"Who fashions a god or casts an idol that avails nothing?" Who fashions a god? Who does such a worthless act, an act of emptiness, going and creating a divinity, forming a god? Who fashions? "That avails nothing." A god that is of no use. That is to say, if a person does something disgraceful, says the Malbim, at the very least there should be something worthwhile enough to be degraded for. There is a person you see doing some utterly foolish act. You ask him, what is this? The Guinness Book of Records. Well, he did a worthless act, everyone who sees him sees foolishness. But listen, he wants to engrave his name in the pages of history. They will write about him, photograph him, show him. When a person does something disgraceful, it is fitting that he gain great benefit to offset the shame of the matter. A person climbs into the garbage and rummages through it. What shame, what disgrace. And if he goes in and he is a respectable person, then the shame and disgrace are even greater. But if he tells you, sir, an envelope with fifty thousand dollars fell in there, ah, that already sounds different, right? That is to say, the degradation is worthwhile in proportion to what I gain from it. But to degrade oneself for what? For a block of wood, over an envelope I threw away by mistake? For a block of wood one does not climb into a garbage bin, right? So he says this: whoever does a disgraceful act, it is fitting that the benefit be great enough that it will outweigh the shame he incurs for his deed. There should be such great benefit in it that all this shame, so to speak, pays off. But he says, who would do such a foolish thing, going and making himself an idol without any benefit? "Casts" (nesech), Rashi explains, is a term of casting and molding. Who would go and do such folly and vanity, and after all the shame at least get something out of it? You took, you carved, you made your god out of some block of wood, at least say, listen, at least it is a fact, I get benefit from it. The Malbim explained that there were two schools among the idol worshipers. Two schools that existed, which held the accepted conception of their times. One school were those who said that the idol itself possesses divinity, it is a god. The second school were those who said that the idol itself really has no divinity, no power. But it is a conduit, a vessel to draw down the supernal flow. In order for the supernal flow to pour its abundance here, for the stars to bestow their abundance, I need to create some receptor, some medium, some intermediary. So the whole idol really has no power, but as an intermediary between me and the supernal forces, it does have validity. This is what the idol worshipers believed. So there are two conceptions. There are those who believed that the idol itself is the god, and there are those who believed that it is not a god but only, as I said, merely a conduit. So with both of these he settles accounts here, and he will continue to settle accounts with them further on. Against the school that says the idol itself, in and of itself, has power, against them he says "those who fashion an idol are all emptiness." Whoever fashioned an idol and thinks that the idol itself possesses divinity, they are all emptiness. Who fashions a god? Who is capable of fashioning a god? Is it possible to create God? This is something inconceivable. And against the school of whom he said earlier that they believed it is only a vessel and a conduit to receive the supernal flow, against this he says a form, and this is "who fashions a god or casts an idol that avails nothing." And before that he said, "those who fashion an idol are all emptiness, and their delights are of no avail, and they are their own witnesses, they see not, nor know, that they may be ashamed." So he refers to this twice. "Who fashions a god," this is against those who believed it is an actual god. "Or casts an idol that avails nothing," this is against those who believed that in itself it has no power but it is merely an idol, a thing that is carved. What is its advantage? As a conduit, yes, it has use. What he called "idol" corresponds to those who believed it is only a power to bring down the flow. And what he called "god," this is against those who understood it to be an actual god. "Behold, all his fellows shall be ashamed, and the craftsmen are but men; let them all gather, let them stand, let them fear, let them be ashamed together." Who are all his fellows? The Radak brings one explanation, and Rashi explains likewise, that his fellows means those of the maker. This craftsman who now made this idol, "behold, all his fellows shall be ashamed." The fellows who gather with him to serve this image. Or there is another explanation, "behold all his fellows" of the idol. And here he actually calls the maker its fellows. As if to say, these are your fellows, so they too are emptiness like it. They too shall be ashamed, "and the craftsmen are but men." They