In this chapter, Yirmiyahu continues to describe the corruption of the generation: deceitful speech, treachery, and slander that have become second nature, leading to the decree of judgment upon the land. In this section, we move from the rebuke over sins of speech to the declaration of refining through affliction, to the great lamentation over the mountains and the desert pastures, and to the piercing question: "Why is the land ruined?" - a question that can only be answered by the Holy One, Blessed be He, Himself.
לָכֵן כֹּה אָמַר יְהֹוָה צְבָאוֹת הִנְנִי צוֹרְפָם וּבְחַנְתִּים כִּי אֵיךְ אֶעֱשֶׂה מִפְּנֵי בַּת עַמִּי׃ (ו) - Therefore, so says the Lord of Hosts: Behold, I will refine them and test them, for what else can I do because of the daughter of My people?
The Holy One, Blessed be He, says: "Behold, I will refine them" - refining them through suffering. Radak explains: refining them through the troubles I will bring upon them, for that is the silversmith's task, to separate the dross, in order to see whether after this refining they will return to being choice silver, whether following the troubles they will return to their high standing and stature.
"For what else can I do because of the daughter of My people" - as it were, the Holy One, Blessed be He, says: What else can I do if I do not refine them? After all, if I do not refine them, they will not remain "the daughter of My people." And since I want them to remain the daughter of My people, I must refine them, so that through this I can restore them to their proper level and stature. If they were not the daughter of My people, they could, as it were, be cast away; but since they are the daughter of My people, they must remain the daughter of My people, and there is a covenant between us: "Yet even then, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not reject them nor spurn them so as to destroy them." The Holy One, Blessed be He, will never destroy the Jewish people. If so, Hashem says: What choice do I have? "For what else can I do because of the daughter of My people" - what can I do so that they remain the daughter of My people? I have no choice but to refine them and remove the dross from them.
Malbim analyzes the precise difference between the two terms: "refining" (tzeruf) is melting in fire to remove the dross, while "testing" (bechinah) is the examination prior to refining, to determine whether dross is present. This is the silversmith's method of work: he takes a piece of silver and tests it, and once he discovers dross in it, he refines it. However, there is also an examination after the refining: once he has finished refining, he wants to ensure that no dross remains, so he examines it again to see whether it requires another round of refining.
Accordingly, Malbim explains, "Behold, I will refine them and test them" refers to the second examination: after I refine them in the fire to remove the dross, I will test them again - were they refined properly, or do impurities still remain in them after the initial refining? And to this, the verse adds: "For what else can I do because of the daughter of My people" - I do not know how to bring the daughter of My people to be cleansed of all dross, for even after the refining, even after the suffering and the fire, they are still full of dross and rust. Therefore, there is no choice but to refine again and test again, repeatedly. The two verses "Examine me, Hashem, and try me; test my kidneys" and "For You tested us, O God; You refined us as silver is refined" speak of the testing before the refining, checking whether dross is present; but in our verse, it speaks of the testing after the refining, because their state is so severe that even after refining, examination is still needed to see if dross remains, as refining alone does not guarantee they will reach adequate purity.
חֵץ (שוחט) [שָׁחוּט] לְשׁוֹנָם מִרְמָה דִבֵּר בְּפִיו שָׁלוֹם אֶת רֵעֵהוּ יְדַבֵּר וּבְקִרְבּוֹ יָשִׂים אׇרְבּוֹ׃ (ז) - Their tongue is a sharpened arrow, speaking deceit; with his mouth he speaks peace to his neighbor, but within him he sets an ambush.
Notice the text: the written form (ketiv) is shochet ("slaughtering") and the read form (keri) is shachut ("drawn" or "sharpened"), and Radak notes that both meanings are true. "Their tongue is an arrow that slaughters" - their tongue is like an arrow that slaughters, for through evil speech it kills; they are talebearers who slaughter with their words. And shachut means "drawn" in the Holy Tongue, just as a knife is sharpened on a whetstone by drawing it back and forth to hone its edge. This is "their tongue is a sharpened arrow": their arrow is thoroughly honed. Targum Yonatan renders it similarly: "like a polished arrow," like a sharp knife - meaning their arrow is honed like a razor-sharp blade.
