'And Hashem said to me in the days of Yoshiyahu the king: Have you seen what wayward Israel has done? She goes upon every high mountain and under every leafy tree, and there she plays the harlot.' 'And Hashem said to me in the days of Yoshiyahu the king.' The Radak asks: why was it necessary to say 'in the days of Yoshiyahu the king'? After all, it is known that Yirmiyahu's prophecy was in the time of Yoshiyahu. The Radak answers that since we know his prophetic era continued, he prophesied also in the time of Yehoyakim and in the time of Tzidkiyahu, therefore he tells us: come and see, he had a prophecy already from the days of Yoshiyahu. But which period of Yoshiyahu are we speaking about? The Radak says that Yoshiyahu had two periods. There was a period before he repented, and a period after he repented. After he repented, it is written that Yoshiyahu removed idolatry from the land. Here it is written 'and she committed adultery with the stone and with the wood.' So it is somewhat difficult to attribute these words to after he repented, since here he is rebuking them about idolatry. If so, it is very likely that this prophecy was delivered before Yoshiyahu repented. Ah, but this is a bit difficult, since here it is written 'yet for all this she did not return to Me except in falsehood.' This implies that there was repentance, only that Hashem charges them that the repentance was not from the heart, that the repentance was not genuine. And if you are speaking to me about the period before he repented, then there was no repentance at all. So which period is he speaking about? After he repented, there was repentance. Before he repented, there was no repentance. And he speaks of repentance in falsehood. So which period are we discussing? He says it is very possible that we are speaking here about a situation in which they did repent, but their repentance was in falsehood. That is, even before Yoshiyahu's genuine repentance, there was a false repentance. What does this mean? Repentance: apparently they saw 'we are going to get into trouble with this business, let us return in repentance,' when in fact all this repentance was only external, in order to try to remove the trouble from themselves. And it is very possible, he says, that in the rebukes with which Yirmiyahu the prophet reproved them, it is very possible that some of them repented somewhat in appearance and openly, but not in secret. And this is the meaning of 'in falsehood.' That is, there was some movement even before Yoshiyahu made complete repentance. There was some movement, but that movement was in falsehood. That is one possibility. The second possibility, he says, is that this refers to after Yoshiyahu repented. After Yoshiyahu repented, why do you call it falsehood? It was surely genuine repentance. The answer is: true, for him it was genuine repentance, but for the people the repentance was not genuine. And on this, in fact, the prophet reproves them. According to this explanation, we are speaking after they had already repented. But Yoshiyahu repented with complete truth, the king repented completely, yet the people, their repentance was a repentance of one thing in the mouth and another in the heart. The people of his generation, says the Radak, were compelled by fear of the king. There was no choice, the king repented, so he compelled us. Therefore, says the Radak, this is what is written 'she did not return to Me except in falsehood.'
He says to him 'Have you seen what she has done?' The Malbim says, the Radak says, this was not in the time of Yoshiyahu. Since we know that in the time of Yoshiyahu, we already know that Israel was exiled in the sixth year of Chizkiyahu. So now he tells him about what they did before the exile? He rebukes them about something that happened before? For at the beginning of Yirmiyahu's prophecy, the start of his prophecy was 23 years after Israel had been exiled. So now he comes to rebuke - note this, throughout our whole way we will be going with Israel versus Yehudah. Israel versus Yehudah. 'Israel' refers to the portion of Shomron, of the ten tribes, for ever since the kingdom split after the era of Shlomo, it split into two parts. One part was Israel, the ten tribes, that is Shomron, and they are also, as I said, called Israel or Ephraim, these are the names the prophet uses. The second part is Yehudah and Binyamin, who are usually called by the name Yehudah. Relatively speaking, Yehudah and Binyamin were more righteous than Israel, and we see that Israel hastened to exile even before Yehudah and Binyamin. And we also see that they served idolatry from the era of Yeravam until the era of the exile, that is, Hoshea ben Elah, that they never had a situation of a righteous king. In contrast Yehudah had several righteous kings in between. And here the prophet comes to make the distinction between the kingdom of Israel and the kingdom of Yehudah. So he says: here you see that Yirmiyahu began to prophesy 23 years after Israel had already been exiled. So does he come to rebuke Israel? Does he come to speak with Israel? He only begins to prophesy 23 years after they were exiled. So how does he here turn to Israel? He says there are two possibilities to explain. One possibility is that the Holy One, blessed be He, says to him 'Have you seen, have you heard, have you known,' as it is written 'and Yaakov saw that there was grain in Egypt,' and similar cases, so the Radak explains. Let us read the verse again. 