"Gird yourselves and lament, you kohanim; wail, you ministers of the altar; come, lie all night in sackcloth, you ministers of my God; for meal-offering and libation are withheld from the House of your God." Gird yourselves and lament, you kohanim: "gird yourselves" means gird sackcloth. And then he adds: not merely gird sackcloth, but lie all night in sackcloth - meaning come with these sacks and even sleep in them, and come to the House of Hashem and lament there. That is, the sackcloth should not be worn merely temporarily; wear the sackcloth at night as well, perhaps Hashem will have mercy upon you. And Scripture says "ministers of the altar" and "ministers of my God," for whoever ministers to my God ministers at the altar, so they are one and the same.
Ibn Ezra explains: "Gird sackcloth" - why does he state it in this manner? Because you have no daily burnt-offering; that is, they no longer had animals, so they had nothing to sacrifice. What, then, could they do? Ibn Ezra says: only mourn, only gird sackcloth. The Malbim says that girding sackcloth is for prayer, but he does not stop there: he says "gird yourselves and lament." Lamenting is over the calamity - meaning to bewail and express how immense and severe the trouble is. Now the Malbim explains that he is actually addressing two classes of kohanim here. To one class he says: gird sackcloth and pray; the second class should lament. And whom does one lament? The dead! A lamentation comes, in a sense, after despair - it is over, there is nothing left to do, one can only lament. Thus, the call for lamentation leans toward the second class, and now he explains the difference between them.
There was one class of righteous kohanim: they were "ministers of my God," serving Hashem with a complete and pure intention. But notice, there were other kohanim who were merely "ministers of the altar" - not serving Hashem with the requisite intent purely for the sake of Heaven, all for the honor of the blessed Creator, but merely ministers of the altar. "Ministers of the altar" means what we might call doing the job and walking away: a sacrifice needs to be offered on the altar, he offers it on the altar, and that is the end of it. Therefore, understand why there is a duality here: there are "ministers of the altar" and there are "ministers of my God," because he is addressing two groups. The elevated group is "ministers of my God"; the lower group is "ministers of the altar." To the elevated group he says: "Gird yourselves, kohanim," asking of them: you must pray to Hashem! And girding sackcloth is for prayer. By contrast, to those who are merely in the category of "ministers of the altar," he says: "lament and wail." You shall lament, as though in despair - wailing is the reaction of one who has given up hope, not someone making a plea. And why? Because their prayer is not acceptable, since these people, as noted, are on a lower spiritual level; they are merely ministers of the altar. On the other hand, those who are "ministers of my God," serving Hashem with wholehearted intention - to them he says: "Gird yourselves" - you shall pray! You will not suffice with mere lamentation and wailing like those who have given up, but will truly plead before Hashem that the Holy One, blessed be He, remove the decree from upon you.
And you, the righteous: "come, lie all night in sackcloth, you ministers of my God." Since you pray in your righteousness, do not relent in prayer; go to sleep in sackcloth as well - meaning let prayer constantly be on your lips. For repentance, prayer, and charity avert the evil decree; perhaps prayer here will avert the harsh decree of the famine destined to follow the locusts and the drought, so let them pray for this. And why should only the kohanim pray? Is there no nation? Are the people not supposed to suffer? The end of the verse explains: "for meal-offering and libation are withheld from the House of your God." Since the meal-offering and libation have been withheld from the House of your God by the locusts - the wheat rotted and became wormy, and the wine was ruined, leaving neither meal-offering nor libations - their feeling of distress and pain is greatest.
"Sanctify a fast, call an assembly, gather the elders and all the inhabitants of the land to the House of Hashem your God, and cry out to Hashem." "Sanctify a fast, call an assembly" - meaning invite the people to a fast; that is "sanctify a fast." Targum Yonatan renders: "Decree a fast" - decree a fast upon the people. "Call an assembly (atzarah)" - what is "call an assembly"? There are two explanations of this, and both are true here.
The first explanation is that of Ibn Ezra and the Radak: "atzarah" means that a person should not perform work, similar to "an assembly (atzeret) shall it be to you" - to refrain (la'atzor) from work. That is one explanation. There is another explanation cited by Ibn Ezra in the name of Yefet, and this is also how Rashi and the Malbim explain it: that "atzarah" is an expression of gathering, like "an assembly of traitors" (atzeret bogedim) - meaning a gathering of traitors. Radak does not cite this here, but brings from elsewhere in the name of his father that the expression "tzom" (fast) does not mean only what we are accustomed to think - fasting without eating. Radak cites in the name of his father that "tzom" also denotes a gathering, akin to "atzeret" and assembly. Where do we see this? He says, like "tzomet hagidim" (the junction of the sinews) - what is a "tzomet" (junction)? A place where many roads converge, or in the sinews, where many sinews converge. If so, a "tzomet" is a place of concentration and gathering. Thus, when we speak of "tzom," it also means to assemble and gather the people. And because it was their practice that when they gathered and assembled the people, they would also fast and refrain from eating, the word "tzom" came to mean a fast. But in reality, Radak's father says, the word "tzom" originally means an assembly.
