Chapter 9 of Yirmiyahu opens with the prophet's cry over a society thoroughly steeped in falsehood and deceit. Yirmiyahu seeks to flee from his people, describing the corruption of speech toward both God and fellow man, culminating in a severe depiction where deceit does not remain merely on the lips, but establishes its dwelling within the heart. We will examine the verses in order, with the commentaries of Rashi, the Radak, the Targum, and primarily the Malbim.
מִי־יִתְּנֵנִי בַמִּדְבָּר מְלוֹן אֹרְחִים וְאֶעֶזְבָה אֶת־עַמִּי וְאֵלְכָה מֵאִתָּם כִּי כֻלָּם מְנָאֲפִים עֲצֶרֶת בֹּגְדִים׃ - Oh, that I had in the wilderness an inn for wayfarers, that I might leave my people and go away from them! For they are all adulterers, an assembly of treacherous men.
The Radak explains: Would that I were lodging in a travelers' inn in the wilderness, all so that I would not see the people of Israel in their wickedness, that I would not see their corrupted conduct. "That I might leave my people and go away from them." And what is this conduct? "For they are all adulterers, an assembly of treacherous men." "Atzeret" (assembly) according to the Radak comes from the idea of people being held back and gathering for a specific purpose, and here they assemble for falsehood and acts of treachery. This is also how the Targum translates it: "a faction of liars" - a group of people who gather to deceive. The Radak also cites an explanation in the name of his father, that "atzeret bogedim" is related to the term for an heir apparent (yoresh etzer - ruler), meaning that the leaders, the heirs to power, are the ones who are treacherous.
The Malbim looks closely at the wording of the verse: It does not say, "Who would give me an inn for wayfarers in the wilderness," but "Who would make me" (mi yiteneni) - would that I myself were an inn for wayfarers in the wilderness. Not that someone would place me in a desert inn, but that I would have my own private lodge in the wilderness. The idea is that I would not depend on any other human being or on anyone's services. For if I were merely a guest at an inn, there would still be an innkeeper running it, and wayfarers from other places would still arrive. Therefore, he asks to be an inn unto himself in the wilderness, thereby achieving complete seclusion.
And why? "For they are all adulterers," yet despite all this, they are "an assembly of treacherous men." The Malbim explains: The term "atzeret" always refers to people holding back to pray - whether to an idol or to Hashem. "An assembly (atzeret) unto Hashem," "Proclaim an assembly (atzarah) for the Baal" - an atzarah is always a gathering for prayer. The prophet says: Look at these people; they are all adulterers, yet this does not prevent them from pausing before Hashem, as it were, and offering prayer. But do not be impressed by this assembly: it is an assembly of traitors whose hearts are full of iniquity, just as it is written, "I cannot endure iniquity along with solemn assembly." They ostensibly gather to pray, but it is done in falsehood and treachery, without any sincere intention for the sake of Heaven.
וַיַּדְרְכוּ אֶת־לְשׁוֹנָם קַשְׁתָּם שֶׁקֶר וְלֹא לֶאֱמוּנָה גָּבְרוּ בָאָרֶץ כִּי מֵרָעָה אֶל־רָעָה יָצָאוּ וְאֹתִי לֹא־יָדָעוּ נְאֻם־יְהֹוָה׃ - And they bend their tongue like their bow with lies, and they are not valiant for the truth in the land; for they proceed from evil to evil, and they do not know Me, says Hashem.
Rashi explains that the term "bending" (derichah, literally treading) applies to a bow, as bending a bow involves drawing the bowstring taut. When archers wanted an arrow to reach a great distance, they would brace their foot against the bow and pull the cord with their hand, creating far greater tension so the bow could shoot much farther. Because they stepped upon it with their feet, Scripture says, "and they bent (literally trod) their tongue." The prophet likens their tongue to a bow of deceit: just as a bow shoots arrows, so do they shoot arrows of falsehood with their tongue.
The Radak explains: "And they bend their tongue" - like a drawn bow, whose arrows are deceitful and bitter words. "And they are not valiant for the truth in the land" - there is a form of rulers asserting power over the weak that is for the sake of integrity, meaning to govern the people properly. A judge and leader must possess authority, and so he may exert his power in the land and inspire awe in order to establish peace and justice and maintain order. Here, however, this was not the case: their dominance over the weak was not for the sake of faithfulness and truth, nor was it to execute righteous judgment and prevent oppression.
