Introduction: A Chapter of Disgrace, Blindness, and Callousness
Chapter 8 of Yirmiyahu continues the line of rebuke from the previous chapters, elevating it to an even greater intensity. The chapter opens with a horrific description of the desecration of the dead - exhuming bones from graves and scattering them across the ground facing the very heavenly bodies they had worshipped; continues with a portrayal of the people's callous insensitivity, incapable of sincere repentance; and reaches the root of the problem: a generation that replaced the Torah of Hashem with subjective feelings of the heart and human intellect, leaving them with neither a path to repentance nor a moral compass. We will proceed verse by verse, primarily in light of the commentary of the Malbim, alongside the Radak and the teachings of Chazal.
Exhuming the Bones from the Graves
בָּעֵת הַהִיא נְאֻם־יְהֹוָה יוֹצִיאוּ אֶת־עַצְמוֹת מַלְכֵי־יְהוּדָה וְאֶת־עַצְמוֹת שָׂרָיו וְאֶת־עַצְמוֹת הַכֹּהֲנִים וְאֵת עַצְמוֹת הַנְּבִיאִים וְאֵת עַצְמוֹת יוֹשְׁבֵי־יְרוּשָׁלַ͏ִם מִקִּבְרֵיהֶם׃ - "At that time, says Hashem, they shall remove the bones of the kings of Judah, and the bones of its princes, and the bones of the priests, and the bones of the prophets, and the bones of the inhabitants of Jerusalem from their graves."
וּשְׁטָחוּם לַשֶּׁמֶשׁ וְלַיָּרֵחַ וּלְכֹל צְבָא הַשָּׁמַיִם אֲשֶׁר אֲהֵבוּם וַאֲשֶׁר עֲבָדוּם וַאֲשֶׁר הָלְכוּ אַחֲרֵיהֶם וַאֲשֶׁר דְּרָשׁוּם וַאֲשֶׁר הִשְׁתַּחֲווּ לָהֶם לֹא יֵאָסְפוּ וְלֹא יִקָּבֵרוּ לְדֹמֶן עַל־פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה יִהְיוּ׃ - "And they shall spread them out before the sun, the moon, and all the host of heaven, whom they loved, whom they served, after whom they walked, whom they sought, and to whom they prostrated themselves; they shall not be gathered nor shall they be buried; they shall be like dung upon the face of the earth."
These two verses form a single unit, as the first verse is incomplete without the second. The Holy One, blessed be He, says: At that time, they will remove the bones of the kings of Judah, the bones of the officers, the bones of the priests, the bones of the prophets - referring to the false prophets - and the bones of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the wicked who worshipped idols. They will exhume them from their graves, and they will become like dung upon the face of the earth. Through this, the prophet conveys the enormity of the catastrophe: at the end of the previous chapter it was said, "And the carcasses of this people shall be food for the fowls of the heaven, and for the beasts of the earth, with none to frighten them away" - birds will consume the dead, and no one will be there to bury them. Here, the prophet adds: beyond that, even those who were already buried will be dragged out of their graves and left like dung upon the face of the earth.
The Radak asks: We have verses describing the destruction of Jerusalem in the Book of Kings, and there we do not find that the Chaldeans exhumed the bones of the kings, officers, priests, and prophets from their graves. Where, then, was this prophecy fulfilled? The Radak answers: Know that even though Scripture did not publicize or recount this historical detail, since the prophet prophesied that this would happen, so it indeed occurred. The prophet did not record every single detail of the destruction later on, but when you have an explicit prophecy that it would take place, know that this was the historical reality: at that time, they removed the bones of the kings of Judah from their graves, and they were left like dung upon the face of the field.
Five Categories of Idolatry
What is the meaning of this detailed elaboration: "whom they loved, and whom they served, and after whom they walked, and whom they sought, and to whom they prostrated themselves"? The Malbim explains that they practiced distinct forms of idolatry. There were deities that they loved, because they attributed abundance, goodness, and success to them. On the other hand, there were deities that they feared, attributing to them misfortune, suffering, wars, plague, and poverty; to these deities they would even offer human sacrifices to appease their wrath. According to their distorted worldview, that malevolent deity is not appeased until it sees blood - in effect saying, "Take a sacrifice and leave us alone." This is "whom they served" - worship born out of fear.