too are emptiness, making themselves such a fellow, such a god to worship. "And the craftsmen are but men." Do not think there is some angel here that created this idol. Some supernal spiritual power created this form here. "The craftsmen are but men." This is a craftsman, this is a carpenter, altogether a human being. What can a human being possibly do? "The craftsmen are but men." What benefit could possibly come from him? What divine form could possibly come from a man who is altogether but a human craftsman? Altogether a man who is a carpenter and craftsman, what could come from such a work? "Let them all gather, let them stand," they all gather and gaze at the image he made, "let them fear, let them be ashamed together." They fear the god they themselves made, and they are also ashamed of themselves. That is to say, there is a kind of duality here, that on the one hand you created something and you fear it, I will have dread of it, it will exert powers over me, none of it will help, "let them be ashamed together." It will be seen that in the end all his efforts failed to bring down supernal powers, failed to truly turn it into a god. So all the actions he did, whether the intentions, the times, whether the fact that they are skilled craftsmen (who know how to direct intention), whether the fact that they fear it, none of this will avail to imbue this idol with living power and divine power. "The ironsmith with an adze works over the coals, and shapes it with hammers, and forges it with his strong arm; he also grows hungry and has no strength, he drinks no water and grows faint." Says the Malbim: the value of anything is determined according to the material, the form, the maker, the purpose, and the means that led to the purpose. Let me explain. When you want to consider something a precious thing, first is the material. What is it made of? Of stone, dirt, or gold. First is the material. If the material is precious, then the result will be precious by virtue of its material. Second is the form. What you actually depicted in the thing. I can say, listen, wood, how much does a piece of wood cost? Ten shekels. But if some special artist comes and carves in it something highly unique, then this thing can climb even to thousands of shekels. Because of the special craftsmanship invested in it.
This is called the form. The maker is the one who worked on that thing, the purpose is the purpose for which the thing was made. Here too, there is a piece of stone which has not much use in it, but if for example I made from it the shape of, say, a flowerpot, then it now has use as a flowerpot, so it has already gained standing by virtue of its usefulness. Also plain clay has no use, but if I made from it the shape of a jug, then by virtue of the purpose of the thing, dirt has no use, but a jug does have use, I can use it for drinking and the like. And the means that led to the purpose, the means meaning how much investment was made in the thing. What means did we employ to lead to the purpose of the thing. There is a thing that in itself is not precious, but do you know how much was invested to arrive at that thing? Take heavy water for example, from which they produce enriched uranium and the atom. The atom, countries are willing to pay billions to obtain the atom. But if you look at what it is made of, it is made of materials that exist in nature, and it is not some incredibly precious materials. The precious part is the splitting of the atom done inside the reactor, for which one needs a vast fortune to build reactors and one needs... So it turns out sometimes that the material is not worth much, but the labor in it, the investment made in it, this is what brings about the result that this thing became worth a vast fortune.
Now he comes and describes: come and see that the idol, from every angle you look at it, has no value. We gave several angles that can give value to a thing. The idol, from every angle you look, has no value. He comes and says, from the angle of its form, "they see not, nor know," the absence of intellectual and sensory form. First of all, it is inanimate. A thing, something that feels, an animal for example, is higher than plants, and a plant is higher than the inanimate. Because a plant, although it grows, still has no vitality, no power of movement. An animal both feels and has power of movement. The idol neither feels nor has power of movement, it has no intellectual form at all, but what? It is an inanimate idol.
Now you will say, alright, but listen, I get benefit from it. As we said, it can even be just plain clay, but there is benefit, we make it into a jug, I can drink from it. He says there is no benefit either, "who fashions a god that avails nothing." From these you would say I have benefit, I make requests of it, it fulfills all my wishes; well, but "who fashions a god that avails nothing," even by virtue of the benefit you obtain and receive from it, you have nothing.