In explaining "for they proceed from evil to evil," the Radak offers two interpretations. The first concerns their actions: they move from one evil deed to another. A person might commit a misdeed and then rest for a week, but with them, there is no pause between sins. The moment one evil deed is completed, another begins immediately. Like a chain smoker who lights the next cigarette from the ember of the first, so do they ignite the next sin from the end of the previous one. They have no respite and no pause; their entire lives are spent in wrongdoing, shifting from one offense to another, and through it all, they never set aside a single hour to know Hashem. They did not even have time for a solitary moment of contemplation and repentance.
The second interpretation addresses their punishment: because they bent their tongue like a bow of falsehood and did not prevail in the land for truth, they brought it upon themselves to proceed from one evil to another - from the harm of one enemy to the harm of another; one year struck by blight, the next by mildew, another by locusts. They ought to have understood: our corrupted ways are the reason we never experience peace. How is it that at one moment it is Hezbollah, then Iran, then the Palestinians, then Syria? They proceed from evil to evil. Why do they not open their eyes to realize there is a design here, that Someone is speaking to us, that Someone wants something from us? After all, there has been no quiet here for seventy years. This should have opened their eyes, and therefore the verse concludes, "and they do not know Me, says Hashem" - even though they went from misfortune to misfortune, it led to no introspection whatsoever. Says the Holy One, Blessed be He: They do not seek Me, they do not know Me, and they make no effort to understand why this evil has befallen them.
The Malbim explains that the prophet comes here to characterize the products of their evil deeds. A person has two types of offspring. One offspring is from the aspect of being a living creature, physically reproducing, as the Torah says, "These are the generations of Noach" - Shem, Cham, and Yefet. Regarding this offspring it is said, "For they are all adulterers, an assembly of treacherous men." And what are their offspring? May Hashem protect us - they bear mamzerim, blemished offspring, alien children. And there is another type of offspring, stemming from man being a speaking being, possessed of a speaking spirit (ruach memallela): speech, logical judgments, and syllogisms are the offspring of the rational, speaking soul. And in these too, one can produce alien children - by uttering forbidden speech, corrupting the covenant of the tongue, and ruining one's deeds.
Thus, they corrupted both covenants. As is well known, the Zohar states: one corresponds to the other, the covenant of circumcision (brit ha-ma'or) corresponding to the covenant of the tongue (brit ha-lashon). The Kabbalists write that when a person is deeply blemished in lashon hara, upon examination you will find that he is also blemished in brit ha-ma'or, for one corresponds to the other. If one pays attention: if you were to fold a person in half, you would see that the brit ha-ma'or aligns directly opposite the brit ha-lashon. The covenant of the tongue is positioned between Chesed (the right arm) and Gevurah (the left arm), between the two hands; and the covenant of circumcision is positioned between the two legs, between Netzach and Hod. One corresponds to the other, and whoever is tainted in one is inevitably tainted in the other. With these people, the offspring of the speaking soul was also corrupted, for in it too they fathered alien children - that is, they corrupted their tongue.
The Malbim explains that regarding the sin of the tongue, there were two sins here: that which pertains to the relationship between man and God, and that which pertains to interpersonal relations. What is between man and God is mentioned in our verse, and what is between man and his fellow appears in the next verse.
Regarding the realm of man and God: "They bend their tongue like their bow with falsehood." The Malbim mentions here a fundamental principle that he repeats in many places: there is a distinction between "safah" (lip or external language) and "lashon" (the tongue or inner language). Safah is the external aspect, while lashon is the internal aspect. Therefore, when discussing speech, one can speak of superficial speech, and one can speak of inner, intellectual, and rational speech - and this is expressed by the term "lashon," which is more internal and concealed. Thus, rational and intellectual speech is being described here. The prophet depicts the tongue as a bow: just as a bow is used to defeat enemies in battle, so did they wage debates with their tongues. "They bend their tongue" - to debate matters of philosophical views and beliefs. And in order to prove your point, you shoot arrows; in a debate, one side raises arguments and the other raises counterarguments, like two adversaries at the city gate, each fighting with his claims to prove his point and nullify the claims of the other side.
On the surface, this might seem admirable: a battle fought as an ideological debate to validate their way. But the prophet says, "They bend their tongue like their bow with falsehood" - they brought fabricated proofs, demonstrations, and arguments invented from their own hearts, falsehoods and lies.