Then there were deities through which they sought to divine the future, using them as a conduit to know what was to come - this is "and whom they sought." There were also deities "after whom they walked," meaning they attributed specific traits, conducts, and characteristics to them, and walked after them by adopting those behaviors. And there were those to whom they merely bowed down, which is "and to whom they prostrated themselves." Concerning all of them it is said, "they shall not be gathered nor shall they be buried": distinguished individuals were typically gathered to dignified burial plots and in precious coffins, yet here, not only will they not be gathered to an honorable place, but not even a simple grave to inter their bodies in the earth will be provided for them.
Why Sometimes "Bowed Down" Precedes "Served," and Sometimes the Reverse
The Malbim notes a variation in biblical phrasing: at times Scripture mentions "served them" before "prostrated themselves to them," while at other times it places prostration before service, such as in "you shall not bow down to them nor serve them." The rule depends on the type of idolatry. When dealing with the sun, the moon, the stars, and the heavenly host, the order is first prostration and then service, because prostrating before them is easier: one recognizes their loftiness - the sun is lofty and the stars are lofty - and recognizing their majesty makes it easy to bow down. But serving them and trying to appease them is far more demanding. Therefore, Scripture adds: not only did they bow down, but they even served them and strived to appease them.
In contrast, with earthly idol worship, where a person carved an image or statue for himself, serving it is easier, as its demands are not high; prostrating to it, however, is difficult, for it is not something elevated and exalted - to the sun you prostrate because you perceive it as a higher power, but this is merely a block of wood you carved. Therefore, the verse there first mentions the easier service: "served them", and afterward the greater novelty - "and prostrated themselves before them."
On the other hand, in the negative sense, when the prophet comes to condemn, he proceeds from the severe to the lenient. Therefore, here regarding the host of heaven, he begins with "whom they loved" - love is a higher level; then "whom they served", for service stems from fear, which is less than love; then "whom they sought", like one who consults ghosts and familiar spirits or inquires of Baal-zevuv, going to obtain knowledge about the future; then those who merely followed after them; and finally those who merely prostrated to them, since prostration - when it comes to the sun, moon, and host of heaven - is the easiest part. This is the reason that service is mentioned here first, and only afterward prostration.
"For the Sin of the Living, the Dead Are Dug Up"
The Radak cites: concerning Yehoyakim it is stated, "He shall have none to sit upon the throne of David, and his dead body shall be cast out in the day to the heat, and in the night to the frost" - and this is akin to what is stated here, "they shall not be gathered, nor be buried; they shall be as dung upon the face of the earth." And so indeed it happened to Yehoyakim, and so it was with his skull, which they could not manage to bury - every time they buried it, it would become uncovered, and it could not be buried until it was burned. Likewise, it is said of the sinners of Israel that they would be cast out in the streets of Jerusalem.
And our Sages stated: "For the sin of the living, the dead are dug up." Whenever there is desecration of graves - when the dead are removed from their resting places - we encounter this teaching of Chazal once again: the dead have already died, so why are they dug up? Chazal explain: because of the sins of the living. Not because of their sins, but because of our sins. And what is the source? "The hand of the Lord will be against you and against your fathers" - how could it be against your fathers, when they are no longer among the living? Rather, through your sins, the hand of Hashem will strike you and also your fathers, in that they will dig them up and remove them from the grave.
"Death Shall Be Chosen Rather Than Life" - An Apparent Contradiction
וְנִבְחַר מָוֶת מֵחַיִּים לְכֹל הַשְּׁאֵרִית הַנִּשְׁאָרִים מִן־הַמִּשְׁפָּחָה הָרָעָה הַזֹּאת בְּכׇל־הַמְּקֹמוֹת הַנִּשְׁאָרִים אֲשֶׁר הִדַּחְתִּים שָׁם נְאֻם יְהֹוָה צְבָאוֹת׃ - And death shall be chosen rather than life by all the residue that remain of this evil family, in all the places where I have driven them, says the Lord of hosts.
The Gemara cites the verse "they shall not be gathered, nor be buried" as a source that there will be a reality in which they are not buried at all, and raises a difficulty from our verse: if the dead are dug up from their graves and have no rest even in death, how can a person choose death over life? It would be well if we were to say that the punishment of exhuming the bones serves as an atonement for the dead - then it is understandable why a person would prefer death, saying, "At least through this I will have atonement." But the Radak clarifies that here it does not serve as atonement, and yet "death shall be chosen." If so, what reason is there to choose death, seeing that death will not spare you from troubles, and they will pursue you even into the grave?