And where do we see that shachut denotes drawing? The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: "Veshachat" - veshachat means nothing other than drawing, as it says "beaten gold" (zahav shachut, drawn gold) and "their tongue is a drawn arrow" (chetz shachut leshonam). This is the very halachah of ritual slaughter (shechitah): one is forbidden to chop down (derisah), taking the knife and pressing it forcefully straight down onto the animal's neck; rather, one must draw - bringing it back and forth, and even if one does so all day long there is no invalidation. Radak also cites in the name of his father that shachut is an adjective: just as an oppressor is called oshek and the oppressed is called ashuk, so too their tongue is an arrow that leaves its victim "slaughtered" (shachut) - not in the sense of being drawn, but in the sense of actual slaughter.
"Speaking deceit" - each of them speaks deceitfully to his neighbor. And what is this deceit? "With his mouth he speaks peace to his neighbor" - peace on the surface: good morning, how are you, how have you been, it has been so long, we couldn't wait to see you. Yet "within him he sets an ambush" - internally, he plots ill against him.
The Vilna Gaon explains, and the Dubno Maggid similarly quotes on Kohelet: when a person wants to shoot an arrow, what does he do first? He draws it toward himself. He takes the arrow, draws the string toward himself, as close to him as possible - and then releases it, and thereby the arrow flies into the distance. And the further back you draw it toward yourself, the farther it flies.
And what does this come to teach us? The speaker of lashon hara wants the slander to hit its mark. How does he ensure this? He begins by praising that person. His entire desire is to hurt him, yet he "draws the arrow toward himself" - doing the exact opposite of harming him, rather drawing him close: "He is a good person, so talented," drawing and drawing and drawing - and then he lets go: "But I want to tell you, what happened yesterday - you simply won't believe it." Now he tells the slander about him, and the arrow strikes with full force. For if one were to immediately say, "So-and-so is such-and-such, stay away from him" - people would say he has a personal grudge against him and no one would accept it. But if he first spoke in his praise and expressed how much he values him, then when he says, "But listen to what happened yesterday, I was in shock" - the words strike far deeper, for he has seemingly proven that he bears no ill will toward him. This is "their tongue is a drawn arrow [chetz shachut]" - mashuch (drawn): he draws the arrow toward himself, ostensibly drawing the person close and praising him, and then the shot strikes and causes immense damage, ensuring that everyone believes his disparagement in the end.
The Malbim explains in an additional way: the tongue has the power to speak or refrain, resembling an archer's bow where a person can decide whether to hold back his arrows or shoot them. But with them, the habit of speaking deceit, falsehood, and lashon hara is stronger than they are, to the point that the arrow flies on its own. "It speaks deceit" - this is his default; there is no scenario where he speaks truth sometimes and falsehood at others, but deceit consistently speaks from his throat. Thus deceit is like an archer's bow shooting arrows, and it is "drawn" [shachut] - pulled taut, and he cannot delay it, prevent it, or stop it; the arrows shoot out, as it were, of their own accord. Deceitful speech has become second nature to him, and he cannot accustom himself to speak truth. Therefore, even though he speaks peace to his neighbor with his mouth, nonetheless "in his heart he sets an ambush" - within the very speech lie falsehood and deceit, through which he ambushes his neighbor to harm him.
הַעַל אֵלֶּה לֹא אֶפְקׇד בָּם נְאֻם יְהֹוָה אִם בְּגוֹי אֲשֶׁר כָּזֶה לֹא תִתְנַקֵּם נַפְשִׁי׃ (ח) - "Shall I not punish them for these?" says Hashem. "Shall My soul not avenge itself on a nation such as this?" (8)
The Malbim explains: there are two matters here. It is fitting that I punish them on account of the deeds themselves - and concerning this, "Shall I not punish them for these?" And on the other hand, vengeance is warranted for the evil character of the soul that acts in this way and for the wickedness of its nature. People who do such things, whose "tongue is a drawn arrow, it speaks deceit, with his mouth he speaks peace to his neighbor but in his heart he sets an ambush" - this reflects an exceedingly evil nature. And concerning this it says, "Shall My soul not avenge itself on a nation such as this" - whose nature is so inherently wicked.