The Malbim adds: sometimes a person brings false proofs, but at least does so to prove faith in Hashem. Even though this is not permissible - for faith and the path of Hashem possess more than enough genuine proofs, and we do not seek to prove the truth of faith through falsehood. This has been discussed several times: one should never tell a story that never happened in order to strengthen someone's faith, unless one explicitly states that it is a parable or fiction. Rav Hillel Zaks ztz"l would say: "This is a story that almost happened - it was almost exactly like that, but it didn't happen." To fabricate events that never took place in order to bring people closer is the very opposite of Da'at Torah. A story is told of a preacher who stood up and said: "I asked a rabbi, and he told me it is permissible to tell fabricated stories in order to draw people close and bring them to repentance." Everyone raised their eyebrows in disbelief: "Where have we ever heard such a thing?" He replied to them: "And that is the first story..."
So these people bent their tongues - debating matters of faith - "their bow with falsehood," presenting false proofs and fraudulent demonstrations. Now, if only they had done this "for the truth" (le-emunah), to prove faith in Hashem. But "and not for the truth" - their lies were not meant to validate faith in Hashem, but rather to prove futile beliefs and falsehoods. Had someone said: "I received a tradition of faith from my ancestors, but I lack proofs, and therefore I manufacture fabricated arguments" - at least he would be trying to prove something true. But they prevailed in the land with these arrows of falsehood, and not to establish the true faith: "and not for the truth are they mighty in the land."
And on the words, "For they proceed from evil to evil," the Malbim explains wonderfully: they are like someone who seeks to refute the faith of the Persians, who believed in dualism - two forces, the god of good and the god of evil - and all this only to validate and establish the faith of the Indians, who believed in four deities. You are refuting one evil only to strengthen another evil! You departed from one evil, and where did you fall? Into another evil, gaining nothing from it. If only you had moved from evil to good! But going to refute Islam in order to prove Christianity - what have you accomplished? Had you come to prove Judaism, you would have established truth; but to refute one lie only to embrace another lie? Regarding this, the prophet concludes: "And Me they do not know, says Hashem" - they do not know the true religion, and they went to refute one religion to prove another, when both are vanity and falsehood.
אִישׁ מֵרֵעֵהוּ הִשָּׁמֵרוּ וְעַל־כׇּל־אָח אַל־תִּבְטָחוּ כִּי כׇל־אָח עָקוֹב יַעְקֹב וְכׇל־רֵעַ רָכִיל יַהֲלֹךְ׃ - Beware each man of his neighbor, and trust not in any brother; for every brother acts deceitfully, and every neighbor goes about as a slanderer.
Until now, we have discussed sins between man and God, where their tongue was a bow of falsehood to validate futile beliefs. But there was also falsehood among them between man and his fellow. Regarding this, the prophet says: See how rampant the betrayal, disloyalty, and unwillingness to help one another are, to the point that I instruct you - whoever wishes to protect himself, "Let every man beware of his neighbor." You might say, "Is he not my friend?" Even of your friends you must beware, and you should not reveal your secrets to them. Furthermore, "and do not trust any brother." Even my brother? Do not trust him either. And why does it say "any brother"? For there is a brother from the father alone and a brother from the mother alone, and you might think: while our relationship is fine, we did not really grow up in the same home. Therefore, it says "any brother" - even a full brother, from both father and mother, do not trust him either.
The Malbim notes the precise distinction between a neighbor or friend and a brother: From a brother, there is no need to be on guard that he will actively harm you; rather, you simply cannot rely on him or expect any favor from him. He will not harm you, but do not count on him to do you a favor. From a friend, however, not only can you not count on him to do good, but he will even harm you. Therefore, "Let every man beware of his neighbor," because "every neighbor goes about gossiping." Regarding a brother, by contrast, it says only "do not trust."
And what is "will utterly supplant" (akov ya'kov)? Radak explains: this refers to deceit and cunning, as in "and he supplanted me (vaya'keveni) these two times," an underhanded path. The Malbim adds that it was not for nothing that this example was used, for of Yaakov it was said, "Is he not rightly named Yaakov?" - and Yaakov is the archetype of one who outwitted his brother, though there it was for a positive purpose. Therefore, the prophet warns: Beware, every brother will utterly supplant. Incidentally, throughout Tanach, when "Yaakov" appears as a personal name, it is read Ya'akov, with a chataf patach under the ayin; here is the only place where the ayin has a silent sheva, since following a patach, which is a short vowel, the subsequent sheva is silent. Thus, it is read here kol ach akov ya'kov, from the root of deviousness, meaning that he deals with him crookedly and leads him through convoluted circles of deception.
