So Hashem says: You prophets, go and "Contend with your mother, contend, for she is not My wife, and I am not her husband" - meaning, contend with the People of Israel for abandoning the way of Hashem. "Lest I strip her naked, and set her as on the day she was born, and make her like a wilderness, and set her like a dry land, and slay her with thirst." Go contend with your mother, for if she does not remove her harlotries from her face, it turns out she is not My wife and I am not her husband, I am not her spouse, as we said. Then "I will strip her naked." I will take away the garments I gave her. For My obligation to provide her with clothing exists only if I am her husband; but if I am not her husband, I am under no obligation to clothe her. Since this is so, "I will strip her naked." What is the deeper allusion here? What does this mean? The Malbim explains that the reality of the Jewish people, as depicted in the verses, was that when Hashem took us and redeemed us from Egypt, we were like a little girl, an infant who had just been born - a baby abandoned naked by her parents, wallowing in her blood, cast out into the wilderness. And the Holy One, Blessed be He: "And I passed by you and saw you wallowing in your blood... and behold, your time was the time of love." The Holy One, Blessed be He, washed her of the blood, clothed her in garments, took her as a wife, brought her to an inhabited city - the Land of Israel - and gave her a land flowing with milk and honey. This parable is found in Yechezkel 16: "On the day you were born, your navel was not cut" - meaning not even the umbilical cord was severed; no one even bothered to do that much for you; rather, on the day of your birth you were cast out. "And I passed by you and saw you wallowing in your blood... yet you were naked and bare." The People of Israel were in a state of being naked and bare. And then: "I spread My skirt over you and covered you... and I clothed you with embroidered work," and so forth - all describing how Hashem took us from the degraded state in which we found ourselves. Now, continuing with the parable: this woman, whom Hashem took after raising her from nothing - a foundling cast into the street, whom the Holy One, Blessed be He, raised, clothed, took as a wife, gave a home, and brought to Eretz Yisrael - subsequently goes and commits harlotry with others. The Holy One, Blessed be He, says: What is the punishment? I will simply return you to your previous state. That is essentially the retribution, and that is what is expressed here. The Malbim explains: Since this is so, "I will strip her naked." For, as we said, in your original state "you were naked and bare," cast out naked; thus, "I will strip her naked." Moreover: "And set her as on the day she was born." And on the day she was born, as we said, she was wallowing in her blood - an even worse state. "And make her like a wilderness, and set her like a dry land." What is tziyah (dry land)? The Malbim explains that tziyah is worse than a wilderness (midbar). For a wilderness, if cultivated and sown, can yet be made to bloom. A tziyah, by contrast, is a parched place that cannot be made fertile. Thus He says: I will make her like a wilderness and a dry land, until she dies of thirst. This means: I will return her to exile among the nations, which is the referent of the wilderness, and there she will wallow in her blood. "And slay her with thirst" - I will take from her the garments I gave her. The garments symbolize the resting of the Shechinah, Divine Providence, her glorious ornaments, and her jewelry - that the Holy One, Blessed be He, watched over us, redeemed us, brought us out of the state of being naked and bare, gave us the Torah, and granted us Eretz Yisrael. The Holy One, Blessed be He, says: If I see that you now stray after lovers, I will return you to your previous state.
The Malbim notes a textual nuance: "And make her (vesamtiha) like a wilderness, and set her (veshatiha) like a dry land." What is the difference between samti (from lasim) and shti (from lashit)? Seemingly, both mean to place or make. The Malbim explains that lasim can refer to a temporary placement, whereas lashit denotes permanence. Therefore, at first He says: vesamtiha chemidbar - this is not permanent; a wilderness, as noted, can be developed. But tziyah cannot; it is a place of utter drought. There is a distinction between samtiha and shtiha: first, vesamtiha chemidbar - temporary; then, veshatiha - a more permanent placement, ke'eretz tziyah, like an arid land. That is, there will be permanent desolation and thirst, where water will never be found, and thereby she will die of thirst. The Radak explains that thirst here is a metaphor for the cessation of Torah and prophecy, as it says: "Her king and her princes are among the nations, there is no Torah; her prophets also find no vision from Hashem." The thirst means we will thirst: "Not a thirst for bread, nor a thirst for water, but to hear the words of Hashem" - a thirst for spirituality. The Holy One, Blessed be He, says: I will cause Torah and prophecy to cease, and thereby I return you to your previous state. This expresses the spiritual desolation destined to befall the Jewish people.