'And Hashem said to me in the days of Yoshiyahu the king: Have you seen what wayward Israel has done?' What is He saying to me: did you see what Israel did? Israel was already exiled 23 years ago. So what is He speaking about here? 'Have you seen' is not actual seeing, but rather like 'and Yaakov saw that there was grain in Egypt' - he understood. He did not see actually. So too here, when I say to you 'Have you seen what happened in the First World War?' I was born long after, what are you talking about? No, 'Have you seen' means: did you follow what happened there? Did you take to heart what occurred there? This is the concept of 'Have you seen.' According to this, it turns out that He is truly speaking with him a long period afterward about what Israel did, and He says to him as if: 'Did you set your heart to what happened there then?' This is one explanation. The second possibility, he says, is that what is written 'what she has done' speaks about Israel. But Israel was already exiled, as we said. True, but there was a remnant of Israel scattered in the land, from Menasheh, Shimon, Naftali, who were there in the days of Yoshiyahu. As it is written in Divrei HaYamim 'and in the cities of Menasheh and Ephraim and Shimon, even unto Naftali,' and it says 'which the Levites, the keepers of the gate, had gathered from the hand of Menasheh and Ephraim, and from all the remnant of Israel.' So it may be that He does speak about Israel, but Israel was exiled - not about the remnant. About those who remained here as survivors. Toward them He speaks, and they were indeed in his era. This surviving remnant was still in the era of Yirmiyahu. So He says to him 'Have you seen what the wayward one has done?' 'Wayward' means rebellion, from the expression 'Return, O backsliding children,' meaning rebellious children, children who rebel against Hashem. And then when He says to him 'See what they have done,' 'She goes upon every high mountain and under every leafy tree, and there she plays the harlot.' According to the first interpretation, which refers back to the past, then 'she goes' means: you saw what she used to do, going upon every high mountain and under every leafy tree and performing idolatry. According to the second explanation, the charge is now about their present state. It was not enough for them what they were exiled, it was not enough that all Shomron was exiled, today even the surviving remnant of Israel still 'goes upon a high mountain and under every leafy tree,' they still continue in their corrupt ways. Did you set your heart to this?
Israel compared to Yehudah. We will see more reasons why, as it were, Israel was better than Yehudah, but see that here Israel at least did not conceal their idolatry, they did it openly, while Yehudah are flatterers openly and commit the transgressions in secret.
He says to him: here, see, 'Have you seen what wayward Israel has done?' 'Wayward Israel,' says the Malbim, refers to Israel, they are the ten tribes, and He calls them 'wayward.' 'Wayward' means like a wayward woman. We see in endless examples that He compares idolatry to harlotry. The Malbim says: note, a wayward woman who has left the authority of her husband, she goes out to harlotry and goes out to harlotry in public - this is called 'wayward.' In contrast, we will soon see that Yehudah He calls 'treacherous.' What is the difference between 'treacherous' and 'wayward'? For in both of them you are speaking about her rebelling against her husband and going out to harlotry. 'Treacherous' means she betrays her husband in secret; outwardly she presents herself as righteous, 'she eats and wipes her mouth and says I have done no wrong.' But she is treacherous, deep within she betrays him and does these things. The wayward one, in contrast, went out openly and did it in public without accounting.
He says: come and see that there were three differences between them. First, Israel 'goes upon every high mountain and there she plays the harlot,' meaning in public, 'under every leafy tree.' Another matter, he says, 'and I said: After she has done all these things she will return to Me, but she did not return, and her treacherous sister Yehudah saw it.' The Holy One, blessed be He, says: I said that after she does all these, she will return to Me, meaning after she satisfies her lust with all the harlotries she will return to Me, but I saw that not only did she not return but she even persists in her corrupt way and does not return.
A third matter, he says: here you see that Israel had no one from whom to learn. Israel, as the saying goes, we Yehudah shaved on their beard, that is, we learned from the blows they received, we had someone from whom to learn; even if we did not actually learn, we should have learned from the blows they received. In contrast Israel, Ephraim, had no one from whom to learn; the Holy One, blessed be He, warns them, they kept saying it will be fine, it will be fine, it will be fine, until they received the blow and were exiled, but they had no one historically from whom to learn. But Yehudah, in contrast, about her He says 'and her treacherous sister Yehudah saw it,' she saw the sin of her sister and saw the punishment of her sister and is still treacherous, still she betrays. Did you not learn from what happened to Israel? Did you not learn from what happened to Shomron, that behold they were all exiled and you should have learned? So here is yet another reason given for Yehudah's great sin compared with her sister Israel: you had someone to learn from; Israel had no one from whom to learn, but you saw what happened to the ten tribes and you should have drawn conclusions from it.