וְאִישׁ בְּרֵעֵהוּ יְהָתֵלּוּ וֶאֱמֶת לֹא יְדַבֵּרוּ לִמְּדוּ לְשׁוֹנָם דַּבֶּר־שֶׁקֶר הַעֲוֵה נִלְאוּ׃ - And everyone deceives his neighbor, and they do not speak the truth; they have taught their tongue to speak lies, they weary themselves with committing iniquity.
Even though I told you, "Let every man beware of his neighbor," nevertheless "everyone deceives his neighbor" - spreading gossip and slander about things they never heard from him at all. Here the Malbim offers an insightful explanation. When someone wants to slander another, what does he usually do? He hears something from him and alters it slightly, or highlights one sentence out of an entire discussion, and spreads it around. It is just like the way journalists work: there is an interview of five thousand words, and from it they pluck four words. Those four words, when framed as a headline, indeed sound terrible. "So-and-so said such-and-such" - and immediately an uproar erupts, while the speaker does not even remember uttering such a sentence. Afterward, people confront him: "Look, you said such-and-such." The answer is that the words were taken out of context, and that is true. Thus, in order to ensnare someone and slander him, it is enough for such a person to take a sentence of his, perhaps distort it, perhaps alter its tone, and thereby trap him. Afterward, just try to prove you never meant it and that it was taken out of context - the words have already been publicized, and you are in serious trouble.
The Malbim explains: All this applies when your fellow does not beware of you - in modern terms, when he agrees to sit for an interview. From a four-hour conversation, you will manage to pull out some sentence that becomes a headline and causes an uproar, and then he will have to issue denials into every available microphone. But what happens if he refuses to be interviewed at all, saying: "I do not trust you; you will distort my words and take them out of context, so I am not interested"? In such a case, the defamer can do nothing to you - what could he fabricate about you, when he heard nothing from you? Thus, when a person is on guard against his fellow, one cannot slander him or spread statements taken out of context.
However, all of that holds true only if that person has a minimum of integrity and decency. But if he is an inveterate liar - "and everyone deceives his neighbor" - and slanders even about things that never occurred at all, you are in serious trouble. For he claims that he had an interview with you and that you said such-and-such, whereas the entire story, from beginning to end, is fabricated out of whole cloth. In such a situation, even caution will not help you. This is the meaning of "and everyone deceives his neighbor." And why? "And they do not speak the truth" - they slander even when they never spoke to the person at all, because they have so thoroughly "taught their tongue to speak lies" - an absolute lie without a grain of truth, not a falsehood superimposed onto an actual event, but a total fabrication from start to finish.
"They weary themselves with committing iniquity" - until now, what did such a person do? He distorted. He took your words and twisted them. But that is exhausting: he had to sift through everything you said to find a sentence from which he could create a negative connotation. He grew weary of distorting, and so he simply invents the lie from start to finish - it is far easier to fabricate a lie than to take something you said and try to drape negative implications over it. These people grew tired of twisting the truth, and therefore they lie completely from beginning to end.
Radak explains that "they have taught (limedu) their tongue" is not an expression of study, but of habituation, as in "a wild donkey accustomed (lamud) to the wilderness" - not that the wild donkey studied anything, but that it is accustomed to the wilderness. Similarly, regarding the rebellious son (ben sorer umoreh), the Sages say, "he seeks his accustomed fare (limudo) and does not find it" - did he learn in a cheder? Rather, the meaning is his habit: he was accustomed to a tartemar of meat and half a log of wine, and he seeks his accustomed habit and cannot find it. So too here: they became so accustomed to falsehood that it wearies them to construct fabrications containing fragments of truth, and instead they lie from start to finish.
שִׁבְתְּךָ בְּתוֹךְ מִרְמָה בְּמִרְמָה מֵאֲנוּ דַעַת־אוֹתִי נְאֻם־יְהֹוָה׃ - Your dwelling is in the midst of deceit; through deceit they refuse to know Me, says the Lord.