"And I will not have mercy upon her children, for they are children of harlotry." Hashem says: Therefore I will not have mercy on her children, for they are children of harlotry. Who is "she"? She is Kenneset Yisrael. Who are "her children" upon whom Hashem will not have mercy? The Malbim explains that in the nimshal (the underlying meaning), this includes even the righteous among them. Since the collective strayed from Me, and the world is judged according to its majority - and Klal Yisrael is judged according to its majority - and since the majority are wicked, often when "a fire goes out and catches in thorns," the result is that "the shock of grain or the standing grain is consumed." Even the righteous ultimately suffer on account of the wicked. Since the world is judged by its majority, they too...
...are considered as "children of harlotry," and therefore "upon them I will not have mercy." The Metzudat David explains more according to the plain meaning: since she was compared to a harlot, the reality is that no one pities the children of a harlot. Why? They are regarded as mamzerim, children of harlotry. Rationally speaking, there is no justification for this - their mother sinned, but what do you want from them? There is no reason not to pity them. Yet human nature is such. Thus, he explains, the righteous will also suffer for the iniquity of the nation as a whole, even though according to the justice apparent to human eyes it seems unfair - just as it seems unfair to persecute the children of a harlot when their mother sinned and they are blameless. In like manner, as it were, the righteous will perish in a manner that appears to human eyes as a lack of justice. We must emphasize, however, that this is only to our limited perception, for there is no injustice before the Holy One, Blessed be He.
The verse continues: "For their mother has played the harlot; she that conceived them has acted shamefully; for she said: I will go after my lovers, who give me my bread and my water, my wool and my flax, my oil and my drink." The word ki ("for") provides the reason: "For their mother has played the harlot" - that is why her children are children of harlotry. The Malbim explains: Seemingly, we have a halachic principle that "the majority of cohabitations are attributed to the husband." This is an established halachah: if, for example, a woman was caught in disgrace and discovered to have acted immorally, the husband might come and claim, "If so, who says the children are mine? What proof is there that they are mine?" Today, we have DNA testing that is 99 percent accurate, but in their time, it was far from simple. A man would claim: "It has been proven with witnesses that she committed adultery; if so, how can you prove the children are mine?" There are many practical halachic ramifications: do they inherit from him, can they claim support, is he obligated to provide for them, and other questions this raises.
The halachah is that the majority of cohabitations are attributed to the husband. For we say: even though this woman acted immorally, where is she residing on a regular basis? With her husband, or with the adulterer? She is permanently with her husband. Therefore, the likelihood is that she conceived from her husband - rov bi'ot achar haba'al. One might therefore argue that although their mother committed adultery, the children are legitimate (kesherim). To counter the claim that these children cannot be deemed illegitimate, the verse adds: "She that conceived them has acted shamefully (hovishah horatam)." Do you see the difficulty? The difficulty is with the preceding verse: "And I will not have mercy upon her children, for they are children of harlotry." Why not have mercy? We just said that the majority of cohabitations are attributed to the husband, so they should not be considered children of harlotry! To this the verse responds: "For their mother has played the harlot." And if you argue that most cohabitations are with the husband, the answer is: "She that conceived them has acted shamefully." Hovishah horatam means she brought shame upon her pregnancies, casting them into doubt as mamzerim. That is, her actions and behavior, as will soon be detailed, raised such grave doubts about her pregnancies that it became uncertain whether they were from the husband or from strangers.