The Malbim says: note that there is a difference in the holy tongue between 'wayward' (meshuvah, shovavah) and 'treacherous' (bogedah, or bagodah); 'bagodah' here he says is an adjective, meaning he describes them as treacherous. What is the difference? The Malbim says: waywardness is a trait of the soul. What does this mean? He is unstable, he is unstable, therefore it is written 'I will heal your waywardness.' Waywardness is an awakening of lusts, of desires, or the intellect that has become corrupted, so following this he is aroused to all sorts of his deviations from the way of Hashem, as it is written 'your wisdom and your knowledge, it has led you astray.' With all this, when a person is wayward, meaning he does things whereby he strays from the straight path and follows whatever his heart captivates, this person's sin is only between himself and himself - that is 'wayward.' In contrast, note 'treacherous' - we always say 'treacherous' in relation to whom? 'Treacherous' must be in relation to someone. 'Treacherous' is never a sin between a person and himself - is there such a thing as betraying oneself? Whom did he betray? Always when I express the term 'treacherous' I will need to explain against whom he betrayed. So if 'wayward' is a self-sin, 'treacherous,' in contrast, betrayed in relation to someone, he acted corruptly in relation to someone. Treachery and rebellion and crime, says the Malbim, are always in relation to another. He betrays his beloved, his master, a woman her husband.
Therefore he says: come and see, here he says that the sin of what he mentions regarding Ephraim, he calls them 'wayward.' What does 'wayward' mean? He says this is the movement of their spirit, the lustful faculty, the aroused faculty; they did not betray. Why? Because according to their approach their way is the correct one. It is not that he knows I am doing wrong and betrays. He says: here, see, a sign of this. First, they did it in public. When a person goes and does something in public, that is, he has no pangs of conscience nor does he feel that what he is doing is wrong. On the contrary, he feels that this is how it should be. So note, he does not feel treacherous at all, he feels he is doing the correct deed. Second, he did not regret his deeds. One who feels feelings of guilt feels 'I betrayed him, I was not honorable,' so he regrets his deeds. But one who is confident in his way does not regret his deeds. Third, punishment also does not benefit him, because he does not for a moment understand what the punishment is for. What is the punishment for? My line is the correct one. In contrast, when we speak of 'treacherous,' then note, 'treacherous' is like the example we gave of the woman who is under her husband and betrays him. She has pangs of conscience, she is at home so she knows she was supposed to be faithful to her husband; if they chastise her there is a chance she will return and mend her ways. This is the definition of 'treacherous.' The treacherous one knows I am not right with the opposite side. And then there is a chance these things will bring him back to place. But the wayward one, who follows his heart, whose faculties of intellect and understanding have become corrupted, or who has a trait of the soul of waywardness, the aroused and lustful faculty, then he feels that what he is doing is correct, so he does it in public, he does not regret, he is not affected by the punishment, he goes on his line, he is confident that his line is the correct line. Here he says: behold, come and see, Yehudah was in the category of 'treacherous,' while Ephraim was 'wayward.' Yehudah was treacherous, they knew they should be ashamed of what they were doing, and therefore outwardly they made themselves out to be righteous. But deep within, beneath, rebellion against the Holy One, blessed be He, like a woman who betrays her husband in secret, so that her sin is a very severe sin.
'And I saw, when for all the causes whereby wayward Israel committed adultery I had sent her away and given her a bill of divorce, that her treacherous sister Yehudah feared not, but she also went and played the harlot.' He says: behold, she should have seen that for all the causes whereby wayward Israel committed adultery I had sent her away, she should have seen that My sending Israel away, their exile, was because she committed adultery, because they turned away from Hashem, and it was evident to all that this was the reason. It was evident to all that her adulteries were the cause. And if so, 'and I had given her a bill of divorce,' yet she feared not. It did not arouse in her fear. Treacherous Yehudah went and played the harlot also. Yehudah was treacherous and went and played the harlot also, she saw the punishment of her sister Israel, yet feared not. So treacherous Yehudah, sister of Israel, her sin is a severe sin, it is a sin of betrayal.