עַל הֶהָרִים אֶשָּׂא בְכִי וָנֶהִי וְעַל נְאוֹת מִדְבָּר קִינָה כִּי נִצְּתוּ מִבְּלִי אִישׁ עֹבֵר וְלֹא שָׁמְעוּ קוֹל מִקְנֶה מֵעוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם וְעַד בְּהֵמָה נָדְדוּ הָלָכוּ׃ (ט) - "For the mountains I will take up weeping and wailing, and for the pastures of the wilderness a lamentation, for they are desolated so that no man passes through, nor do they hear the voice of livestock; from the bird of the heavens to the beast, they have fled, they are gone." (9)
Radak explains that the mountains are pastures for sheep and goats. Another possibility: when people wanted to make an announcement far and wide, they would ascend a mountain, from where their voice could reach the masses. "Pastures of the wilderness" [ne'ot midbar] - the tents of the wilderness, from the term naveh (habitation), the place where they dwelt in the wilderness; and midbar also serves to mean a place of grazing, as in "and he led the flock to the far side of the wilderness" - the place where they grazed the sheep.
Thus the prophet says: When I see the desolation of the Land, for the mountains - the places where they used to graze the sheep, which I now see in their ruined state - I will take up weeping and wailing, and for the pastures of the wilderness I will take up a lamentation. "For they are desolated so that no man passes through" - places where people were constantly traveling from place to place, and now, not only are there no pitched tents representing permanent dwellings, but even a casual passerby is absent. "Nitzetu" means they were destroyed; and we may cite the Malbim here, that the root of hatzatah primarily denotes destruction by fire, but was applied borrowed to any place that is destroyed, and every ruined place is called nitzat - an expression of ruin, parched waste, and desolation.
The verse further adds: not only are there no travelers, but "nor do they hear the voice of livestock" - not even the sounds of sheep are found there. Nor is that all, but "from the bird of the heavens to the beast, they have fled, they are gone." Radak explains this as hyperbole, as if to say that even birds of the sky did not come there. In fact, this is not merely an exaggeration, for Chazal stated: Rabbi Yehudah says, for fifty-two years no man passed through Judea, as it is stated, "For the mountains I will take up weeping and wailing, and for the pastures of the wilderness a lamentation, for they are desolated so that no man passes through... from the bird of the heavens to the beast [behemah], they have fled, they are gone" - the numerical value [gematria] of behemah is fifty-two; come and see that for fifty-two years there was not even a bird there. And Rabbi Yose says, for seven years it was afflicted with sulfur, as it is stated, "Sulfur and salt, all its land is burned." Thus, for fifty-two years no man passed there and no bird flew over the Land of Israel, demonstrating the magnitude of the destruction. And Rashi cites that from the exile of Tzidkiyahu until the decree of Cyrus, king of Persia, was fifty-two years - come and see that throughout that entire period the Land lay desolate and ruined.
The Malbim notes precisely: "For the mountains I will take up weeping and wailing, and for the pastures of the wilderness a lamentation" - as if the Holy One, blessed be He, is saying: I do not weep for the people who died and suffered harm. The reason is simple, for on the contrary, it says: "Shall I not punish them for these things? Shall My soul not take vengeance on a nation such as this?" They do not deserve weeping, but rather vengeance for the terrible deeds they committed. If so, over whom is there reason to weep? Over the mountains, which are blameless, as it were - why should they suffer? And over the pastures of the wilderness, which are likewise innocent - why should they lie in ruin and desolation? The people are the guilty ones, yet the mountains and the wilderness pastures suffer through no fault of their own, on account of the sins of mankind.
The Malbim adds that the statement here is built on a parallel structure - the clauses of the verse correspond to one another, as we have explained several times: dividing the verse into four parts, where the first corresponds to the third, and the second to the fourth. "For the mountains I will take up weeping" - why? "Because they are burned up, so that none passes through." In his view, the mountains were not pasturelands as the Radak explains, but rather pathways where people traveled when crossing from place to place. Therefore, "they are burned up," devastated, and no travelers even pass through them. And "for the pastures of the wilderness" I take up a lamentation - why? "Neither can men hear the voice of the cattle." The pastures of the wilderness were indeed the places where flocks grazed, and over them it is fitting to weep and lament that the lowing of livestock is no longer heard there.