And what leads to such suspicion? After all, you say that even if she committed adultery, we still follow the husband! Why do you say that here we suspect they are illegitimate? "For she said: I will go after my lovers, who give me my bread and my water, my wool and my flax, my oil and my drink." The verse explains: The principle that the majority of cohabitations are attributed to the husband applies only when she acts immorally in secret, while publicly remaining attached to her husband. In that case, she eats at his table, lives in his home, and we certainly say that most cohabitations are with the husband. But in our case, the situation is completely different. "For she said: I will go after my lovers" - she has already left the home and gone after her paramours. She is no longer supported by her husband; she receives her sustenance from those with whom she consorts. "I will go after my lovers," and they are "the givers of my bread and my water" - they provide my food. Not only that, but also my garments: "my wool and my flax" - they clothe her, and provide the rest of her needs: "my oil and my drink" - oil for anointing the body, and drink such as wine and milk. It follows, therefore, that the majority of cohabitations were with the lovers and not with the husband. Since this is so, you understand why He said: "I will not have mercy upon her children, for they are children of harlotry." Under such circumstances, there is no basis to view the children as being from the husband.
That is the parable (mashal). What is the underlying meaning (nimshal)? The nimshal is that Kenneset Yisrael was already serving idols openly, in public. Unlike the example of a woman who sins covertly, here they were straying openly, as stated earlier: "Let her remove her harlotries from her face" - something on the face is conspicuous. They were sinning publicly, believing that all their success and prosperity came from worshipping the stars and constellations - from the idol worship they practiced, for adultery here represents idolatry. This is also the meaning of what follows: "My lovers, who give me my bread and my water, my wool and my flax, my oil and my drink" - she was drawn after idolatry and the astrological powers, claiming that they bestow goodness upon her: "If I have bread and water, it is from the stars; if I have wool, flax, and drink, it is from the influence of the idols I worship." Thereby, says the Malbim, she became like all the families of the earth who serve wood and stone. Consequently, Hashem does not have mercy even on the good, and the Holy One, Blessed be He, casts them all away from before Him.
The Malbim notes: Observe that the text says, "For their mother has played the harlot; she that conceived them has acted shamefully." Why the duplication? Is "their mother" not the same as "she that conceived them"? The Malbim answers: No. Often, "mother" refers to a foster mother or nurse, one who raised the child like a mother, even if she did not actually conceive him and is not the biological mother. We find: "Concerning their mothers who bore them" - two distinct terms: their mothers is one thing, and those who bore them is another. Similarly: "And your mother who bore you"; "To the house of my mother, and to the chamber of her who conceived me" - meaning she is both a mother (one who raises) and the one who conceived and gave birth. Here, too, the disgrace exists on the part of their mother - there is shame merely in the fact that the one who raised you is promiscuous - and this disgrace extends to "she that conceived them," meaning that the entire pregnancy may have come from the lovers rather than the husband. This casts grave doubt upon the children, whether they are the husband's offspring or the lovers'.
Rashi explains - based on Targum Yonatan, and Radak explains similarly - that "for their mother has played the harlot" refers to the collective Kenneset Yisrael, while "she that conceived them has acted shamefully (hovishah horatam)" refers to those who teach them (hamorim otam), from the word horatam. Who are those who teach them? The sages who impart instruction, who teach them Torah. "She that conceived them has acted shamefully" - why? Because to make matters worse, even the teachers were corrupt. As the Midrash states: they say to the people, "Do not steal," yet they themselves steal; they say, "Do not lend with interest," yet they themselves lend with interest. What a disgrace it is when the teacher, the one who instructs the masses in Torah, commits the very sins he warns the people against! It may well be that he tells them not to lend with interest because he does not want competitors, wanting to be the sole lender so everyone comes to him, or the like. In any case, it was a tremendous disgrace. This is hovishah horatam - that those who were supposed to guide them directed them away from the right path, away from the path of Hashem, because they acted contrary to what they preached.