The Malbim says: note that the matter of harlotry is expressed with two verbs. There is the verb 'to play the harlot' (zanah) and the verb 'to commit adultery' (ni'ef). What is the difference between them? Why is the verb 'commit adultery' sometimes used, as in 'for all the causes whereby wayward Israel committed adultery,' and afterward it is written 'she also went and played the harlot,' and it does not write 'she went and committed adultery also'? What is the difference between the verb 'to commit adultery' and the verb 'to play the harlot'? The Malbim says: the act of relations itself is the verb 'commit adultery.' In contrast, the very act of a woman offering herself in seclusion to someone who is forbidden to her, not in the manner of betrothal, upon this comes the term 'play the harlot.' The meaning is: 'play the harlot' always means 'she strayed from behind' - and this is an expression whose meaning is to deviate from the way. To deviate from the way means to play the harlot. To deviate from the way, so always when I say 'play the harlot,' the meaning is that she deviated from the way of her husband. She was supposed to be in the way of her husband, in the house of her husband, and she played the harlot. What is the meaning? She deviated from the way. And even if you say she is not married, she is not a married woman, still she deviated from the accepted way, because the accepted way is that a woman does not offer herself for an act of harlotry. And she offered herself for an act of harlotry - the way of a woman is to marry and to offer herself to one husband. And she went and did such a thing, so always the expression 'to play the harlot' means 'from behind' - she strayed from the accepted way, from the proper way.
Therefore he says: you will always see that with the male the expression is 'commit adultery.' The expression is not 'play the harlot.' Yes? Unless we are describing the people of Israel, and then I wish to describe the people of Israel as playing the harlot from behind Hashem, for then I am in fact describing them as female in relation to the Holy One, blessed be He, who is the male. But always when we speak of a male, the expression 'commit adultery' comes. And why? Because the woman is under the authority of her husband, and since she is under the authority of her husband, then when she goes and does such a deed she is in fact playing the harlot away from him, she distances herself from him. But in contrast the man is not under the authority of his wife, and therefore regarding the man we speak about the very act, which is the forbidden act. The forbidden act is the act of adultery. As we said, the act itself is expressed in the word 'adultery,' but the going to seclude oneself with another person, to leave your husband and go and be together with someone else, this very act is already called harlotry. She plays the harlot away from her husband and goes and secludes herself with another person.
The Malbim says: the treacherous woman is under the authority of her husband, so the essence of her punishment is for the harlotry, that she played the harlot, strayed, left her husband and went to seclude herself with another person. In contrast, the wayward woman, as we said, who publicly goes and leaves her husband, there the essence of her punishment is not for harlotry, since she is already dissolute anyway, she no longer sees the authority of her husband over her as anything binding. So if so, what is the punishment for? The punishment there is for the adultery. You cannot say she 'played the harlot.' It is like - let us give an example that will perhaps help us understand better - it is like a woman who rebelled against her husband and left the home two years ago, so you do not say that she now 'played the harlot,' since she has long ago not felt connected to her husband. She has long ago not felt that this relationship binds her. So if she does a forbidden act I will call it adultery, because I will speak about the act itself, and the very act of relations is called adultery. In contrast, if she is under her husband and while she is under her husband she goes out into liaisons with other men, this is called playing the harlot, because she is under her husband and she plays the harlot, as we said, meaning she goes out of the relationship to which she is supposed to be connected in order to connect with other men. We are not speaking here about the body of the act alone, but about the very leaving of the marriage relationship to go be with another person, and this is an expression more fitting to apply the term 'harlotry' to. And this is what he says: 'And I saw, when for the causes whereby she committed adultery I had sent her away.' The meaning is: for Israel it was not applicable to send away for harlotry, they had long ago not been in the home. They had long ago not been under the hand of Hashem, they are in public, they made themselves two calves. So can you say they played the harlot? No, they had long ago not played the harlot. They had long ago not been in the home. Therefore 'And I saw, when for all the causes whereby wayward Israel committed adultery.' So what can now be charged against them? The adultery, the body of the act of forbidden relations. In contrast, with Yehudah, who is still connected to her husband, her act is 'she also went and played the harlot.' Yehudah went and played the harlot also, meaning she deviated from the way of her husband because she is still truly connected to her husband. So if she goes out and deviates from the way of her husband, here the expression 'played the harlot' is more fitting.