In simple terms, he is telling them: you must gather all the people for prayer, for supplication, to cry out to Hashem, so that perhaps He will remove from you this terrible plague of the locusts and the drought, as we have said. And all of this he tells them beforehand, for once the plague strikes, it is far more difficult to stop it; but while the plague has not yet arrived, it is still much easier to halt it.
The Malbim explains that this is essentially a command to the kohanim - that Hashem commands the kohanim to sanctify a fast and call an assembly for the people. "Sanctify a fast" applies to them, and the call is to the kohanim: you shall gather the people to pray over this matter - let them gather the elders, gather all the inhabitants of the land, and thereby cry out to Hashem. And why the elders? "Gather the elders" - because it was their custom to bring an elder down before the Ark, and the elder would address them with words of admonition and inspiration (divrei kivushin). Therefore he tells them: "Gather the elders" - let them call and bring the elders as well. "Alas for the day! For the day of Hashem is near, and as destruction from the Almighty (mi-Shaddai) it shall come." "Alas" (Aha) is an expression of groaning, anguish, pain: "Alas for the day! For the day of Hashem is near" - the day when Hashem will execute judgment and exact retribution is near. "And as destruction from the Almighty it shall come" - it will come like destruction (k'shod), like a destroyer (k'shoded), "mi-Shaddai" is a holy Name, meaning from Hashem; the destruction will come from Hashem.
Radak cites the explanation of the Nagid, who explains that "mi-Shaddai" means from one who is mighty, like the verse that says, "like the voice of many waters, like the voice of the Almighty (ke-kol Shaddai)" - meaning a mighty destroyer will come, from whom there is no escape. In fact, it is very likely close to what we know: whenever Scripture wishes to describe something as immense, it attaches the Name of Hashem to it, just as we say "mountains of God" (harrei El) when we wish to speak of great mountains; or when we wish to describe a great flame, we say "a flame of Yah" (shalhevet-Yah), and so on in several such examples. Here, too, when wanting to state that this destruction will be exceedingly powerful: "and as destruction from Shaddai it shall come" (u-kh'shod mi-Shaddai yavo) - this is also a play on words, for "shod" has the same letters (shin-dalet) as "Shaddai." Scripture thus conveys that, like "harrei El," mighty mountains, this too will be a mighty destruction, which is why it links it to the Name of Hashem.
The Malbim explains that the reason for crying out stems from two considerations: First, the day is near. Notice that he stresses to them that there is no time: "For the day of Hashem is near" - the day Hashem brings the calamity is close at hand, so do not be complacent. That is one point. Second, he tells you not to think - as people often do, delaying action, thinking: "We'll cross that bridge when we come to it; we'll see how to deal with it." When a trouble is not yet severe, one thinks, as Israelis like to say: "Everything is under control" - that sort of "trust me, don't worry, it'll be fine, we'll manage" mindset. He tells you: no! First, the day is near. Second: "as destruction from Shaddai it shall come" - this is not something one can escape. It comes directly from Hashem, and the calamity will be severe. Even if according to the laws of nature such a calamity is not supposed to happen, it will come by special summons "mi-Shaddai" - from Hashem. And why specifically Shaddai? Why does he not say from Hashem (Y-H-V-H) or from Elohim? Because Shaddai is the Name that expresses: "He who said to His world, 'Enough!' (dai)" - the One who overturns the natural order (meshadēd ma'arachot ha-teva). The Name Shaddai expresses that the Holy One, blessed be He, governs nature; the Holy One, blessed be He, told the sea to advance only to a certain point. The world was expanding like a ball of yarn, and the Holy One, blessed be He, said to it: "Enough!" (And as scientists speak today of an expanding universe). Thus we understand that the reality of this impending decree is by Higher decree; it is not according to nature. It is Shaddai who alters the orders of nature, and who can stand before Hashem's wrath? Therefore, do not think, "We will manage when it arrives," for ultimately, it will be impossible to manage once it strikes.