Rashi explains: when they sit, all their thoughts are bent on deceit. According to Rashi, the address here is directed to the people: you, the Jewish people, your dwelling is in the midst of deceit, and through deceit they substituted for the fear of Me and refused to know Me. Instead of fearing Hashem, which is the true faith, they occupy themselves with deceit, and because of this deceit they refused to know Me.
This has already been explained several times: why in fact did they distance themselves so far from the way of Hashem? Because the way of Hashem is demanding, whereas the ways of idolatry are light and pleasant, carrying no heavy requirements. What is a Christian required to do in his vain belief? Merely believe in "that man," and ostensibly he will rescue him from Satan and bring him to paradise; he visits the priest once or twice a month, puts down two hundred dollars, makes some confession, and his iniquity is removed and his sin atoned for. It is very convenient to be a Christian, almost like being a Reform Jew - light, undemanding, asking for nothing. By contrast, the service of Hashem is exacting and demanding; it requires a person to be meticulous in his deeds and to guard himself precisely in areas that human nature covets: matters of theft and forbidden relations. Therefore, because their way was deceit, "they refused to know Me" - for if I know Hashem, I am precluded from walking in paths of deceit.
According to the Radak, the address here is to the prophet rather than to the people: the Holy One, Blessed is He, says to him, what purpose is served by your dwelling in the midst of a people of deceit? You, Yirmiyahu the prophet, sit amidst a deceitful people - meaning, you will not succeed in bringing them back in repentance, nor will you succeed in drawing out the good from them. There may also be an allusion here: even when the people give you the impression that they are changing their ways and accepting your words, that too is deceit, for deceit is their way. If so, what are your chances of repairing them?
Targum Yonatan says something chilling: "They sit in their synagogues and speak of their iniquities done with trickery" - they sit in the synagogue and recount the wicked things they did through deceit, boasting of their craftiness. One tells his friend: "You have no idea what I did to him, let me tell you how I played him." And his friend replies: "Someone came to me today, you won't believe how I cheated him." They sit inside the synagogue, in Hashem's sanctuary, each relating his frauds and his transgressions, and this is an exceptionally grave sin.
This is why one must ponder: when people hold these defiled devices that all the Gedolei Yisrael have banned, how can a person bring an idol into the sanctuary? How can he sit with such a thing inside the synagogue? In the place of which the Holy One, Blessed is He, declared, "This is My house," you pull out an idol? Where is the sensitivity, where is any basic sense? The very thought is appalling. If outside the synagogue it is a grave sin, inside the synagogue it is placing an idol in the sanctuary, a maidservant dispossessing her mistress. Instead of opening a sefer in the House of Hashem and engaging in a mitzvah, a person scrolls inside the synagogue - sometimes even in the middle of prayer, praying out of that very sewer, and suddenly a message pops up: "Just a second, Master of the Universe, I have a notification..." What a lack of understanding, what pettiness of mind! These are things they did in their day, and unfortunately today they appear in an even more modern guise.
The Malbim explains: toch is an expression of deception, as in "His mouth is full of curses, deceit, and guile (toch)." What is the difference between mirmah (deceit) and toch (guile)? Toch describes someone who deceives his fellow with statements that have two faces, words with a double meaning; he speaks ambiguously. Mirmah, by contrast, is the outward speech, and this outward speech possesses an inner layer (toch), a double meaning: you understand one thing while he intends another. This is the method of people who seek to defraud in business and telemarketing. You claim: "You said such and such!" And he replies: "Where did I ever say that to you?" You say: "It was implied by your words." He led you to that conclusion, yet you cannot pin him down on a specific word, because his speech has an inner layer - an underlying implication he intended you to draw, and all too often you fall into the trap. When you come to rebuke him for cheating you, he says: "Sir, look at the contract, I never said that." And you say: "But if you phrased it that way, it was understood that I wouldn't pay for this." And he retorts: "Does it say here that you don't have to pay?" And you answer: "That is how I understood it." Thus deceit is carried out through toch, through ambiguity from which one can understand it one way or another.