They would say: "I will go." Kenneset Yisrael said: "I will go after my lovers." According to the Malbim's explanation, "my lovers" refers to idolatry and the stars and constellations they worshipped. This is also the explanation of Radak's father, who explains that "my lovers" refers to the sun, moon, and stars, which they worshipped in the belief that prosperity derived from them. As they said: "Since we ceased to burn incense to the queen of heaven and to pour out drink offerings to her, we have lacked all things, and have been consumed by the sword and by the famine." They genuinely believed that these were the givers of their bread and water, wool and flax, oil and drink - that bounty came from the heavenly bodies, and if worshipped properly, prosperity would follow. That is the Malbim's explanation. Radak, however, brings another interpretation: that "lovers" also refers to the nations upon whom they relied at that time. We have discussed this several times in the past: they were confident they had nothing to fear from surrounding strategic threats because foreign powers would come to their aid. The prophet repeatedly rebuked them for this foolish belief, such as their reliance on Egypt. The prophet warned them: Do not rely on it - it is a "broken reed of a staff," which pierces the hand of anyone who leans on it. You rely on this or that nation to save you, and we see that they paid them large sums of money for protection; in the best case, these nations took the money and did nothing, and in the worst case, they took the money and later joined the enemies to strike us. Thus, Radak explains, the "lovers" in this context are the nations - Assyria and Egypt - with whom they made treaties to escape Hashem's decrees. Hashem warns of severe decrees and looming enemies, and they say: "Do not worry, we have a mutual defense treaty with Egypt, with Assyria." They expended vast wealth, paying enormous sums so those nations would deliver them. They relied on them as if they provided their very needs. Therefore the verse says: "I will go after my lovers, who give me my bread and my water," etc. Why does she describe them as providing bread and water? Because if an ally protects me, I can sow, reap, harvest, and thresh; thus, my entire existence and sustenance are enabled by the protection of Egypt and Assyria. They are called "givers of my bread and my water" because through them I have food and drink, through them I endure. To this He says: their mother acted shamefully and was humiliated, because these hopes will be dashed. From great expectations of salvation will come immense disgrace. The prophet rebukes them: you will see that those you look to will fail you, as written in Eichah: "Our eyes still failed looking for our vain help." We longed for help from those we trusted, and it proved entirely futile; we received neither help nor salvation from them.
What is the consequence? "Therefore, behold, I will hedge up your way with thorns, and make a wall, that she shall not find her paths." "Therefore, behold, I will hedge up (hineni sach) your way with thorns (basirim)." What are sirim? We should know that sirim, sikim, and tzeninim are all types of thorns. First, what does sach mean? It was customary to build a fence out of sikim (thorns), as in "thorns in your eyes and pricks in your sides" (lesikim be'einekhem). Thus it is called sach, because the hedge was made of thorns. Sikim, as noted, are thorns. The verse says: Know that the road will be paved with thorns. Do you think you have a path to walk on? You will not be able to traverse it. "Behold, I will hedge up your way with thorns, and make a wall." Furthermore, I will erect a wall, so that "she shall not find her paths" - when she looks for a path to take, she will not find it. What does this mean? According to Radak's explanation, you will not be able to reach those lovers - Assyria and Egypt - because there will be hedges and thorns preventing you from approaching them or receiving their aid. According to other commentators, it refers to the constellations upon which you rely: I will block them from bestowing any favor upon you.