"Is not the food cut off before our eyes, joy and gladness from the House of our God?" We can see before our very eyes that the ripened produce and food are cut off - the locusts will come, devour it, and wipe it out. And because food is cut off, joy and gladness are consequently cut off from the House of our God; for they used to bring offerings and celebrate the Harvest Festival with great joy, as the verse says, "like the joy of harvest." Thus, when there is no produce, there is no joy and no gladness in the House of our God.
What does "before our eyes" mean? This is a prophecy, and the locusts had not yet arrived! But as we have explained several times, and as the Malbim explains here as well: the prophet is a "seer" (chozeh). What is a seer? In his mind's eye, he envisions the reality. Therefore he says: "this is before our eyes" - it is something I can see! It is not that I am telling you, "I received a message about what will happen in the future." No, he sees it right before his eyes in a vision. And because of this, he tells them: do not think this is something doubtful, an unverified report. He says: it is right before our eyes, I see this matter standing before our eyes! Yet ostensibly there is a difficulty: why does he say "before our eyes"? He should have said "before my eyes"!
This can be resolved according to what is written in the sacred texts. They explain that when a prophet receives prophecy, it is an influx descending from Heaven, and all the other prophets would receive it as well; only the specific prophet who was commanded to deliver it was tasked with transmitting it to the people. He was forbidden to suppress his prophecy, just as another prophet was forbidden to deliver a prophecy he was not authorized to convey. This means that all prophets received the prophecy, but were forbidden to transmit it because they were not commanded to do so. That is why Scripture states throughout: "And Hashem spoke to Moshe, saying (leimor)" - if you received a command "saying" (to say it), you must say it; if you did not receive a command to say it, do not say it. "Hashem spoke to Moshe, saying" - speech is always coupled with "saying"; only when there is an instruction to speak may he say it. According to this, we can explain that when he says here: "Is not the food cut off before our eyes," by "before our eyes" he does not mean only himself. He was not the only prophet! Our Sages say that the Jewish people had twice as many prophets as the number of those who left Egypt - 1,200,000 prophets! If you divide that across the generations, there were certainly dozens, if not hundreds, of prophets in his generation as well. We see that Eliyahu hid one hundred prophets in a cave, and that was after Izevel (Jezebel) had killed the prophets, leaving only one hundred prophets in the cave! So we understand that there were many prophets. Therefore he could say "before our eyes" - meaning not just before my eyes, but all the prophets could see what this prophet was prophesying, and thus the description is truly "before our eyes."
The Malbim says that when food was cut off from the House of our God, joy and gladness were also cut off. Why? The Malbim explains that when they poured the libations, they would sing praise in the Beis HaMikdash. But now that we have seen that the vine is withered and languishing, there are no libations; and when there are no libations, there is no song in the Beis HaMikdash. "The seeds have rotted under their clods, the granaries are desolate, the barns are ruined, for the grain is withered." What are these perudot (seeds)? Perhaps first, what is "avshu" (rotted)?
"Avshu" is like "afshu" with a peh, from the concept of decay (ipush). Since the letters bet, vav, mem, peh are interchangeable, here the peh is interchanged with a bet. This does not happen only in Arabic; it occasionally happens in Hebrew as well. Here it is written "avshu," meaning "afshu." And do not be surprised: we find the like in "habker la-aniyim" where the intention is "hafker" (ownerless) - so you see bet and peh interchange. "Avshu perudot" - what rotted here? The perudot. What are perudot? These are the seed kernels buried beneath the earth. That is, the seed under the ground, instead of sprouting and growing, will rot, become ruined, and fail to grow; and whatever does grow will be eaten by the locusts. So there is essentially a double curse here. Alternatively, Radak suggests that the seed kernels rotted because no rain fell. And when there is no rain, what happens? The seed receives only a tiny amount of moisture with nothing to make it grow, so it decays. Consequently, "the seeds have rotted under their clods (megrefoteihem)." What is "megrefoteihem"? "Megrafot" is with a segol under the mem. There are two explanations: Some say that "megrefoteihem" means clods of earth. Listen to an innovative interpretation: "If a man strikes his neighbor with a stone or with an egrof (fist)" - in the word "egrof," the aleph is superfluous, and Ibn Ezra says it is like "b'grof." What is a "grof"? A lump of stone, a clod of earth. Because here we explain that "megrefoteihem" means clods of earth, one who struck him "b'grof" struck him with a clod of earth - meaning a large lump of dirt substantial enough to inflict a blow. According to this, it is not the familiar "egrof" meaning a clenched fist of fingers, but rather something akin to a stone: with a stone or with a clod of earth. Another explanation is that "megrefoteihem," according to Targum Yonatan, refers to "magofot" (stoppers/lids). According to his view, "perudot" does not refer to wheat seeds placed under the soil at all; rather, he explains that the jugs of wine rotted - those are the perudot, the jugs of wine - and they rotted under their "megrefot," meaning under their lids (magofot), the lid being the cover, and they spoiled beneath their seal.