'And it came to pass through the lightness of her harlotry, that she defiled the land, and committed adultery with the stone and with the wood.' 'Through the sound/lightness of her harlotry' - here there are two ways among the commentators to explain. One explanation: the Radak says 'through the lightness of her harlotry,' like the Targum, 'in her lightness.' The meaning is: there are transgressions that a person does and the transgression is heavy upon him, he feels it is a severe matter, he feels the charge upon it is great, he does it with a heavy heart. And there are transgressions that a person does with a light heart. This usually depends on the number of times he has repeated the transgression. The more a person stumbles in something, the more it becomes to him as permitted, the world appears to him as a level plain. This is what he says: 'and it came to pass through the lightness of her harlotry,' meaning as though from the lightness of her harlotry. This matter of her harlotry had already become light to her. Behold, see that through the lightness of her harlotry 'she defiled the land, and committed adultery with the stone and with the wood.' What is the meaning of 'she committed adultery with the stone and with the wood'? We are speaking here about idolatries, and the whole matter of harlotry and adultery, as we explained, comes to express idolatry. So 'she committed adultery with the stone and with the wood' means she left her husband and went and committed adultery with other husbands. Who are these other husbands? These are idolatries, these are forces of impurity, this is wood and stone. The Malbim explains 'through the sound of her harlotry,' meaning not the sound of lightness, but the sound in the sense of publicity. Like 'the sound went out,' the matter becomes publicized. 'And it came to pass through the sound of her harlotry,' meaning from the cause of the sound of her harlotry, since she thought to conceal her harlotry - why? Because as we said earlier, she would always return to her husband's house because she did not want the matter to become publicized, she did not want a report to go out about her that she played the harlot under her husband. The Holy One, blessed be He, says: from the sound of her harlotry 'she defiled the land.' 'Defiled' (tachanef) as we said is flattery. Flattery, as it were, shows a face outwardly, as we explained before. And here 'she defiled the land,' as if she makes herself out to be a proper woman, a woman who is under the hand of her husband, a woman who fears Hashem. 'She defiled the land, and committed adultery with the stone' in the secrecy of Hashem - note, it does not write here 'under every leafy tree,' but rather they did their idolatry in secret. This is the flattery, this is the sound of her harlotry, since as we said she as it were makes herself out to be righteous, but in secret she goes and makes herself idolatry of wood and stone, and this sin, says the Malbim, is worse, for it is deception and denial of Hashem's providence.
'And yet for all this her treacherous sister Yehudah has not returned to Me with her whole heart, but only in falsehood, says Hashem.' 'And yet for all this,' says the Malbim, after you saw that wayward Israel does not return to Hashem in any way, never returns to Hashem, she after doing all these I said 'she will return to Me,' and behold, see, she did not return. Here he speaks about Israel. But see that the tribe of Yehudah, in contrast, each time after the act of harlotry, we said, would return to her husband's house like a proper woman, flattering as we said. He says: but yet for all this she did not return, for not with her whole heart but only in falsehood, says Hashem. So seemingly it would appear, ah, so she is all right, she is better than Israel, because Israel never returned home. But Yehudah still returns home like this, she still feels connected to her husband, she still feels connected to the Holy One, blessed be He. The Holy One, blessed be He, says: treacherous her sister Yehudah. It is with treachery, for it is not with her whole heart but only in falsehood. What, do you think she returned? It is in falsehood that she returned. Because she fears the sound, she fears the publicity, she does not want a name as an adulteress to go out about her, so since this is so, she is as though in need of her husband's name, that as it were her husband's name is upon her, and she flatters and presents herself as proper. Behold, treacherous her sister Yehudah, so what she does is in fact very bad, for yet for all this she did not return with the whole heart but in falsehood.
The Radak brings an explanation that is truly more detailed, and this is an explanation we brought also in the past: where indeed was the falsehood with Yehudah? The Radak says: 'and yet for all this she did not return to Me,' 'for all this' meaning after they saw all the troubles of Israel and their exile, they should have returned, yet 'she did not return to Me.' 'Treacherous her sister Yehudah, not with her whole heart, but only in falsehood, says Hashem.' And her sister Yehudah returned to Me, as it were, in falsehood. What is this 'in falsehood'? Rashi says: the generation of Yoshiyahu made themselves appear as though they were righteous while they were wicked. They would engrave forms of idolatry on their doors from the inside, half on this one and half on that one. We told this in the past, they had a door, two doors that open inward and close. So when the door was closed from inside, there was an image of idolatry, some drawing like an iphone, they had an image of idolatry. And when they would come, says Rashi, they were idolatry-removers, they had such people whose job it was to purge idolatry, Yoshiyahu, as we said, was righteous, 'the breath of our nostrils, the anointed of Hashem, was caught in their corruption,' in the corruption of his people, for he was certain they were righteous, he would send the modesty patrol and the idolatry patrol to check that there was no idolatry, they would enter and inspect and search the house, record in a report 'clean of idolatry.' As soon as he closes the door, suddenly there the idolatry rises up and stands. He did not see it, he opened the doors, its inner face leaned against the wall, he saw nothing. When he goes out and closes the doors, behold again the idolatry is apparent. And if so, this is what is written here, 'treacherous her sister Yehudah did not return with her whole heart but only in falsehood.' They as it were made themselves out to be returning, and therefore when Yoshiyahu went to fight against Pharaoh Necho, he was certain that he was going with much, with much weaponry, with a large arsenal. Why? I purged the idolatry, my people are righteous. When a people is righteous, what is written about it? 'A sword shall not pass through your land.' How is it possible that now Pharaoh will come and enter here? Not even a sword of peace. Certainly not Pharaoh, who knows what he will do here, so he went out to fight against him. And this was his mistake, he did not understand: you think that just as you are righteous and sent righteous people to purge the idolatry, you think it took hold. But you do not know that Jewish heads invented for us schemes. And what is a scheme? They made a scheme for him: they closed the door and suddenly the idolatry is back. So outwardly they appeared righteous, exactly matching what we just explained: Yehudah flattered, outwardly they make themselves out to be righteous, but deep within they were wicked.