Now from the angle of the one who makes it, "the craftsmen are but men." Who made this god? A human being. Have you ever seen a human being create a god? "The craftsmen are but men," is a man capable of creating a god? You are the creation of the god, and you create the god? Woe to this god whom human beings created. So also from the angle of the maker, you would say the one who made it, let me perhaps illustrate what this means from the angle of the maker. Sometimes they sell you scribbles, you look and say, what is this? This is art. How is this art? What art? No, they tell you this was painted by Van Gogh. Well so what, but look what is here, it is just, my child draws more beautifully. Yes, true, but do you know who painted this? This is called by virtue of the maker. The one who did it is considered a person of standing according to their conception. Or sometimes it can be a person by virtue of being a famous person, President Kennedy, they can sell some doodles of his, just scribbles worth nothing, on paper, at Sotheby's, they will sell it to you at auction for tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars. The paper is not worth it, the ink he scribbled with is not worth it, the drawing itself has no artistic value, so what is here? The power of the maker. Do you know who made this? Mr. Kennedy, he made it. With all due respect, and folly and vanity in how we relate to it, but there are those who value it. He says, this idol, who made it? Tell me someone important, who made it? Altogether a human being created it. So also from the angle of the power at work in it, from the angle of the one who made it, it has no standing.
Now he begins to mock the idol from the angle of its material. Do not say, but listen, this is made from very precious material, do you know how much this material is worth? He says "the ironsmith," they make the idol from iron. Why iron in particular? A simple reason, because iron is strong. The idol needs to last many days, for if it were a god, well, it could still maintain itself, but I still have to maintain this god, right? So I make it from something that will last a long time. When a person wants to build a balcony, he does not make it from aluminum, he makes iron railings so they last many days. So just as one makes an image, he says make it properly, strong, not something that requires constant maintenance, it is not a pergola that you have to keep painting, lest it go and rot or grow old. So he makes it from iron. Does iron have value? Does it have worth? It is considered a cheap product. In order that it exist permanently he made it from iron. There were those who made it from wood. Why wood? After all wood is less strong than iron. Because wood is, so to speak, higher than iron, since wood has the vegetative soul in it. If iron is entirely inanimate, wood has a vegetative soul, therefore there were those who worshiped the Asherah. Why specifically the Asherah? Why a tree? Because they believed that the tree, by virtue of the vegetative soul in it, has vitality, has more power to bring down the supernal forces.
Now at first he speaks about the iron. How can you imagine that something made of metal, made of iron, such a cheap material, how can you think it has any substance? Behold, "the ironsmith with an adze." "The ironsmith with an adze," says the Malbim, if it had divinity, then it is among the conditions of divinity that it create others and not that others create it. This is the most basic thing. This is what I expect from someone who has power. Someone who has power creates. But I created it, so where is its power? It did not even have the power to create itself, I had to create it. Do you understand how ridiculous this is? So the ABC of a god is that it be the creator. And he says, behold, come and see that here with a chisel, with an adze, an adze is a tool with which they carved, with an adze they made it and cut this iron from its quarry. How can it be that a god is someone that man created? A god must be a spiritual power that created man, not someone that man created.
What will you say? No, no, no, do not focus on the fact that I cut this from the iron quarry, know that the divine power in it comes only after it becomes an idol. At first, in its cutting, know that it still has no divine power, so do not say, ah, you created it. No, the divine power came to it only afterward. He says, is it not so, "works over the coals," for afterward he smelts it with fire. If here it received its divine power, how does fire rule over it? How does fire smelt it? This is a god. If it is a god then it is supposed to be above the power of nature. How does the power of nature rule over it?
And if you tell me, no, no, no, the divinity did not begin in it, only after it received its form. After they smelted it, it received a form, here now begins the divine power in it. He says, yes, but there is still action in it, is it not so, "and shapes it with hammers." Even afterward they make holes in it with hammers in order to create for it a special form. How do I make a form in a god? How is this possible?
What will you tell us? No, no, in truth know that all this only seems to you. It seems to you as if a person acts and makes, but know that the divine power was placed in the craftsman so that he would carve the idol. Do you understand how we bypassed the whole problem? It is not that the craftsman made an idol, the divine power of the idol entered into the craftsman who created the idol. So wonderful, we resolved all the difficulties, the idol created itself. Do you understand how wonderful? What will you say? He says, is it not so, "and forges it with his strong arm." The artisan feels that he is exerting power when he forges the idol. If you say that the divine power acted in me, then I should be like an inanimate stone and suddenly my hands would begin to move freely by the divine power that forges the idol. But if I feel that I have to begin to exert and apply power to saw, power to hew, power to draw, that means I invested my own power in it. So I made it, do not tell me stories that the divine power of the idol created itself and entered into me.