Therefore, the Gemara explains: "Death shall be chosen" means that death is better for the wicked than living here in this world, sinning, and descending to Gehennom. About whom were these words said? About the wicked person who commits transgressions in this world. What would have been better for him - that his afterbirth had turned upon his face (that is, dying before birth), or that he entered the world? Certainly that his afterbirth had turned, for as long as you have not entered the world, you have not done wickedly and will not receive punishment. Not only that, but even if he is already alive - it is better for him to die with shortened days, because every day shortened from him is shortened from Gehennom, since each day he lives he adds more firewood for burning up Above. And even Above they are destined to ask: Why did You grant me such longevity? Every day I lived I added transgressions, and had You taken me earlier, You would have shortened my Gehennom! Thus, concerning the wicked it is said, "death shall be chosen rather than life."
And concerning this it is said, "nor be buried; they shall be as dung upon the face of the earth." "As dung" - as fertilizer. How so? Since they will lie upon the face of the ground, they will rot, and anything that rots in the soil becomes fertilizer; therefore, "they shall be as dung."
And regarding the living who remain, the Radak explains: from the sheer distress they will endure in exile, they will prefer death over life. The nation to which they will be exiled will be cruel and terrible, tormenting them with such severe afflictions that they will say our death is better than our life. And whoever knows what took place during the Holocaust knows that this dreadful reality came to pass: quite a few people reached such states that they threw themselves against the electric fences, may Hashem protect us and may trouble not arise a second time, in order to end the nightmare. The harrowing reality they endured there, beyond human comprehension, could simply no longer be borne.
"By all the residue that remain of this evil family" - those who engaged in idolatry. And lest you say this applied only in the Land of Israel, the verse therefore states, "in all the places where I have driven them." This is also the answer of Rashi and the Malbim to the Gemara's difficulty: even though they will see the desecration of the dead, they will say "death shall be chosen rather than life," because the suffering in life will be so horrific that a person will say: it is better that my bones be dug up after my death than to suffer here in life. And in all the places of exile they will endure such suffering that they will choose death over life.
"Will They Fall and Not Rise?" - Three Explanations
וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵיהֶם כֹּה אָמַר יְהֹוָה הֲיִפְּלוּ וְלֹא יָקוּמוּ אִם־יָשׁוּב וְלֹא יָשׁוּב׃ - And you shall say to them, Thus said Hashem: Will they fall and not rise? If one turns back, will He not turn back?
Rashi explains: "Will they fall and not rise?" - Is it good for them to bring themselves down into a state from which there is no recovery? "If one turns back, will He not turn back?" - This is a prophecy directed toward them: You have reached such a terrible state that even if you wish to turn back from your evil, the Holy One, blessed is He, will no longer turn back from His decree. The decree has already been issued and sealed.
The Radak connects this verse to the following one, "Why has this people backslidden," explaining it as a rhetorical question: Why do they cling to their evil deeds with such persistence and refuse to repent? For "if one turns back, will He not turn back?" - if you return in repentance, will the Holy One, blessed is He, not turn back from His burning wrath? Has a decree ever been decreed against them from which there was no rising afterward? After all, several times in the past they stumbled, and afterward they improved their ways and saw that the Holy One, blessed is He, relented from the calamity and redeemed them. According to this, it is the exact opposite of Rashi's explanation: Rashi says that even if you repent, Hashem will not turn back from His wrath, whereas the Radak interprets it as a question - surely if you return, He will turn back!
The Malbim explains - as does the second interpretation in Rashi - that this is the grievance of the Holy One, blessed is He, against them: This people falls without rising. And why? "If one turns back, will he not turn back?" - if he returns in repentance, does he not turn back afterward to his wickedness? He repents and returns to sin, repents and returns to sin, over and over again. Their repentance is superficial, not genuine, and only temporary; therefore, there is no recovery from their fall. Had you repented and corrected your ways, the matter would be resolved. But if you repent and return to doing damage, and repent again and do damage again, the matter never ends, and there is no hope.
"A Perpetual Backsliding" - Repentance as a Deceit
מַדּוּעַ שׁוֹבְבָה הָעָם הַזֶּה יְרוּשָׁלַ͏ִם מְשֻׁבָה נִצַּחַת הֶחֱזִיקוּ בַּתַּרְמִית מֵאֲנוּ לָשׁוּב׃ - Why has this people of Jerusalem backslidden with a perpetual backsliding? They hold fast to deceit; they refuse to return.