וְנָתַתִּי אֶת יְרוּשָׁלַיִם לְגַלִּים מְעוֹן תַּנִּים וְאֶת עָרֵי יְהוּדָה אֶתֵּן שְׁמָמָה מִבְּלִי יוֹשֵׁב׃ (י) - "And I will make Jerusalem heaps, a dwelling place for jackals; and I will make the cities of Judah desolate, without an inhabitant." (9:10)
In other words: it is only over the mountains and the pastures of the wilderness that the Holy One, blessed be He, says there is cause to mourn, but not over Jerusalem, and not over Judah. Jerusalem itself will be destroyed, and regarding it the Holy One, blessed be He, says: I will not weep, for I Myself "will make Jerusalem heaps, a dwelling place for jackals." "Heaps" (galim) - when houses are demolished, they turn into heaps of stone; the demolished houses and breached walls will become one vast mound of ruins. And what happens to such a place when man abandons it? Jackals and wild beasts that naturally inhabit deserted places devoid of human dwelling immediately move in, and thus it becomes a "dwelling place for jackals." "And I will make the cities of Judah desolate, without an inhabitant" - I Myself will reduce them to desolation, reflecting the verse: "Shall My soul not take vengeance on a nation such as this?" Over these, the Holy One, blessed be He, raises no weeping, wailing, or lamentation, because they received the exact punishment they deserved. The Metzudat Tziyon explains that tannim refers to a type of serpent, though in the straightforward sense it refers to the jackal, the animal familiar to us.
מִי הָאִישׁ הֶחָכָם וְיָבֵן אֶת זֹאת וַאֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר פִּי יְהֹוָה אֵלָיו וְיַגִּדָהּ עַל מָה אָבְדָה הָאָרֶץ נִצְּתָה כַמִּדְבָּר מִבְּלִי עֹבֵר׃ (יא) - "Who is the wise man that may understand this? And who is he to whom the mouth of the Lord has spoken, that he may declare it: for what reason was the land destroyed and burned up like a wilderness, so that none passes through?" (9:11)
The Malbim explains: "Who is the wise man" - one who knows the principles of wisdom; "that may understand this" - one who has an even greater virtue, possessing understanding (tevunah) to deduce one matter from another; "and who is he to whom the mouth of the Lord has spoken, that he may declare it" - and if someone possesses neither of these, perhaps at least the mouth of Hashem has spoken to him and he received prophecy, and since a prophet is dispatched to declare a message to the people, perhaps he can provide an answer.
And what is the question? "For what reason was the land destroyed" - how is it that such catastrophe befell the Land, as though it were utterly lost? Even granting that punishment was deserved, why to such an extreme extent? Why to the point that the Land was completely ruined and rendered unfit for habitation, as we see with the verse describing "brimstone and salt, a burning of the whole land," a state impossible to inhabit, during which for fifty-two years neither man nor fowl passed through Eretz Yisrael? This indicates utter perdition; it shows a furious wrath from Hashem; it suggests, heaven forbid, that there is no hope for their future. As it is written: "And they shall see the plagues of that land, and its sicknesses... brimstone and salt, a burning of the whole land," and the Torah poses this very question: "For what reason has the Lord done this to this land? What means the heat of this great anger?" Concerning this, the prophet asks: For what reason was the land destroyed, why such fierce wrath, "burned up like a wilderness, so that none passes through" - an absolute devastation, ruined completely like an uninhabited wasteland.
Homiletically, it is cited in the name of the Satmar Rebbe: "For what reason was the Land (HaAretz) lost?" In past generations, people always spoke of Eretz Yisrael, the Holy Land, ascending to the Land (Aliyah la'Aretz). Yet in recent generations we have seen that the "Land" was lost: suddenly people no longer speak of Eretz Yisrael, but rather of the State of Israel (Medinat Yisrael). Why was the term "the Land" lost? The answer is given in the following verse: "Because they have forsaken My Torah." Once the Torah was forsaken, the focus shifted to a political entity and a state; people no longer spoke of the sanctity of Eretz Yisrael or of settling the Land as a mitzvah, but rather of national self-determination - a homeland that could just as easily have been in Uganda, as some once proposed. Thus the "Land" was lost; the concept of "the Land" as a holy domain disappeared. And for what reason? "Because they have forsaken My Torah."