And on this he continues and says, is it not so, "he also grows hungry and has no strength." How do you know that my power is the one at work and not the power of the image entering me and doing? Because if the power of the image entered me and did the work, would I be hungry and thirsty afterward? No, I am not acting from my own power at all. The power of the image is the one that acts and does. So why suddenly after two hours of work on this image do I become hungry, become thirsty, like any person who does labor? What happened? Perforce this is energy that I expended from myself. You expend energy, you need to drink; you expend energy, you need to eat. And if so, the very fact that we say "he also grows hungry and has no strength, he drinks no water and grows faint" shows you that this person actually performed the action from his own power and not from the divine power in him, from the divine power of the image. If it were from the divine power of the image, he would not need to be hungry, would not need to drink water, for after all everything is by that same divine power of the image.
Rashi explains differently. There is here both an explanation of Rashi and an explanation of the Radak that I want to see. What is "and forges it with his strong arm; he also grows hungry and has no strength, he drinks no water and grows faint"? Rashi explains that the maker, the one who made the image, lacks strength, he is weak; if he grows hungry he will not have the strength to continue the work, and if he does not drink water he grows faint. So if the one who made it is so weak, so limited, then is it possible that I would create something better than myself? How can such a thing be? If the maker is so limited, that he grows hungry and thirsty and weakens at his work, if the maker is so limited, all the more so will the one made from him be limited. This is according to Rashi, this is "he also grows hungry and has no strength, he drinks no water and grows faint."
The Radak explains that the maker, he now comes to describe the maker, the one who makes the image does it with such enthusiasm, with such devotion, "he also grows hungry and has no strength, he drinks no water and grows faint." At work he feels hunger and feels thirst, he sees nothing, he continues his work out of tremendous perseverance, out of enthusiasm, behold he is creating a god here. He grows hungry, it does not affect him; thirsty, it does not affect him, out of his great desire for the craft, says the Radak, he performs this action with desire and enthusiasm. As if to say, see the folly of those people.
"The carpenter stretches out a line, he marks it with a stylus, he shapes it with planes, and marks it out with a compass, and makes it like the figure of a man, according to the beauty of a man, to dwell in a house." "The carpenter." The Malbim continues and explains, also one who works wood; until now we spoke of the one who makes it from metal, now he moves to the carpenter. "The carpenter," at first when he wants to make the idol, what does he do? "Stretches out a line." When the carpenter wants to cut something, what is the first thing done? They draw, they mark; anything you want to cut you mark so that I will know I am cutting it properly. So at first "he stretches out a line." "He marks it with a stylus." "Sered," according to the Malbim, means color here. Says the Malbim, there is no other occurrence of the expression "sered" in all of Scripture, and the meaning of "sered" is close to the word "seret" (scratch), "seret" as in "you shall not make a gash in your flesh for the dead," meaning a scratch. And then he wants to mark how much he will cut, he outlines it with "sered" or "seret," meaning he makes a scratch to outline the size of the precise cut that he needs. He says, behold you see, it was not cut by itself, I have to act upon it. We return to what we said earlier, come and see that this whole action of the image stems from me; even if it is an idol of wood, it was not cut by itself, and if it is a god, how do I make a god? A god must be from itself. How did I act and make the god?
What will you tell me? Perhaps here too you will resolve it for me as you told me before, that the divine power in it comes only afterward, not now, the divinity does not enter it now. He says, but afterward "he shapes it with planes." "Planes" is the carving. What they carve. After we cut, we have the image, the block of wood, now they begin to carve and create a form in it. Afterward "he shapes it with planes." How can it be that I take an image and carve it? Is it possible to work upon a god? What will you tell me? No, no, only after it becomes an idol, only after that does it acquire the divine power in it. But afterward he says "and marks it out with a compass." For afterward there is another stage in which he makes drawings and circles with a compass, gives it a shape and makes for it a form and paints it with all sorts of colors, as was their way to paint their images. And if so, how can I paint the god? That is to say, there is no god here at all.