Shovevah ("backslidden") comes from the root of shiva (turning/returning), as in "My people are suspended in their backsliding (meshuvati)." And meshuvah nitzachat ("perpetual backsliding") means that they are perpetually turning, all the time. A person returns to Hashem and returns to sins, returns to Hashem and returns to sins, so that the people never remain on the good path for long. And why is this so? "They hold fast to deceit" - even when they repented, their repentance was not genuine, but a repentance of trickery and falsehood.
הִקְשַׁבְתִּי וָאֶשְׁמָע לוֹא־כֵן יְדַבֵּרוּ אֵין אִישׁ נִחָם עַל־רָעָתוֹ לֵאמֹר מֶה עָשִׂיתִי כֻּלֹּה שָׁב בִּמְרוּצָתָם כְּסוּס שׁוֹטֵף בַּמִּלְחָמָה׃ - I listened and heard, but they do not speak what is right; no man relents of his wickedness, saying, "What have I done?" Each one turns in their course, like a horse rushing headlong into battle.
How does this parable connect to what we described? The Malbim explains: When a warhorse encounters an enemy in battle, it sometimes runs backward as though fleeing and retreating - but is it running home? No. Its retreat is a regrouping of forces for another charge. You think you drove it away, but in fact its retreat is preparation for an assault. Thus Hashem says: Although you see them repenting - "they do not speak what is right," their words are not sincere, "no man relents of his wickedness, saying, 'What have I done?'" And as for "each one turns in their course" - it is like a horse rushing into battle, retreating only in order to attack again. They repent merely to avert suffering and then continue in their evil ways, rather than undertaking genuine repentance never to return to corruption.
"They Do Not Speak What Is Right" - The Language of Lavan
And what is meant by "they do not speak what is right" (lo chen yedaberu)? Yaakov Avinu approached Lavan with a complaint: Why is it that in the morning, behold, it was Leah? Did I not serve with you for Rachel, your younger daughter? And what did Lavan reply to him? "It is not so done in our place (lo ye'aseh chen bimkomenu), to give the younger before the firstborn." As if to say to him: With us, when someone says lo ("no"), they do not mean "no," and when they say chen ("yes" or "so"), they mean "no." You have not yet learned the language - you must understand that when you are told "no," understand "yes," and when you are told "yes," understand "no." "It is not done chen in our place." And that is what is meant here by "I listened and heard, but lo chen they speak" - reflecting just how habitual the language of falsehood had become among them.
The Stork, the Turtledove, and the Crane - *Et* and *Mo'ed*
גַּם־חֲסִידָה בַשָּׁמַיִם יָדְעָה מוֹעֲדֶיהָ וְתֹר וְסִיס וְעָגוּר שָׁמְרוּ אֶת־עֵת בֹּאָנָה וְעַמִּי לֹא יָדְעוּ אֵת מִשְׁפַּט יְהֹוָה׃ - Even the stork in the heavens knows her appointed times, and the turtledove, swift, and crane observe the time of their coming; but My people do not know the judgment of Hashem.
The prophet comes and says: see how the People of Israel are worse than the animals. Migratory birds, explains the Malbim, sense when winter approaches and when the snow arrives, knowing that when everything is blanketed in snow they will find no food, leaving them no choice but to travel to warmer lands to find sustenance; and when spring arrives, they return to their lands. They know when to depart and when to return. Yet the People of Israel do not understand the calamity that Hashem brings upon them, do not understand that it has a set time and season, and do not return when that time arrives. The stork and the crane know the time and season when they must return, yet the People of Israel do not know the time when they must return to Hashem.
And why the duality - "knows her appointed times" (*mo'adeha*) on the one hand, and "observe the time of their coming" (*et bo'ana*) on the other? The Malbim explains based on the precise grammar of Lashon HaKodesh - as we have mentioned several times - that there is a distinction between an *et* and a *mo'ed*. An *et* is a natural time, the natural season of a thing; whereas a *mo'ed* is not a time dependent on nature, but a time dependent on agreement and designation - "at the appointed time (*mo'ed*) that we agreed upon," where we have designated a specific time for ourselves.