וַיֹּאמֶר יְהֹוָה עַל עׇזְבָם אֶת תּוֹרָתִי אֲשֶׁר נָתַתִּי לִפְנֵיהֶם וְלֹא שָׁמְעוּ בְקוֹלִי וְלֹא הָלְכוּ בָהּ׃ (יב) - "And the Lord said: Because they have forsaken My Torah which I set before them, and have not obeyed My voice, neither walked therein." (9:12)
Let us note the difficulty: "Because they have forsaken My Torah" - what is added by "which I set before them"? And "they have not obeyed My voice" is already included in forsaking the Torah, while "neither walked therein" is already implied by both. On the surface, the verse appears to repeat the very same point three times.
The Radak first explains the meaning of "My Torah which I set before them" - it is not in heaven, nor is it beyond the sea, but rather "I set it before them." One might have thought that the Torah is overly demanding, complex, and burdensome; yet the Holy One, blessed be He, says: "O My people, what have I done to you, and wherein have I wearied you?" Even regarding bringing an offering, He did not demand beasts from the wilderness or the forests - He did not command, "Bring Me a lion as a sacrifice," for from where could one procure a lion? Rather, He asked for an animal from one's own flock, from what is already in the pen, and so forth. I did not weary you with any mitzvah; I gave you a Torah that is manageable to observe, and I never demanded that you sacrifice your son before Me. If so, what I never asked of you - you go and perform voluntarily for Molech? How can such behavior be understood?
Malbim explains: Hashem's response comes after we have seen that no man has an answer - neither the wise man knows, nor the discerning man understands, nor the prophet declares. And what is the answer? "Because they have forsaken My Torah." There are three distinct levels in the observance of the Torah. The first level: one who cleaves to the Torah with love, enthusiasm, and passion, performing all of Hashem's mitzvot out of joy and a desire to cleave to His commandments. Concerning this it is said, "Because they have forsaken My Torah which I set before them" - I set My Torah before them as a delight and a heartfelt love, My Torah which is the most precious thing to Me, the sweetest and most unique, and it was fitting for them to cleave to it with devotion and yearning on the highest level - yet this they abandoned.
A lower level: even if the yearning is absent, Hashem commanded, and since He commanded - I perform; this stems from awe rather than love. Concerning this it says, "Nor obeyed My voice" - listening to a voice implies a command; at the very least out of awe of Hashem you should have observed His commandments. Yet they did not even do this, not even as one who obeys the order of the commanding Master. And the third level: a person who acts out of habit, mechanical observance (mitzvat anashim melumadah), because that is how he grew up, how he was raised, and how he continues. As Rabbi Uri Zohar once remarked: "Like a captive infant among the observant" - a captive child, what can he do? He was born there, and every morning he knows that one makes circular motions with the arm and it is called putting on tefillin, so he makes circular motions; that is what he knows, automatically, having grown up with it. Well, even that is something. Concerning this it is said, "Nor walked therein" - by way of routine and habit; yet they did not do even this. Come and see that they abandoned the Torah entirely, failing to observe it even on its lowest level.
Here comes the well-known Gemara: Rav Yehudah said in the name of Rav, what is the meaning of that which is written, "Who is the wise man that he may understand this? And who is he to whom the mouth of Hashem has spoken, that he may declare it, for what is the land destroyed?" This matter was asked of the sages and they could not explain it, of the prophets and they could not explain it, until the Holy One, Blessed be He, explained it Himself, as it is said, "And Hashem said: Because they have forsaken My Torah which I set before them." Rav Yehudah said in the name of Rav: Because they did not recite a blessing over the Torah first. This Gemara is discussed extensively around Tishah B'Av, during the Three Weeks (Bein HaMetzarim), where this topic is examined from several angles.