And more than that, he says, is it not so, "and makes it like the figure of a man." Now he returns to both the iron and the wood. How can it be that you call it a god after you make it like the figure of a man? Says the Malbim, what is the difference between "ish" (man) and "adam" (human being)? Says the Malbim, "ish" describes anything of substance, called "ish." The Malbim brings that we have seen the expression "ish" used for animals, for angels, "the man Gabriel," for the cherubim, "their faces one to another" (ish el achiv). The expression "ish" comes to express existence. A power of existence is called "ish." This can even appear for animals, the expression "ish." In contrast, the expression "adam" always appears only for the human species, only for human beings. He says, how is it possible, is it not so that "he makes it like the figure of a man" (ish)? How would it be a divine power if you make it in the form of something that is present and exists here in the world? A god, I understand, must be something spiritual, something supernal, exalted, elevated above all that is here and exists here. Something above me. What do you make for it? The figure of an "ish," you make for it a form of something that exists here. For they used to make figures and shapes of animals. Nivchaz and Tartak, they had the form of a fish and the form of a goat and the form of Ashima and so on, we learned this in the past. All sorts of figures of animals they used to depict for their gods, their sphinx, some figure of a lion lying down and so on in this manner. Figures of animals they used to depict as their gods. How do you go and make for it a figure of something that exists here and you want me to accept that it is a god above me? For God has no body and no form.
And more than that, if you think the god is exalted above man, how do you create for it a figure of a man? On the contrary, you want to say that it is more than man. So what did you do? You went and took wood, created for it a figure of a man. We already have a man. What do I need a god for? If it is a god, that means it is something above man. So what did you go and create, in the words of the prophet, "and makes it like the figure of a man, according to the beauty of a man, to dwell in a house." "Ish," we said, is the figure of a being, each of the animals. And not only that, you even made it "according to the beauty of a man." You make for it a special form like a man, as if by this you take pride. Behold you see, it has the figure of a man. He says, a figure of a man, on the contrary, man needs a supernal figure above him, not that you create yet another figure of a man from wood or metal.
Another thing, he says, the figure of this man is limited compared to a natural man. A natural man is already better. A natural man is not limited. What did you create? A figure "according to the beauty of a man, to dwell in a house." This idol, what can you do, poor thing, is stuck in the house. Unable to move, it has no vitality, it has nothing. So even a man still has vitality, moves himself. But this one, "their feet do not walk." What then have you done? You created a man, and even, well, at least "according to the beauty of a man," perhaps like some magnificent man. What else did you create? A limited man, a cripple. A man who sits in the house all his days, unable to move.
"He hews down cedars for himself, and takes a cypress and an oak, and lets it grow strong among the trees of the forest; he plants a pine, and the rain nourishes it." After he showed how much emptiness there is in the conception that this idol has power, since it did not make itself but rather the carpenter or the craftsman by means of an adze, coals, hammers, created this god. And how foolish are those people who go to worship an idol that man created. He now comes and shows them, come and see that these trees themselves have no spirituality and holiness. As if someone would want to say this is a holy tree, it has spirituality. No matter who made it, how they made it, by virtue of the tree it has standing. As we discussed in the past, like by virtue of the gold it has standing. No matter how you make it and what you do with it, even if the ornament is very ugly, it has standing by virtue of its material. By virtue of the wood it has spirituality and holiness, to the point that it truly does not matter how you make it and how you act upon it, in any case the divine power is already placed in it. This view he comes to refute and tells them, is it not so, he went to hew down cedars. Cedar is not specifically designated for making an idol. Cedar is designated for many things, for many uses. So what divinity and holiness does it have in itself? And whatever cedar there was he took for himself, cedar fit for any work. So what divinity and holiness did you find in the wood itself? What will you say? No, all cedar trees have holiness. Cedar trees have standing. "And takes a cypress and an oak." He says, behold you see, he is not particular specifically about cedar. He takes an oak as well. That is to say, other trees do not bother him. "And lets it grow strong among the trees of the forest." He gives it reinforcements from all sorts of directions, even with trees of lesser importance, with trees of the forest. That is to say, there is no special holiness in the tree itself. And not only that, "he plants a pine, and the rain nourishes it." He goes and plants a great forest of cedars, and their growth is not supernatural, but rather "the rain nourishes it." The rain nourishes it in the natural way. So we return to the fact that at the end of the process, who created this whole image here? Man himself. And do not tell me it has holiness in itself, for I planted it, and I, and the natural rain watered it. And if so, you have received again a natural, physical thing, so it has no standing by virtue of its creation, it has no standing by virtue of its material, for you would tell me the material from its origin has divinity. Behold you see that from both of these there is no reason at all to worship that image.