The turtledove, the swift, and the crane always return at their fixed time (*et*) - on Rosh Chodesh Nissan, the springtime, the season when the frost ceases. They never change this, which is why it says of them: "observe the time of their coming." In contrast, the stork arrives earlier or later depending on the weather: she knows how to accurately assess atmospheric conditions, for the weather is not always the same on Rosh Chodesh Nissan - sometimes winter lingers into Nissan, and sometimes spring arrives early, much of which also depends on whether the year is a leap year. Therefore, "the stork in the heavens knows her appointed times (*mo'adeha*)" - she has a specialized appointed time determined by weather conditions and rising temperatures. In simple terms: the turtledove, swift, and crane are programmed by the calendar, while the stork is programmed by a barometer. For them it is an *et*, and for her it is a *mo'ed*.
And what is the lesson of the parable? "But My people do not know the judgment of Hashem." The Malbim explains: with Hashem's judgments, too, there is an *et* and there is a *mo'ed*. There is "in its time" (*be'itah*), as we know regarding the Redemption; and there is an appointed time (*mo'ed*) that the Holy One, Blessed be He, advances - advancing the Redemption through merit, or advancing the retribution because their measure of guilt has become full. The *mo'ed* shifts, just as for the stork it shifts according to the circumstances. Yet the people not only fail to recognize the *mo'ed*, taking no caution lest Hashem advance the calamity because they have added evil deeds and filled their measure prematurely - they do not even heed the *et*, the fixed time that the prophet designates for their misfortune. The turtledove, swift, and crane observe the time of their coming, yet "My people do not know the judgment of Hashem" - they have no dread of Hashem's judgment at all, and do not repent.
"How Can You Say, 'We Are Wise'?"
אֵיכָה תֹאמְרוּ חֲכָמִים אֲנַחְנוּ וְתוֹרַת יְהֹוָה אִתָּנוּ אָכֵן הִנֵּה לַשֶּׁקֶר עָשָׂה עֵט שֶׁקֶר סֹפְרִים׃ - How can you say, "We are wise, and the Torah of Hashem is with us"? Indeed, behold, in vain has the pen worked, the falsehood of scribes!
The Radak explains: You claim that you are wise in secular wisdoms, and furthermore you say that the Torah of Hashem is with you, written in your possession. The prophet says to them: If the Torah of Hashem is with you yet you do not fulfill it, what benefit is there in having it written in your possession? "In vain has the pen worked" - did the Holy One, Blessed be He, fashion the pen of the scribes, the quill with which the Torah was written, *lesheker*, meaning in vain? "*Lesheker*" here means in vain, as in "In vain have I toiled" (*lesheker avadti*). Did Hashem write His Torah in vain, merely for you to archive it in a bookcase as a dead letter rather than as a binding obligation? If you observe it, it was not written in vain, but for purpose and benefit; but if not, then it turns out to have been written for naught and in vain.
The Malbim explains differently: that generation argued that the Torah and mitzvos are things rooted within human intellect, which do not come via tradition or prophecy. According to their view, the Torah is not something that comes to a person from the outside, nor is it written in a book with ink; rather, it exists within human understanding and the feelings of the heart. When you hear such talk, you are reminded of similar arguments throughout the generations: ask a Christian for his proof of that man's existence and his being the son of the holy spirit, and he has no genuine proof, except for a single verse they recite that is entirely irrelevant - "Behold, the maiden shall conceive and bear a son" - which we already discussed in Sefer Yeshayahu. And in the end he says, "I feel him in my heart." But is a feeling any kind of proof? Others feel completely different things! Feelings can deceive you, fool you, and lead you astray. When you set out to prove something, you speak of proofs, evidence, and facts - while he speaks to you of feelings.
And this is what the prophet is saying to them, according to the Malbim: "How can you say, 'We are wise'?" - you claim that wisdom resides within our nature and intellect, "and the Torah of Hashem is with us" - embedded in the soul's nature and reason. But if so, "indeed, the pen has worked for falsehood" - the pen with which Hashem wrote the Torah, a Torah received by tradition from Him, was according to your view fashioned in vain; "the falsehood of scribes" - all the prophets who wrote books by the word of Hashem through prophecy, you deny them all. Thus you are asserting that there is no Torah from Heaven and no books of the Prophets from Heaven, because "I feel everything in my heart."
And this is the most terrible thing of all: if everything depends on what you feel in your heart, then everyone serves Hashem according to his personal emotions. We have already discussed this in Sefer HaKuzari, where this was one of the Chaver's arguments to the King of the Khazars. The philosopher claimed: serve God as you see fit, and it does not matter which god you choose, each according to his feeling. But the Chaver answered him: you yourself have seen that this is not so, for you devoted yourself intensely to the worship in which you engaged, yet despite all this, the dreams returned again and again: "Your intention is pleasing, but your deeds are not pleasing." There is a pleasing deed, there is a required action, and that does not depend on the heart or on how I understand, sense, and feel.