The Malbim explains that this verse describes the efforts the Holy One, Blessed be He, will make to bring Kenneset Yisrael back to Him. It is comparable to the efforts of a husband trying to bring back an unfaithful wife: he takes specific measures to return her to him. So too, as it were, the Holy One, Blessed be He, will act to bring Kenneset Yisrael back to Him. Returning to the parable: an unfaithful wife goes to her lovers. How does the husband prevent his wife from going to her lovers? If there is a major road - a central highway through which she walks - he scatters thorns so she cannot pass, preventing her from leaving the house and going to those adulterers. Yet she might still climb over the fence where it is broken down; regarding this, He says: "And I will make a wall." Still, there may be narrow trails that are not main roads; regarding these, He says He will destroy those paths: "She shall not find her paths." Thereby, he separates her from those who consort with her. What is the nimshal? The Malbim explains: If we speak of the stars and constellations in which they believed, the Holy One, Blessed be He, will alter the celestial order so they cannot exert influence upon her, placing a barrier around so she derives no success, bounty, or good from them. As is recounted, at the time of the destruction they were unconcerned by ominous prophecies, saying: "We know the names of the angels who channel influence from above, and we will adjure them not to bring evil upon us." What did Hashem do? He changed their names, as in "He has distorted my paths" (gederotai ivah). The Holy One, Blessed be He, altered their names; thus, when someone adjured a particular angel not to send hail, the name had changed - the intended recipient was unreachable. All those they attempted to turn to were unreachable, for the ways had changed, and "He has distorted my paths" (netivotai ivah); consequently, they could no longer manipulate the celestial forces. The same occurred in the generation of the Flood: they were confident of their mastery over heavenly angels through incantations and adjurations of angels and demons, believing they could alter nature and the celestial order, but the Holy One, Blessed be He, changed their names.
The Malbim explains that this is also what is happening here: the Holy One, Blessed be He, will build a wall against the celestial order and its systems so they do not channel good to them, and He will ruin all their practices, amulets, and talismans - for they had ways through astrology to draw down influence. Additionally, the Malbim notes, He will instill enmity between her and the neighbors upon whom she relied. This aligns with Radak: she relied on Assyria and Egypt and made treaties with them, but He will hedge her in so she cannot reach them. The Malbim follows a principle he has outlined in several other places: there is a fundamental difference between a derech (way/road) and netivot (paths). A derech is a major, permanent public highway - in modern terms, an expressway. Netivot are narrow paths trodden occasionally by individuals. A derech is paved and public; a nativ is a trail. Notice that a derech cannot be erased, because the public constantly walks on it; you cannot completely obliterate it. Therefore, regarding a derech, it does not say that she will not find it; it is impossible not to find a main road. What can be done? Place thorns in it: "Behold, I will hedge up your way with thorns." By contrast, regarding netivot, since a nativ is an individual's trail, it can easily become obscured and unrecognized. Therefore: "She shall not find her paths." I will erase those trails entirely so they leave no trace, making it impossible to reach her lovers through them - neither the nations she trusts in, nor the celestial powers of the stars and constellations to draw bounty from them. The Malbim notes a parallel in Eichah: "He has walled up my ways (derachai) with hewn stone" - a road cannot be erased, so He blocked it with hewn stones in the middle of the way; whereas "He has distorted my paths (netivotai ivah)" - a trail can be obliterated, leaving you wandering in a crooked path. But a derech cannot be twisted out of existence; it is a public thoroughfare and remains recognizable in all cases.
We must emphasize: although the parable is of an adulterous wife, it is not an exact parallel to human halachah. Under halachah, once a married woman commits adultery willfully, even if her husband is an ordinary Yisrael and not a Kohen, she becomes forbidden to him. Therefore, the premise here of a husband hedging her paths with thorns to bring her back to him presents an apparent halachic difficulty, for in human law this would be forbidden. However, we are not dealing here with the human halachic plane, for human halachic categories do not apply to the bond between us and the Holy One, Blessed be He. The relationship between Klal Yisrael and Hashem is entirely unique. We see an example of this: the Jewish people themselves argued that once Hashem exiled us, what claim did He still have upon us? They argued that since Hashem cast us out and we willingly turned to others, resulting in divorce, it should be impossible to resume our relationship with Hashem. Yet with the Holy One, Blessed be He, this is not so. Why? Several explanations are offered. First, because idolatry and reliance on Egypt have no real substance. When a woman commits adultery, her husband and her paramour are both real entities; she has genuinely betrayed her husband with another man. But with the Holy One, Blessed be He, with whom did she betray Him? Idols? Is there any substance to them? It is all illusion! Do idols have any independent power to influence anything? Therefore, one cannot say she betrayed Hashem with someone else, for there is no "someone else." All of this is spoken only by way of parable. Do not think that if this were between human beings, a husband would be permitted to block her adultery and take her back; once she commits adultery willingly, she is divorced and forbidden. But regarding the Holy One, Blessed be He, this does not apply, for there is no power besides Him, Blessed be He, and everything else is mere delusion. What Hashem does is hedge our paths so that we realize we are living in an illusion, and recognize that we are being drawn after something that possesses no reality whatsoever.