"Then it becomes fuel for a man; he takes some of it and warms himself, he also kindles a fire and bakes bread; he also makes a god and bows down to it, he fashions it into an idol and prostrates himself before it." He continues and says, this cedar that grew in the forest, do not claim that it originally has holiness. It comes from its origin with holiness. It cannot be, "it becomes fuel for a man." For from this forest they extract trees for a person to burn, so that the man will make fire with it. And more than that, a person also derives physical pleasure from it, bodily pleasure. For he "takes some of it and warms himself." He uses it to warm his body. And more than that, he tells you, "he also kindles a fire," he also heats the oven with it, and from it "bakes bread," on its coals he bakes bread. So tell me such a thing: "he also makes a god and bows down to it, he fashions it into an idol and prostrates himself before it"? Can a god be made from such a thing? Does it have any holiness? Does it have any divinity? I am showing you how utterly mundane this thing is. And being a thing that is completely mundane, having no holiness at its origin, having no standing, how can it be that to such a thing he prostrates himself? How can it be that to such a thing he bows down?
The Malbim explains, we saw that there are two schools. There were those who believed that the image is a god, it itself is a god. And there were those who believed that the image is not a god, but only a vessel to bring down the supernal spiritual forces. So against those who think the idol itself is a god, he says "he also makes a god and bows down." Can you make from such a thing a god that you prostrate yourself to? And against those who thought that it merely has power to bring down the supernal forces but in itself is not a god, about them he says "he fashions it into an idol and prostrates himself before it." He made from it an idol that is, so to speak, aimed at the supernal forces to bring down their abundance, and to it he prostrates himself.
Now note a further nuance. Regarding the god he wrote "he makes a god" (yifal). Regarding the idol he wrote "he fashions it into an idol" (asahu). Why does he "make" (yifal) a god from this board, from this block of wood, while he "does" (asah) an idol from this block of wood? What is the difference between "pael" (works) and "asah" (makes)? Says the Malbim, "laasot," "lifol," means to engage in the thing. I am working on it, I worked on the matter. Did you finish the subject? No, I only worked on the matter. "Laasot" means completion. I finished the thing, I made it, meaning that is it, definitive, the thing is complete. I finished it, as it is written "which God created to make," He made the world. Therefore he says, see the difference. Corresponding to what we said, that against "he also makes a god and bows down," for a god is a self-existent power, so did you make it? Can it be said that you made it? Rather what, you only work on the thing and the god, so to speak, made itself. This is how they believe. For after all, did I make it? Then what did I make? I only worked on the matter and the god created itself. In contrast, regarding the idol, for they used to create idols aimed against the hours of the day, against the influences of the stars, against, in order to bring down all sorts of abundance. For this the idol had to be made perfect. To complete it in a perfect manner so that it would be fit to receive that abundance according to their understanding. So consequently regarding the idol it is written "he fashions it into an idol." He truly makes it, because I am truly the finisher, I am the maker. But in contrast, those who made a god, then he says no, I am the maker, I only work on it, I merely, so to speak, engage with it and the god, as it were, was created from itself, because the god has power, according to the conception and understanding of those fools.