'And Hashem said to me: Wayward Israel has proven herself more righteous than treacherous Yehudah.' Hashem says to me, says the prophet, 'wayward Israel has proven herself more righteous.' Wayward Israel has proven herself more righteous, meaning she is still righteous compared to what Yehudah is now doing. This is the meaning of 'she has proven herself more righteous than treacherous Yehudah.' By comparing the deed of Israel to the deed of Yehudah, then I say Israel comes out righteous here in the story. What is the actual explanation? The Radak explains: we saw that Israel began with the sin. And if they began with the sin, seemingly the great sin is theirs. Why in any case do you say Yehudah are more severe and Israel are as righteous compared with them? The Radak says: if you examine what Yehudah did, they did things much more severe than what Israel did. What did Israel do? Two calves, one in Dan, one in Beer Sheva; whoever wants to go serve idolatry, they tell you there are official places, there they serve idolatry. In contrast, what did Yehudah do, says the Radak? The added sin of Yehudah is to disgrace the House of God, to bring their idols and images there, and to nullify there the service of God, and to serve idolatry in His very House. Terrible of terribles. You want idolatry, go make yourself idolatry, but to bring it into the House of Hashem? A foe in My house? To provoke the Holy One, blessed be He, in such a severe manner? The Radak says: this was said of the wicked Achaz who commanded to make in the Beit HaMikdash an altar in the form of the altar that was in Damascus. This is not - he does not suffice merely with idolatry, as it were for his pleasure; in the House of Hashem, blessed be He, there I will make a house of idolatry. He nullified the service of the altar, closed the doors of the House of Hashem, brought up a spiderweb upon the altar, and they extinguished the lamps and did not offer incense, and also passed his sons through fire like the abominations of the nations. Of Menasheh it is written 'and they bowed to all the host of heaven,' and he passed his son through fire, and practiced soothsaying and divination and sorcery, and made an ov and a yidoni, doing much evil in the eyes of Hashem. It is written of him, of Menasheh, that he did more evil than all that the Emori who were before him had done - do you hear? More than the nations. Than all that the Emori who were before him had done, and he caused Yehudah to sin also with his idols. And it is said, 'moreover Menasheh shed very much innocent blood, until he had filled Yerushalayim from mouth to mouth with slain.' For it is written that even after Menasheh repented, it is written that the exile was because of Menasheh. That is, the sin of Menasheh left such a terrible mark that it was not erased even after the repentance. And whoever wishes can listen to our disc on Melachim, we explain there that the Malbim gives an explanation as to why in truth the repentance of Menasheh no longer availed to nullify the decree. That is, you understand that there were the most severe things here. Those who turned their backs to the Heichal of Hashem and their faces eastward to the sun, they would go in the Beit HaMikdash with their backs to the Heichal of Hashem and turn their backs to the Heichal, their faces eastward to the sun to bow to the sun. Every morning they would rise at dawn in order to go bow like this, 'they put the branch to their nose' - it is dreadful even to bring this out of the mouth, whoever knows what 'they put the branch to their nose' means, terrible of terribles, I am even ashamed to say it, they would bend over in order to, as it were, blow toward the Beit HaMikdash. That is, a way of disgrace, 'they put the branch to their nose' is a euphemism, it does not want to say, as it were, to the nose of Hashem, but says 'to their nose,' but the meaning is 'they put the branch.' So that is, you see that their sins were much more severe than the sins of Israel. Israel did not do this in the Beit HaMikdash, they had idolatry, so they made some idolatry. But they did not go to do it inside the Beit HaMikdash. Whoever reads there the guided tour that the Holy One, blessed be He, gives to Yechezkel in Sefer Yechezkel, how He describes to him: pass from chamber to chamber and from room to room inside the Beit HaMikdash, and shows him: here they engraved such and such forms of idolatry inside the Beit HaMikdash, and here they did this and here they did that - simply dreadful and shocking. So He says, 'And Hashem said to me: Wayward Israel has proven herself more righteous,' wayward Israel has already become righteous relative to treacherous Yehudah, relative to what Yehudah did in betraying so severely, blaspheming the House of Hashem.