Woe unto us if that were so, for then each person would hold their own Torah, and anyone could worship whomever they please and however they please. But the Holy One, blessed be He - in Einstein's phrase - does not play dice. He created the world, planned it, and when He planned it, He created a precise blueprint of how man can draw close to Him, what the path to serve Him is, and in what exact manner. This was discussed at length in Sefer HaKuzari: there is no room here for guesswork or "it seems to me." If the Holy One, blessed be He, gave a Torah, He provided an orderly master plan, and it is not a matter of what one feels or thinks. Often one hears such expressions from people far from Torah observance, and one is astonished by the lack of discernment: "I feel it is impossible that God would command such a thing, and therefore I think..." Who cares what one thinks or feels? The Holy One, blessed be He, wrote what He desires. If there is an argument over whether He wrote it, let it be proven; it can be proven what He wrote, that He wrote it, and that He stands behind His document. But feelings should be kept to oneself.
The same applies even to something in which a person genuinely believes. As already cited from Rashi in Perek Chelek in Masechet Sanhedrin regarding one who has no share in the World to Come: "One who says that the resurrection of the dead is not from the Torah." Ostensibly, he does believe in the resurrection of the dead, but merely asserts that it is not written in the Torah. Yet Rashi makes a striking statement: "What do we care about his belief?" Who is interested in your personal beliefs? If it is not written in the Torah, a person may simply be believing in vanity; whereas if it is written in the Torah, it is a document from the Creator of the universe. For someone to say, "It seems to me that it will be so" - what significance does that have? If it is written and has authentic sources, it is true; and if not, one's subjective impressions are entirely irrelevant. This is what the prophet says: According to your logic, "the false pen of the scribes has wrought falsely" - everything that Hashem wrote and transmitted through scribes and prophets was in vain, because everything allegedly depends on the heart. That is absurd. If there are written commandments, do what Hashem says, and that is far more compelling than personal intuition.
"And What Wisdom Is in Them?" - What Is Wisdom?
הֹבִישׁוּ חֲכָמִים חַתּוּ וַיִּלָּכֵדוּ הִנֵּה בִדְבַר־יְהֹוָה מָאָסוּ וְחׇכְמַת מֶה לָהֶם׃ - "The wise men are put to shame, they are dismayed and trapped; behold, they have rejected the word of Hashem, and what wisdom is in them?"
Radak explains according to his approach: They acted falsely by thinking that the wisdom of the Torah would not benefit them, and inevitably they will be shamed and realize that had they engaged in Torah, it would have saved them; but since they abandoned the Torah, all these troubles befell them. They did not want the word of Hashem and did not want to study Torah, so what did their wisdom avail them? According to Radak, they treated the Torah like study material for a matriculation exam rather than as an obligatory way of life. Does a geometry teacher need to be a triangle? That is how they thought: one who teaches Tanach does not need to observe it; he teaches it just like one who teaches philosophy. Regarding this it is said, "And what wisdom is in them?" What did this wisdom provide, if it is not a Torah of life and not something upon which you base your existence, but merely theoretical knowledge? Therefore, "the wise men are put to shame, they are dismayed and trapped" - they were shattered and ensnared when they realized that this is not merely another intellectual discipline, but something by which one must live.
The Malbim elaborates here, following a theme that runs throughout his commentary on Sefer Mishlei, and which has been discussed countless times. There it becomes clear what the concept of wisdom is, why Shlomo HaMelech constantly speaks against the kesil (fool) and the evil (simpleton), and what the difference is between them. On the surface, this might seem condescending: You are a great sage, Hashem granted you wisdom such that no one was as wise as Shlomo - does that justify looking down on everyone else? Rather, as explained at length, a kesil is not a fool in our modern sense of someone with low intelligence. A kesil can be a doctor, a professor, or a university dean, yet remain a complete kesil. What is the definition of a kesil? A person who fails to apply the wisdom he knows to his life. He can be exceptionally clever and still be a kesil, for a kesil is like a diabetic eating a large cream cake, even though he knows that in a few minutes an ambulance will be blaring its sirens to rush him to the hospital. He functions at the cognitive maturity of a child, for only a child does something knowing full well that a severe consequence will immediately follow, and does it anyway.