Now he continues and speaks of their emptiness. "Half of it he burns in the fire; over this half he eats meat, he roasts a roast and is satisfied; he also warms himself and says, Aha, I am warm, I have seen the fire." He continues and describes the foolishness of those people who make the idols. "Half of it he burns in the fire." What does he mean to say? That you should not say only, for we saw that he actually comes to refute their claim, that you should not say we are dealing with some special tree that has divine powers. He says no, for you see that he took a cypress and an oak, he does not distinguish about which tree. You would say no, we are dealing with a special forest in which this forest has divine powers. On this he said, how can it be, for this forest "becomes fuel for a man; he takes some of it and warms himself." For from this forest they also extract trees for kindling, so what divine powers are here? It is just an ordinary forest. From it they kindle, bake bread, and from this you make a god and bow down, fashion it into an idol and prostrate yourself before it? Now it seems as if he is repeating himself. After you said "he takes some of it and warms himself, he also kindles a fire and bakes bread," he returns to this. "Half of it he burns in the fire, over this half he eats meat, he roasts a roast and is satisfied." And after this "he also warms himself and says" etc., part of it you warm yourself with. So why does he repeat things twice? Says the Malbim, here he comes and says, that you should not say, true, indeed not all the forest is divine, but this tree, this piece of wood that I took, it is special, it has a segulah, it has divine powers. For before this he spoke about them, said what kind of emptiness this is, to take a tree, carve it, and suddenly say it is a god. How suddenly, did you make a god? So he says no, no, this is a divine tree. This is a tree in which the god was present here and I only, so to speak, did the external actions, but the god is already present in this tree. He says, how can it be to say that the god is present in this specific tree? For this very tree, now I am not speaking, as I spoke earlier in verse fifteen about the forest, I am now speaking about this specific tree, this block of wood that you took to carve an image from. He says, is it not so, this very tree, "half of it he burns in the fire." He already burned half in the fire. And over the other half "he eats meat," now he makes steaks over it. It turns out, then, that it acquired no holiness, neither before the making nor after the making. And also do not say, no, sir, know that this is a divine tree, and whoever does such a thing will be punished. Whoever takes and burns his portion will be held to account, will not be satisfied from what he eats. He says no, "over this half he eats meat, he roasts a roast and is satisfied." This is an ordinary tree, like a standard tree from which they make coals, and whoever made a roast from it will even be satisfied from the roast. "He roasts a roast and is satisfied." And do not tell me no, know that in truth it was not roasted on the tree itself, it was miraculously roasted. Because the tree, as we said, is a divine tree. He says, how can it be? "He also warms himself." He too draws close to this fire, not a divine fire, this is fire he feels has heat. "He also warms himself." And do not say perhaps he is only imagining it. Is it not so, "he says, Aha, I am warm, I have seen the fire." For fire has two properties. The property of illumination and the property of warming. He says, this is a completely natural fire, for the person enjoying it says "Aha," "Aha" as if to say wonderful, very good, enjoying it, joy, as it is written "Aha, Aha, our eye has seen it." As if to say, lovely, wonderful. He will say, oh, so good, "I am warm." "I am warm" means I warmed myself with it. And also "I have seen the fire," I also saw fire here, that is, I saw something that illuminates. So if so, there are all the natural properties of a tree. So what divinity are you speaking to me about? What divinity has clothed itself in this tree from which you made the image? For understand, to say that I have now created a god, this was outrageous even from the perspective of idol worshipers. What, you went and carved a god? What is this? Therefore certainly they would return, so to speak, to the first cause and would say no, it has divine powers, we only shaped it, but really the divinity was already here. This is how they had to explain it. So this he comes to negate. So at first he negates and says the forest is not divine, the type of tree is not divine, and this specific tree, this very piece of wood from which you carved, it too is not divine, for on part of it you roasted meat, warmed yourself, ate, and were satisfied. You saw fire in it, you saw light, so it is completely physical.