The Ran explains: "that they did not recite a blessing over the Torah first" means at the beginning of their engagement in study each day - namely, "la'asok b'divrei Torah," "veha'arev na," and "asher bachar." Do not think that "they did not recite a blessing over the Torah first" refers to when being called up to read from the Torah; rather, when waking up in the morning and beginning to engage in Torah study, one recites Birkat HaTorah, and it is forbidden to learn without reciting Birkat HaTorah - yet at the start of their daily study, they did not recite the blessing. The Ran adds: this question was posed to the sages and they could not explain it, and from the fact that it is written, "And Hashem said: Because they have forsaken My Torah," it follows that no one knew the reason except the Holy One, Blessed be He, alone. That is, from the question, "Who is the wise man that he may understand this? And who is he to whom the mouth of Hashem has spoken, that he may declare it, for what is the land destroyed?" - we wait to hear the answer of the wise man and the answer of the discerning man, but they have no answer, and immediately in the next verse it says, "And Hashem said"; from this it is clear that none of the others had an answer. And this is what the Gemara means: the sages and prophets were asked and could not explain it - they could not provide an explanation for why the land was lost, and the only One who could explain it was the Holy One, Blessed be He.
The Ran continues: I found in the secret scroll (Megillat Setarim) of Rabbeinu Yonah that the verse implies precisely this, that it was because they did not recite a blessing over the Torah first that the land was lost. For if you were to interpret "Because they have forsaken My Torah" according to its simple meaning - that they did not observe it, as the Malbim explains, and indeed according to the peshat this is correct: they did not observe it out of love, nor out of awe, nor even out of habit - it would still be difficult: why was this question asked of the sages and prophets and they could not explain it? If it were about people who do not observe the Torah, is that even a question? Go outside and look: are there observant people? Everyone is behaving like the nations! Why, then, would you ask why the land was destroyed? It is inconceivable that the answer was so obvious, yet neither the wise men, nor the discerning, nor the prophets knew it. Were they living on another planet? Did they not dwell among their people and recognize reality? How could it be that they had no answer to such a question, and only the Holy One, Blessed be He, had to reveal to them that they had forsaken the Torah?
Rather, perforce the conclusion is that they were constantly engaged in Torah study, and for this reason the perplexity was so great: For what was the land destroyed? After all, they were studying Torah! And if they were studying Torah - Torah "protects and rescues" (agonei magnei v'atzolei matzlei) - why were they not shielded by its merit? Until the Holy One, Blessed be He, Himself explained it, for He knows the innermost secrets of the heart, revealing that they did not recite a blessing over the Torah first.
And what does this mean? Is it merely the technical omission of a blessing? If a person puts on tefillin without reciting a blessing, he has nonetheless fulfilled the mitzvah of tefillin; if he takes a lulav without reciting a blessing, he has fulfilled the mitzvah of lulav, and we do not say that he failed to fulfill his obligation, for blessings are not essential to the fulfillment of the mitzvah (ein habrachot me'akvot). Rather, Rabbeinu Yonah explains, the Torah was not esteemed enough in their eyes to warrant reciting a blessing over it, for they did not engage in it for its own sake (lishmah), and therefore they treated its blessing lightly - and this is the meaning of "nor walked therein," that is, with proper intent and for its own sake. They did not walk in it in the way one ought to walk when studying Torah: a person studied Torah just as he would study sciences, just as he would study algebra. Indeed very important, full of information, broadens horizons, provides knowledge - that is how one studies other disciplines of wisdom, that is how one pursues secular learning. But when one learns Torah - the Torah is a Torah of life, and when you study Torah, you connect with the Holy One, Blessed be He. Does one recite a blessing before studying algebra: "Who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us to engage in words of algebra"? If not, why recite a blessing over words of Torah? This is wisdom and that is wisdom - such was their attitude toward Torah.
Consequently, you can understand: a Torah in which people did not walk with proper intent and for its own sake, which is not precious in your eyes, cannot protect you. What is written regarding King David? "They covered him with clothes, but he could not get warm" - and Chazal explain that because he had treated garments lightly, garments could not warm him. And what is written concerning the people of Israel? They offered sacrifices in the Beit HaMikdash and yet they did not protect them - why? Because they despised the service of the Beit HaMikdash, the sacrifices could no longer shield them. So too here: since they related to the Torah as just another branch of wisdom, such a Torah lacks the power to protect you and shield you. From this stemmed the decline; from this came their failure to improve their deeds; from this came the fact that the words of the prophets had no effect; from this they descended to the lowest depths - it all began because they disparaged the Torah. For the Holy One, Blessed be He, said: "Would that they had forsaken Me and kept My Torah, for the light within it would return them to the good" - but how? Not "their Torah," but "My Torah," as I commanded it to be studied, in that manner and with intent for its own sake; study in which one truly feels a connection to the Holy One, Blessed be He, is the study that transforms a person. These are the words of the Ran, who concludes: "And they are fitting and worthy of the one who spoke them" - when Rabbeinu Yonah spoke, he spoke truly from his own elevated stature, and the words are fitting for the one who said them.