"The granaries are desolate" (nashamu otzarot) - "nashamu" is from the root of desolation (shomemu); those granaries of produce were desolate. In what sense? Radak says this can be explained in two ways: One way: since it is not being used and there is no grain to bring into it, the storehouse lies desolate, in ruins. Hence: "the granaries are desolate, the barns are ruined." A second possibility explained by Radak: when something is used, people ensure that it is maintained. When it is not used, it gradually deteriorates and falls into ruin. Here, since they will not be storing produce in the barns and granaries, they will actually fall apart, crack, and deteriorate, because no one will repair them - there is no reason or purpose, since we have no grain anyway.
What are "mammagurot" (barns)? "Mammagurot," as we know, refers to a place where things were stored, as in "Is the seed yet in the barn (megurah)?" The Malbim says this differs from an "otzar" (storehouse): an "otzar" is large, whereas a "megurah" is small. One might say "megurah" is related to "megurim" (dwelling), a place where something is brought in; or perhaps more logically, "megurah" is from the word "ma'agar" (storage), a place where grain is gathered, which is smaller than an "otzar," as storehouses were larger. However, Radak cites an interesting explanation in the name of his father: that the mem here serves as a prepositional mem. That is, although it is vocalized "mimmagurot" - by the way, it is "mimmagurot" and not "mamgurot"; even though under the second mem there is a patach and then a sheva, a patach is a short vowel, and a short vowel followed by a sheva normally makes the sheva quiescent (nach), so it should have been "mamgurot." If it had been a kamatz, it would be a long vowel that pulls the sheva to become vocal (na). Why, then, is it "mimmagurot"? Because the second mem has a dagesh, and the dagesh makes the sheva vocal. In any case, he says that this mem is treated as though it had a chirik, making it a prepositional mem: "from the barns (mi-magurot)." It is not part of the root, just as when you say "from the house" (mei-habayit), the mem is prepositional. So too here, "the granaries are desolate, the barns are ruined" - some from the barns were ruined; not all were destroyed, but rather some from the barns, just as one says "some of the houses were ruined." Thus explains Radak's father.
The Malbim explains that heaps of grain deteriorated and rotted - this is what is meant by "perudot." He explains that these were not seed kernels, but grain that had been piled up and stored in the ground in the field, separated into discrete piles (perudot). What does "perudot" mean? That they were piled in separate units. In any case, it refers to heaps of grain, and they rotted under the ground; even though the locusts did not reach there, they rotted in the soil where that grain was stored. And the storehouses where the grain used to be gathered also became desolate. The Malbim explains that while we previously explained "megrefoteihem" as meaning either clods of earth or lids, he says it is closer to what we are familiar with: "megrefoteihem" is from "magrefah" (rake/shovel), as our Sages used this term, and as appears in Scripture: "the Kishon River swept them away (gerafam)" - showing the root "garaf." This is the rake with which they would scoop and sweep away refuse. And as for what is written "avshu," it means "ba'ashu" (foul-smelling/rotten) through metathesis (an inversion of letters). We previously changed the vav to a peh to yield "afshu" (rotted), as Radak and Ibn Ezra said in the name of Rabbi Marinus; the Malbim, however, says it is not the bet that changes, but the ayin: it is not "avshu" but "ivshu," and that is transposed to "ba'ashu," just as "salmah" and "simlah" are interchangeable. Here too, the placement of the letters shifts, meaning foul odor and decay. When they shoveled the piles of spoiled food, it reeked - caused by the locusts that made it putrid. Therefore he says "avshu" is like "ba'ashu," the piles beneath their shovels rotted and reeked following the locust plague and the ruin it inflicted on that food.