"And the rest of it he makes into a god, into his idol; he bows down to it and prostrates himself and prays to it, and says, Save me, for you are my god." And how can it be that this tree, from its remnant, "the rest of it he makes into a god." From its remnant, from it you make a god. "Into his idol." What is "into his idol"? As we explained, there were two schools. So against those who worship it, he says "he makes into a god," he made from it a god. Against those who accepted it only as an idol to bring down the supernal forces, about them he said "into his idol, he bows down to it." From it he made an idol that would bring down the supernal forces, to which he prostrates himself. "He bows down to it and prostrates himself." And "prostrates himself" is in the case where he made from it a god, as we explained earlier. So "he makes into a god and prostrates himself," or he made into an idol to bring down the supernal forces and then bows down to it. And then "and says, Save me, for you are my god." And then he turns to it afterward and says to it, save me, for you are my god. How can it be that he calls it "you are my god"?
"They do not know nor understand, for their eyes are plastered over from seeing, their hearts from understanding." "They do not know nor understand." "They do not know nor understand, for their eyes are plastered over from seeing." "Plastered over from seeing" means, as it were, there is something plastered over their eyes. "Tach" means as if plastered over them, plaster on the eyes, something that seals, seals the ability to see. But notice, what is "tach"? "Tach" is an action. He plastered. He plastered the wall. So "tach" speaks of someone. Therefore the Radak explains, "tach" means the Holy One, blessed be He. Hashem plastered over their eyes. As it is written "make the heart of this people fat, and their eyes blind" etc., meaning Hashem did it. So he says, do you know why they truly do not understand? Because the Holy One, blessed be He, after they entered so deeply into sin, Hashem already sealed their eyes. To the point that they no longer see things that are so clear. "Their eyes are plastered over from seeing." Or another explanation, says the Radak, the evil inclination plastered over their eyes. The evil inclination placed plaster on their eyes so that they could not see. The evil inclination is the one that caused them not to understand how much emptiness there is in their deed.
The Malbim explains, "they do not know nor understand." What they do not know and do not understand, to sense all that we have spoken of until now, how much this is emptiness, how much this is foolishness, he says, do not be surprised at this. For "they do not know," why do they not know? Because "their eyes are plastered over from seeing." "And do not understand," why? Because "plastered over their hearts from understanding." The "plastering" applies to both. "Their eyes are plastered over from seeing," "their hearts plastered over from understanding." So now notice, says the Malbim, there are two things here. There is knowing, there is understanding. Corresponding to knowing, "they do not know, for their eyes are plastered over from seeing." Corresponding to "they do not understand," this is understanding, "their hearts plastered over from understanding." And the explanation is simple, says the Malbim. Since knowing is always by virtue of testing and experience. How do you know something? How do you know, for example, that when a pot is on the fire it is hot? How does one know such a thing? A child does not know it. Rather we touched enough times to recognize that when a pot is on the fire for a few minutes it is boiling. A child does not know this, he has no testing and experience, therefore he is able, without any problem, to come and pull the pot, Heaven have mercy, with everything in it. These are the kind of things we arrived at through testing and experience. Meaning we already experienced the things and through this we know the results. I hear the noise of a car, I know it is a danger to go down to the road. From where? From experience, because once I approached and saw a car and was frightened. A child does not know this, he hears the noise of a car and walks freely into the road. Because he has no testing and experience. These are the kind of things that experience is what grants them. Things that experience grants are in the category of knowing. External knowing. "They do not know," meaning they have no experience to understand the things. Why? Because "their eyes are plastered over from seeing." Since through the eyes I acquire knowing and experience, their eyes are sealed. Alright, but there is also understanding. And understanding is the understanding of the intellect, it is not the understanding of the eyes, it is not external experience, it is something more internal, it is something intellectual. Through this he says, about this he says "plastered over their hearts from understanding." His heart too is sealed. So there are things here that you would say perhaps experience does not prove them, but the intellect proves them, logic proves them, think, contemplate. He tells you no, this too does not help, since "their hearts are plastered over from understanding." Since his heart is sealed, then consequently through this he cannot understand even simple things that even a child is able to understand.