'Go and proclaim these words toward the north, and say: Return, wayward Israel, says Hashem; I will not cause My face to fall upon you, for I am kind, says Hashem, I will not bear a grudge forever.' 'Go and proclaim these words toward the north.' In the expression 'go' (haloch) here there are two explanations. One explanation is Rashi's, and it is according to Chazal: 'go' is a command, go, walk. He tells him: go where? To the ten tribes. It is written that in the days of Yoshiyahu the ten tribes were exiled - excuse me, in the days of Yoshiyahu the ten tribes returned. That is, they told him: go to the place of the ten tribes and bring them back; there is an opinion among Chazal that Yirmiyahu returned them. 'Go and proclaim these words toward the north.' What is 'toward the north'? The north is Ashur, these are the places to which they were exiled, Chalach and Chavor and the river of Gozan, the cities of Madai - all these places are to the northeast of Eretz Yisrael. So go there and say to them 'Return, wayward Israel.' Tell them that Hashem wants them to return from their waywardness, as we said from their waywardness. 'I will not cause My face to fall upon you.' 'I will not cause My face to fall' means: I will not cast My anger upon you, 'for I am kind, says Hashem, I will not bear a grudge forever.' And then indeed Chazal say that some of them returned. The Radak, in contrast, does not explain thus, and the Malbim too is implied like Rashi and not like the Radak, and the Radak has here a different line. The Radak says: 'go and proclaim' - He does not say to the prophet that he should go north to the place where the ten tribes were exiled, for the king of Ashur exiled them to Chalach and Chavor and the cities of Madai, and they are to the north of the world toward the east. As it were, it does not make sense to the Radak that now Yirmiyahu buys a ticket and sets off to the distances up to the north. So what is 'go'? The Radak says: 'go' is an urging, like 'Come now, I will test you with joy,' 'come, let us cast lots' - what is 'come'? Go? Rather the meaning is 'let us do, with alacrity, come let us cast lots.' This is the expression 'go.' And what he says here 'go and proclaim' means: these words you shall proclaim in Yerushalayim before the elders of Yehudah, and then proclaim the words as though you are speaking face to face with Israel. That is, I want you to rebuke Yehudah, and in the rebuke with which you rebuke Yehudah, awaken their attention to what the ten tribes underwent and their exile. This is as it were what He says to them. As though you are speaking with them face to face, and tell them 'Return, wayward Israel,' tell them: know that Israel are destined to return at the end of days, and this is what He says 'I will not bear a grudge forever.' The meaning is: I will not keep their sin forever, but rather know that their sin will ultimately be atoned; I will bring them back after a long time, when the exiles of Yehudah are gathered, Israel too will be gathered. And what He says 'I will not cause My face to fall upon you forever,' the meaning of 'forever' is 'for years,' 'I will not cause My face to fall and will not bear a grudge' - He says: for it is impossible to say that He did not cause His face to fall, for certainly Hashem was angry with them. Rather the meaning is: for the future 'I will not cause to fall,' it will not be forever, this matter of My face and My anger will not be forever with them. Rather the Holy One, blessed be He, says: I will watch over them with providence for good just as I watched over them before their exile.
The Malbim explains in the section of explanation of the words: 'I will not cause My face to fall,' the Malbim says there is a face of favor, meaning that Hashem lifts His face toward you, that Hashem looks upon us with providence for good, and there is the opposite of this, which is the hiding of the face. Against the face of favor there is the hiding of the face, Hashem does not reveal to us His face of favor. There is a face of wrath, a face of wrath, 'and I will set My face against that man.' Or as Chazal expound 'I turn away from everything, I turn from all My occupations and all My attention I give to him.' Upon this he says: against the face of anger there is 'I will not cause My face to fall.' The meaning is: I will not make such a face. A face of anger I will not make for them, I will not bear a grudge against them even in the heart, but I will return to watch over them with providence for good just as I watched over them before their exile.