"And she shall pursue her lovers, but she shall not overtake them; and she shall seek them, but shall not find them; then shall she say: I will go and return to my first husband, for it was better with me then than now." "And she shall pursue her lovers, but she shall not overtake them" - Radak continues his line of interpretation: this refers to Assyria and Egypt, whom they turned to and relied upon; she will pursue their help, but will not overtake them. It will suddenly become clear to her that she invested in the wrong place; there is no faith in the nations, and Egypt will not come to her aid. And if we explain this as referring to the constellations or the false prophets dealing in astrology, they too will be of no avail. No matter how much she burns incense to the queen of heaven or offers sacrifices to draw their influence apart from the Holy One, Blessed be He, she will not attain them; she will gain nothing. "Then shall she say: I will go and return to my first husband." There is a difficulty here: let us explain the difficulty, and then see how Radak resolves it and how the Malbim resolves it. The verse says: "Then shall she say: I will go and return to my first husband, for it was better with me then than now." What is this describing? Essentially, teshuvah! She realizes it was better for her with Hashem, saying, "I will go and return to my first husband, for it was better with me then than now." If so, the following verses are incomprehensible: "For she did not know that I gave her the corn, and the wine, and the oil, and multiplied unto her silver and gold, which they used for Baal. Therefore will I take back My corn in its time, and My wine in its season, and will snatch away My wool and My flax given to cover her nakedness. And now will I uncover her shame in the sight of her lovers, and none shall deliver her out of My hand. I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feasts, her new moons, and her Sabbaths, and all her appointed seasons." This is baffling! A moment ago you said she repented! You said she would say, "I will go and return to my first husband"! One might argue that she merely spoke but did not actually return - she said "I will go and return," but it does not say she actually returned; she reached a realization, but had not yet put it into practice. Radak explains that the verse is leaping forward in history. It is telling you: Do you know what will happen in the end? Only after she is exiled and undergoes all the punishments, then the penny will drop. Then she will say: "How foolish I was; I will go and return to my first husband. Look what came of relying on Egypt or Baal and idolatry - I gained nothing from it." Thus, this speaks of the distant future: only after all the blows she receives in exile will she understand. Now, she does not understand. Therefore, the subsequent verses make sense: the Holy One, Blessed be He, says He will punish her, taking back His grain in its season and ending all her rejoicing, because at present she has not reached this realization. Scripture is merely telling you that after all the blows, she will eventually reach this conclusion. Radak resolves the difficulty by citing the Torah verse: "In your distress, when all these things have come upon you in the end of days, you will return to Hashem your God." When does this occur? Only at the end of days. It is like someone saying to another: "Go, go ahead, turn to him instead of coming to me; you will come crawling back to me on all fours like a good boy." Does that mean he has returned already? No, it means: after you suffer blows, you will return. That is what the prophet is saying here: in the end they will return, but for now, it does not deter them from straying after Egypt and idolatry.