The Malbim explains in Mishlei that "wisdom" is the knowledge and discernment between good and evil in the realm of morality. Notice carefully: in matters of conduct and character traits, we do not possess "rational demonstrations" (moftei ha-da'at), as the Malbim phrases it; that is, there is no purely rational, empirical proof for the correct way to behave. In moral matters, profound debates can rage. Consider the debate between right and left: Should one fight the Palestinians with full force, or open checkpoints and ease restrictions? This debate divides not only our society but the entire world, between right-wing and left-wing ideologies. No one can produce definitive, objective proof that, from a moral standpoint, their way is the correct path.
To give an example: once, at a home parlor meeting organized by Arachim in Be'er Sheva, a secular young man approached and said, "Rabbi, the truth is that I observe the Ten Commandments." He was asked, "Do you know that the Ten Commandments include not desecrating Shabbat?" This came as a surprise to him; how he counted to ten is unknown, but apparently in secular schools even that is not necessarily taught. He was referring mainly to "Do not murder." He said, "I am a moral, humane person." He was asked, "May I present you with a moral dilemma?" He replied, "Please do." The scenario was posed: "Imagine an entirely hypothetical story - not referring to you personally. Your seventeen-year-old girlfriend comes and tells you that she is pregnant. What do you do?" He thought and thought again, and was intelligent enough to admit, "You have stumped me; I have no answer."
And indeed, any answer he might have given could readily be refuted. If he had said, "I would tell her to have an abortion" - that is murder; just because a child is inconvenient, one kills him? If he were seventeen years old and inconvenient, would one put a bullet in his head? Is that the solution, that whoever does not fit into our plans is killed? And if he said, "Heaven forbid, let her carry the pregnancy and give birth" - does one realize what that does to her? A seventeen-year-old girl whose life is derailed. And if the baby is given away for adoption, he might grow up miserable in some orphanage, and she will always remember that she gave him up, living with lifelong guilt. So provide a secular moral answer: What is moral here? Which course is the truly moral one? There is no answer. And why is there no answer? Because there is no rational demonstration in human morality; there is no logical proof of what is right to do. So what does one do? One opens the Shulchan Aruch. What Hashem commanded - that is what is done. That is called wisdom. Wisdom is not what man deduces; wisdom is what Hashem commanded.
Many other moral dilemmas can be pointed out. Anyone familiar with the story of the Convoy of the 35 (the Lamed-Heh), in which all the fighters were killed, knows what occurred: An Arab shepherd spotted the convoy, and a debate arose among them whether to kill him or not. One person argued, "He is not a combatant; why should we kill him?" That high-minded morality ended up costing all of them their lives, for that shepherd went and alerted his village, an ambush was prepared, and every last one of them was killed. Years later, they were able to identify the fallen soldiers when Rabbi Aryeh Levin performed the Goral HaGra by candlelight in a Jerusalem synagogue.
Moral problems cannot be solved on one's own. In the realm of morality, explains the Malbim, wisdom is indispensable - a path that comes from Hashem through transmission and prophecy, directly from Him, blessed be He. All the laws of wisdom were given by Hashem through a prophet and recorded in the Sefer Torah. And whoever rejects the word of Hashem lacks the very foundations upon which wisdom rests, for the foundation of wisdom is according to the Torah, not according to human intellect.
As for those who say, "We do not need the Torah; the Torah is inside, in the heart" - let them demonstrate how they resolve moral questions. One decides this way and another decides the opposite, and where is the truth? Consider that even Hitler claimed to be moral. He claimed that nature proves that the strong triumph over the weak, and that this is what drives natural development according to the twisted application of Darwin's theory. And there was one nation, only one nation, so insolent that it insisted on defying nature: it is weak, yet has stubbornly survived for millennia. According to his logic, there is no place for this; the weak must always fall. The first deer caught by a lion is the weakest in the herd, and thus the herd is strengthened and only the strong survive to reproduce. Therefore, if they do not understand, what nature fails to do, the Nazi will do. He was thoroughly convinced that he was moral, and that he had moral principles upon which to base his actions.
And this is what the Malbim explains: "The wise men are ashamed" - after they rejected the word of Hashem, "and what wisdom do they have?" From where will they attain the laws of wisdom? Who will make them known to them, if this is something that cannot be reached by one's own power alone and requires a Divine message to arrive at the correct laws? Their wisdom is mere human wisdom, and it is limited; it cannot encompass everything, nor can it provide solutions for everything. If they rejected the word of Hashem, their wisdom is futile and devoid of substance, and therefore: "The wise men are ashamed, they are dismayed and taken."
