missing, and one who turns away from evil is regarded as a fool and an unwitting blunderer. And of all the corruptions, the gravest is the absence of justice: it is what strips man of the human form, brings ruin upon the world, and concerning it the verse states, "And Hashem saw it, and it was displeasing in His eyes that there was no justice."