"How the beast groans! The herds of cattle are confused, because they have no pasture; even the flocks of sheep are desolate." "How the beast groans! The herds of cattle are confused" - first he speaks in general terms: "beast" (behemah), which encompasses all animals. Then he begins to specify: herds of cattle, flocks of sheep. He describes how severe the calamity will be, that both cattle and sheep will suffer. He says: "How the beast groans! The herds of cattle are confused (navochu)" - "navochu" means bewildered, like a perplexed person, as in "they are entangled (nevuchim) in the land, the wilderness has shut them in." "Even the flocks of sheep" - why does he say "even" the flocks of sheep? Radak explains: because flocks of sheep often find food and drink where cattle cannot. The simple reason is that cattle can graze only on level plains, whereas flocks of sheep are able to ascend mountains and climb; they have much greater mobility. Yet he says: despite all this, even they - even the flocks of sheep - are desolate (ne'eshamu); they too are devastated. He wishes to convey: see how severe the calamity will be, that even the sheep will find neither food nor drink. The Malbim explains that "Mah" is not an exclamation - "How the beast groans!" - but rather a question! He offers a fascinating interpretation: the prophet, as it were, wonders and asks: Master of the Universe, if man has sinned, what did the beast do wrong? If so, the question "Why does the beast groan?" means: What is its sin? Why are the herds of cattle confused, lacking pasture? Are the flocks of sheep also guilty (ne'eshamu)? As if they too bear guilt? Did they sin? Why has Hashem punished them?
"To You, Hashem, I call, for a fire has devoured the pastures of the wilderness, and a flame has burned all the trees of the field." "To You, Hashem, I call" - and if you say (continuing the Malbim's explanation) that if You answer me that the primary punishment comes upon man, but what can be done? Since the beasts belong to human settlements, and the famine is in the settlement, what can be done? Everyone is starving, so the beasts have nothing to eat either. Since they are man's property, they perish along with him - especially since the decree is against him; meaning, because you acted improperly, it was decreed that your animals will be consumed, and that is the reason: the punishment of the animal is effectively the punishment of man.
Yet the prophet still says: I still call to You, Hashem, and ask: "for a fire has devoured the pastures of the wilderness." Look, the fire devours the pastures of the wilderness as well, and in the pastures of the wilderness there is no human settlement! "And a flame has burned all the trees of the field," even though the trees of the field are far from human settlement. So the question returns, echoing with even greater force: Why were they punished? You might say of domestic animals that they are man's possession and in his domain; but these are neither his possession nor in his domain! Why, then, has fire devoured the pastures of the wilderness and a flame burned all the trees of the field? We have explained this according to the Malbim. Let us explain according to Radak and the other peshat commentators, who explain that this is a description of the impending hardship: "To You, Hashem, I call, for a fire has devoured the pastures of the wilderness" - I turn to Hashem and cry out: Master of the Universe, look at the magnitude of the calamity! Fire is devouring the pastures of the wilderness; we have none to save us but Hashem; a flame sweeps through them. What fire and what flame are spoken of here? Earlier we spoke of locusts! Radak explains that this is likened to fire and flame; that is, according to Radak, it is a metaphorical expression for the locusts, which consume and cover everything. People say: the locusts arrived and burned everything. What burned it? Fire? No, as we said, this expression is a metaphor. Ibn Ezra finds this difficult to accept. He cites it in the name of "some say," but says it is incorrect: there were two distinct things - one was locusts, and the other was drought. Thus Ibn Ezra's question is resolved: how can you connect the flame to the locusts, when you see later on that there was a drought? He says both things occurred! It is very possible that when it says "fire has devoured the pastures of the wilderness," it refers to the locusts that spread like wildfire; and subsequently when it says "the water brooks are dried up," that is because there was also a drought. But both are possible, for it could refer both to the locusts and to actual fire, because when there is drought, fire ignites easily - there is extreme dryness, and every small spark creates huge blazes. He says: "for the water brooks are dried up." There will be a drought, and nevertheless wild beasts still find pasture in places where there is a little moisture; but here he tells you, the drought will be so severe that both the rivers and the water brooks will dry up completely. And although they need food, they need drink even more; so even if they have a little food by searching in the mountains, from where will they drink? Therefore: "The beasts of the field also cry out to You, for the water brooks are dried up" - and consequently they have nothing to drink, "and a fire has devoured the pastures of the wilderness."
The grassy patches that were in the wilderness dried up, and then "fire devoured" them. "Fire devoured" - Radak says it was as if fire devoured them; because they dried up, it was as if they were scorched by the sun. The Malbim explains: "The beasts of the field also cry out to You." The Malbim continues his line of thought: the prophet asks in astonishment: Master of the Universe, what did the beasts and wild animals do? Why do they deserve this? Thus he says: "The beasts of the field also cry out to You" - even the wilderness animal that is not in human domain cries out and screams at the injustice, as it were, crying: Why have the water brooks dried up? Why do I have no water to drink? Why has fire devoured the pastures of the wilderness leaving no pasture? Regarding this he says: "To You, Hashem, I call" - what did the wilderness beasts sin, and why must they be punished for the iniquity of man? For if man sinned, what did the beasts and wild animals do wrong?