The Punishment: "Therefore I will give their wives to others"
לָכֵן אֶתֵּן אֶת־נְשֵׁיהֶם לַאֲחֵרִים שְׂדוֹתֵיהֶם לְיוֹרְשִׁים כִּי מִקָּטֹן וְעַד־גָּדוֹל כֻּלֹּה בֹּצֵעַ בָּצַע מִנָּבִיא וְעַד־כֹּהֵן כֻּלֹּה עֹשֶׂה שָּׁקֶר׃ - Therefore I will give their wives to others, their fields to heirs; for from the smallest even to the greatest everyone is covetous of gain, from the prophet even to the priest everyone practices falsehood.
After all these severe depictions - "No man repents of his wickedness, saying, 'What have I done?'", "Everyone turns to his course like a horse rushing into battle", "Even the stork in the heavens knows her appointed times... but My people do not know the judgment of Hashem", "The false pen of the scribes has worked falsely" - comes the punishment: "Therefore I will give their wives to others."
And the Malbim explains why they are beyond repair: someone who has not fallen into the net of heresy, even if he sins due to desire, can be rebuked and given reproof, and the musar of the prophets and the rebuke of the Torah can transform him. But here we are dealing with heretics, who even deny prophecy - how can they be rectified? Even if one were to claim that their sin stems from lust, there still must be a way to open their eyes. Through the Torah? They do not believe in the Torah. Through the prophets? They do not believe in the prophets. There is nothing to open their eyes to realize that they are afflicted with an illness of the soul, and so they imagine themselves to be in perfect health.
וַיְרַפּוּ אֶת־שֶׁבֶר בַּת־עַמִּי עַל־נְקַלָּה לֵאמֹר שָׁלוֹם שָׁלוֹם וְאֵין שָׁלוֹם׃ - And they healed the breach of the daughter of My people lightly, saying, "Peace, peace," when there is no peace.
This is the meaning of "And they healed the breach of the daughter of My people lightly": he imagines that there is no problem at all - what breach could there possibly be? He therefore heals it lightly, superficially, failing to grasp the gravity of the distress in which he finds himself.
הֹבִישׁוּ כִּי תוֹעֵבָה עָשׂוּ גַּם־בּוֹשׁ לֹא־יֵבֹשׁוּ וְהִכָּלֵם לֹא יָדָעוּ לָכֵן יִפְּלוּ בַנֹּפְלִים בְּעֵת פְּקֻדָּתָם יִכָּשְׁלוּ אָמַר יְהֹוָה׃ - Were they ashamed when they committed abomination? They were not at all ashamed, nor did they know how to blush; therefore they shall fall among those who fall; at the time of their visitation they shall stumble, said Hashem.
And should you say that they might wish to be healed through the rebuke of the prophets, that they might feel ashamed of their evil deeds - regarding this the prophet continues: "Were they ashamed when they committed abomination? They were not at all ashamed, nor did they know how to blush." Even if you sought for them to feel shame over their abominable actions, that too would be futile. "They were not at all ashamed, nor did they know how to blush" - they do not even comprehend that there is reason to be ashamed. For in order to understand that one must feel shame, one must first recognize that there is a right path and that one has strayed from it; but if, in your eyes, there is no objective right path at all, how could you ever understand that there is anything to be ashamed of?
In summary:
The chapter opens with extreme disgrace - the bones of the kings, officers, kohanim, false prophets, and inhabitants of Yerushalayim being exhumed from their graves and spread out before the very celestial bodies they worshiped with love, reverence, inquiry, devotion, and prostration; and the calamity will reach such depths that the survivors will choose death over life. From there, the prophet turns to the root cause: a people that continually relapses into corruption, whose repentance is deceitful and merely a tactical retreat like a horse pulling back only to charge again; a people where the stork, turtledove, swift, and crane know their appointed times and seasons, yet they do not know the judgment of Hashem; a people that replaced the written Torah with subjective sentiment and human wisdom, leaving them with no tool to resolve moral questions, nor even the capacity to feel shame and repent. From this stems the profound lesson: wisdom is not what I understand, feel, or think - wisdom is what the Holy One, Blessed be He, stated in His Torah. For one who has rejected the word of Hashem, "what wisdom do they have?" And one who lacks an external, objective standard will never even realize he is sick, and will therefore never seek a cure.