וַיֵּלְכוּ אַחֲרֵי שְׁרִרוּת לִבָּם וְאַחֲרֵי הַבְּעָלִים אֲשֶׁר לִמְּדוּם אֲבוֹתָם׃ (יג) - "And they walked after the stubbornness of their heart, and after the Baalim, which their fathers taught them." (13)
"Sherirut" (stubbornness / sight) has two meanings. One is related to seeing (re'iyah), as in "shuru" (behold), "yashur al anashim" (he looks upon men), and just as some wished to interpret "that every man should bear rule (shorer) in his house" as being derived from looking and watching, even though that is not the plain meaning there, where it denotes authority rather than vision. But there are several places where it does mean sight: a wall is called a "shur" for this reason, because from the wall they would look out into the distance; similarly, "its branches ran over the wall (shur)" - the wall from which one gazes far off; and likewise, "I see him, but not now; I behold him (ashurenu), but not near." Thus "shur" denotes gazing. Another explanation: "sherirut libam" comes from the root of "shrir" (firmness), an expression of hardness - as in the legal phrase "shrir vekayam" (firm and established) - meaning resolute and unyielding; from the sheer stubbornness of their heart, having no softness in their heart, following the rigidity of their heart. This is like the familiar expression "stiff-necked" (keshei oref): his neck is rigid, unable to turn his head right or left, or in colloquial terms today, "banging one's head against a wall" - the very same idea; he does not turn his head, but stubbornly pursues his own mindset. Such is "sherirut libam," an expression of the hardness of their heart.
The Malbim explains: The verse addresses the three aspects we observed in their abandonment of the Torah. The first aspect was the love of Hashem and clinging to the Torah out of deep yearning - and corresponding to this, "they followed the stubbornness of their [evil] heart," for they served idols out of their own heart's desire. And corresponding to custom and habit, out of which they also failed to serve Hashem, it says, "and after the Baalim, which their fathers taught them" - they went and cleaved to the Baalim, to idolatry, following what their fathers had taught them. Would you expect them to at least follow the Torah out of habit, as a rote commandment (mitzvat anashim melumadah)? The prophet says: what is routine and habitual for them is serving idolatry, for their fathers served idols and they continue in that same path. Thus it turns out that both their intellect and their habitual conduct - everything led them astray from Hashem's Torah toward idolatry, and there was no longer any remedy for them.
The Holy One, Blessed is He, declares: "Behold, I will refine them and test them" - a refinement through suffering born of love, for "how else shall I act because of the daughter of My people?", leaving no choice but to refine and test repeatedly until the dross is removed. Their central sin is deceitful speech: "Their tongue is a drawn arrow" - a sharpened, drawn arrow, where the slanderer draws his victim close with words of praise so the arrow strikes from afar, until deceit becomes second nature to him and he cannot halt it. And over these, and over the corrupt nature behind them, retribution and vengeance arrive. The prophet laments over the mountains and the desert pastures that suffer through no fault of their own, while he does not lament over Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, which received what they deserved. And to the question, "For what did the land perish?" - a question that neither the wise man, nor the discerning man, nor the prophet could interpret - the Holy One, Blessed is He, answered Himself: "Because they have forsaken My Torah" - neither out of love, nor out of fear, nor even out of habit. And at a deeper level, as Rabbeinu Yonah explains, they did not recite the blessing over the Torah first; it was not significant enough in their eyes to recite a blessing over, and they did not engage in it for its own sake, which is why it did not protect them. In contrast, the stubbornness of their hearts and the habit inherited from their fathers swayed them toward the Baalim, until no remedy remained for them.