From here we can learn a principle in Halachah: sometimes a person needs to lie according to Halachah and is permitted to do so, yet even then there is a preferable way - not an outright lie, but speech that contains an internal ambiguity (toch). An example from the Chafetz Chaim: Reuven whispered with you and spoke harsh words about Shimon, and you said, "Stop, I don't want to hear." Afterward, Shimon approaches and says: "I saw Reuven talking to you while looking at me; was he speaking about me? What did he say to you?" The Chafetz Chaim writes that you are permitted to tell him: "No, Reuven was not talking about you." This is an outright lie and it is permitted, for what else could you do, tell the truth and ignite a quarrel? Even so, it is preferable not to lie overtly, but rather to speak in a manner open to two interpretations. How so? He asks: "Reuven was talking about me, wasn't he?" And you reply: "What do you think, Reuven has nobody else to talk about but you? You always think people are talking about you; you are imagining things." You never explicitly stated that Reuven was not talking about him; you merely said that he lives with such suspicions - which is true. If he presses you cornering you explicitly, you are permitted to say "He was not talking about you," but it is always preferable to speak with words open to two meanings.
To return to our subject: the Malbim explains that deceit is achieved through toch, the element concealed inside the words. And regarding what is said here, "Your dwelling is in the midst of deceit" (shevtecha be-toch mirmah) - the prophet, as it were, addresses Deceit as an entity and speaks with it: Deceit, as an abstract concept, has made its dwelling place inside the hearts of the people. Normally, the dwelling place of deceit is in the mouth, not in the heart. What belongs to the heart? That which one genuinely believes. With the mouth, however, a person buys you, or sells you: he spins a tale; deceit is always external - through smooth talk he manages to deceive, yet in his heart he knows the truth. One would not say deceit is in the heart; it is always external, always in the mouth. But here the prophet says: Not so, rather "Your dwelling is in the midst of deceit" - Deceit, where do you dwell? Inside, in the heart.
And how can deceit dwell in the heart? The Malbim explains: this is possible only if a person deceives himself as well. When someone knows the truth, his heart holds no deceit, only truth, and he deceives others merely with his mouth. But when a person reaches a state where he deceives himself, deceit already dwells inside his heart, for he has truly begun lying to himself and fooling himself. This is "Your dwelling is in the midst of deceit": you, Deceit, no longer remain outside upon their lips, but have entered inward and sit within their very hearts.
Therefore, "through deceit they refused to know Me": even in matters of the knowledge of Hashem, they portray themselves as seeking to know Hashem and probing into matters of Godliness, but know that this is deceit hidden deep within man's innermost being and deceitful heart. Most terrible of all is that it is not merely putting on a show; they succeed in deceiving even themselves. All those questions on matters of faith and Halachah - how to tithe straw and salt - are not just meant to hoodwink the listener, but also to give oneself the comforting feeling that he is genuinely delving deep and searching.
This reality exists in our own midst as well, unfortunately. Sometimes the yetzer hara, after leading a person to commit a sin, arranges a mitzvah for him. Why? Since when does the yetzer hara arrange mitzvos? It does so to soothe his conscience. At times, the mitzvah it arranges is not even a genuine mitzvah, but some meticulous nuance, some chumrah (stringency), some obscure opinion - and lo and behold, he already feels like a tzaddik. The juicy lashon hara spoken a moment earlier is forgotten as though it was never part of him, while he, deep down, investigates matters of Godliness and seeks Hashem. Thus, deceit among them was not merely outward; rather, "Your dwelling is in the midst of deceit" - deceit established its dwelling inside their hearts. Therefore the Holy One, Blessed is He, says: do not buy this appearance; within the hidden recesses of their heart lies deceit, and they "refused to know Me."
In these verses, Yirmiyahu depicts a society permeated entirely by falsehood: Yirmiyahu longs for a wayfarers' lodge in the wilderness so as to detach completely from a people entirely of adulterers, whose prayer gathering is an assembly of traitors. They corrupted both covenants - the covenant of personal purity and the covenant of speech - and bent their tongue like a bow of falsehood, engaging in theological debates in which they went from evil to evil, refuting one lie only to establish another, while having no knowledge of Hashem. In the interpersonal realm, they reached a point where one could trust neither friend nor brother, and where even caution was of no avail, for they had grown so accustomed to falsehood that they wearied themselves committing iniquity and fabricated stories out of whole cloth. Worst of all: deceit no longer resides merely on the lips, but dwells within the heart, to the extent that they deceive even themselves, viewing themselves as seekers of Hashem, while in reality, "Through deceit they refuse to know Me, says Hashem."