'Only acknowledge your iniquity, that you have transgressed against Hashem your God, and have scattered your ways to the strangers under every leafy tree, and you have not hearkened to My voice, says Hashem.' 'Acknowledge your iniquity, that you have transgressed against Hashem your God,' 'transgressed' means rebelled. 'And have scattered your ways to the strangers.' 'You have scattered your ways' - here there are two explanations. Rashi explains that this is an expression of harlotry and the spreading of legs for the lying of a man, which is in fact a metaphorical expression that they went and served idolatry, meaning they left God, who is her husband, and went and played the harlot with the idols. 'And have scattered your ways,' 'your ways' is like 'your feet,' for with the feet one walks in the ways, so 'you scattered your ways' means an expression of spreading the legs. And the Radak explains that the Holy One, blessed be He, says: in order for Me to return you to Me, you must know what you sinned. You must know for what you were exiled, that you transgressed against Hashem your God, and if you recognize this then you will return to Me and I will return to you. 'And have scattered your ways,' the Radak explains that the meaning is that you did not serve one idolatry but scattered your way to many. And he explains it in another direction, that 'you scattered your ways' means you went to all the ways; there is a way that leads to Hashem, and you went to all the other ways and not to the way that leads to Hashem. And this is what we saw, 'for according to the number of your cities were your gods, O Yehudah,' according to the number of cities was the number of the deities. That is, you served all sorts of idolatry, only not the Holy One, blessed be He. 'And you have not hearkened to My voice,' for I warned you through the prophets and you did not listen.
The Malbim explains that this verse is in fact a continuation of the previous verse. From how much you were, 'and I will take you one from a city and two from a family.' What is the meaning of 'one from a city'? The Radak explains: even if there be one Jew alone within the cities of the nations, from there I will take him. And even if there be two Jews within a family, what is a family? A family means a nation. Like 'and if the family of Egypt,' 'the family of Egypt shall not go up,' 'all the families of the kingdoms of the north,' which means nations. So even if there be one in a city and two Jews within a nation somewhere among some distant nation, Chazal say, the Torah says, from there too, says the prophet, from there too I will take you. Chazal explain 'one from a city and two from a family' to mean that one can bring merit to the whole city. Two bring merit to the whole family; the meaning is: if there be one worthy and honorable person in a city, in his merit through him the whole city will be saved. Through two the whole family will be saved. The Malbim explains 'return, O children' - why is the emphasis on 'children'? Because in truth we saw that the fathers sinned. Since in truth we saw that the Holy One, blessed be He, had harsh words about 'when for the causes whereby wayward Israel committed adultery I sent her away, and gave her a bill of divorce.' The Holy One, blessed be He, described a very harsh situation with the fathers. Therefore the Holy One, blessed be He, says as it were: with the fathers I already have nothing to discuss. So to whom do I turn? I turn 'return, O children.' Even though the sinful fathers did not return, still let the children return. And why? Because 'I am a Master over you.' For we saw that the Holy One, blessed be He, as it were gave a bill of divorce. He says: even though I as it were divorced your mother and gave her a bill of divorce, yet over you I am a Master. The meaning is: you I hold as My wife and as it were I will behave with you as a husband. 'And I will take you' even if there be only a surviving remnant, one from a city and two from a family, I will take you, I will bring you to Tziyon. And since your sin stemmed from the wicked kings who led you, then consequently the next verse: 'and I will give you shepherds after My own heart, and they will feed you with knowledge and understanding.' I will give you shepherds after My own heart, meaning ones who will shepherd you after My own heart, according to My desire, not like the first shepherds, mainly the kings of Yehudah and the kings of Israel who acted wickedly, who corrupted their ways; He says these shepherds in the future will feed them knowledge and understanding - who are these shepherds? These are the leaders who will be with the Mashiach king, as it is written 'and we will raise up against him seven shepherds and eight princes of men,' they will feed you with knowledge and understanding.
The Gra has here an interesting explanation: what is 'return, O wayward children, and I will take one from a city and two from a family and I will bring you to Tziyon'? The Gra says: behold, many will wander to know who is the one from the city and to contemplate the family. Who is 'one from a city,' who is 'two from a family'? These are truly verses that conceal depth within them and this requires understanding. The Gra says: Eliyahu the prophet is called - what do we call Eliyahu? What is his epithet? The Tishbi. Eliyahu the Giladi. What is Tishbi, what is Giladi? These are two places in the east, the places where he lived were Tishbi and Gilad. So therefore, since this is so, they say Eliyahu the Tishbi, Eliyahu the Giladi. 'And Eliyahu the Tishbi, of the inhabitants of Gilad, said.' This is Eliyahu. His anointed ones - let us call him by the name of his city, but his anointed ones are called by the name of their family. Mashiach ben Yosef, Mashiach ben David, they are called by the name of their family. The prophet says: 'and I will take you' through one from a city and through two from a family. I will take you through one from a city who is known by the name of his city, this is Eliyahu the prophet the Tishbi, 'one from a city.' And through two, these are the anointed ones from a family, who are known by their family, Mashiach ben Yosef, Mashiach ben David. That is, through whom will the redemption be? Through the tidings of salvation, the tidings of redemption, this is Eliyahu who will come and announce the redemption and he illuminates, and through two who are from a family, this is Mashiach ben Yosef and Mashiach ben David, speedily in our days, amen.