The Malbim takes a different approach, and we will now explain the verse according to his commentary. The Malbim explains: after Hashem hedged her way with thorns, walled her in, and caused her not to find her paths - all to prevent the straying woman from going after those who consort with her - this will cause even her lovers to distance themselves from her. Whereas initially she pursued them and they were drawn to her, now they will flee from her. And then: "She shall pursue (veridpah) her lovers." She will pursue them. The Malbim notes that there is a light grammatical form (binyan kal) and an intensive form (binyan kaved), as we have discussed before. There is radaf (or yirdof), and there is yiradef (in the intensive form). Why is it called a heavy form? Because it requires greater vocal effort. There is rotze'ach (one who kills) and meratze'ach (a murderer who strikes repeatedly with force). A heavy form comes with a dagesh. Whenever an intensive form appears, the commentators explain that it denotes persistence and intense effort. Retzach can refer to an act done quietly; meratze'ach indicates great force and persistence in the act. So too here: radfah is ordinary pursuit, but ridpah denotes pursuit with full vigor over time. Ibn Ezra does not accept this general rule, but this is the accepted principle among the commentators. Ibn Ezra brings proofs from other verses, but this is our established rule. So here the prophet says: look how these lovers, with whom she previously had good relations, suddenly want nothing to do with her: "She shall pursue (veridpah) her lovers, but she shall not overtake them." She will be unable to reach them; they will flee from her, until eventually they disappear from her sight entirely: "And she shall seek them, but shall not find them." She will search for them and not find them at all. The nimshal is that regarding the success she derived from nature, the celestial order, and the constellations, she will not even know where to turn to seek them; she will be unable to derive aid from those spiritual powers upon which she relied. And as for the assistance and alliances she counted on from neighboring nations, she will search for them, seek them, and they will not help her. "Then shall she say: I will go and return to my first husband, for it was better with me then than now." Pay close attention: we asked earlier, how can she repent and then immediately face punishment? Radak explained that she has not yet repented; the verse refers to what will happen at the end of the exile. The Malbim, however, says no: the verse is describing what happens right now. But notice how chilling it is. The Malbim explains that if you examine the language of the verse, you will see that her repentance was mere lip service (min hapeh velachutz). We have explained previously the phrase min hapeh velachutz: one repents only with the mouth (min hapeh) because he is under pressure (lachutz). Do you understand? He has no choice; there is a gun to his head, so he says... The Holy One, Blessed be He, says: Is this the repentance I ask of you? Is this the recognition of sin I desire? You do not truly feel that you have acted corruptly; you are doing this only because you have no other choice! The Malbim explains: Examine the text - this was the stumbling block of their repentance. Therefore, the Holy One, Blessed be He, says: This is not an acceptable repentance, and therefore I will add further distress to their troubles. Observe how her repentance was born solely of pressure and duress; she did not genuinely acknowledge her sin. She is like a promiscuous woman who, after her lovers abandon her, pursues them and cannot find them; having no choice, since she needs someone to support her, she returns home. And what does she tell her husband? "I have repented!" Why, what happened? "Well, to tell you the truth, I looked for so-and-so and such-and-such, but their doors were shut, so I came back home." Is that repentance? Look at the progression: "She shall pursue her lovers, but she shall not overtake them; and she shall seek them, but shall not find them" - and only then does she say, having no alternative: "I will go and return to my first husband, for it was better with me then than now." Notice how she complains about having to return to her first husband! Not only that, she implies: "In truth, it was better for me in the house of the lovers than in my husband's house; but now that they will not open the door, it was better with me then than now." Do you hear this? Since there is no one else to take me in, my husband's house is the lesser of two evils. So now it is better "then than now" - that is, compared to my current state where the lovers have deserted me, my husband's house is preferable; but had the lovers not abandoned me, it would certainly be better "now than then" - I would certainly have preferred them over returning to my husband! The Malbim explains: Her repentance is so flawed that it cannot possibly be accepted. And why does she think this way? Because she believes all the good she ever enjoyed came from the lovers, not from her husband. She reasons: "If they had opened the door, I would have received all prosperity from them; now that they will not open the door, I return to my husband." She does not recognize that all the bounty she ever had came from her husband! That is what the next verse says: "For she did not know that I gave her the corn, and the wine, and the oil." She did not know that everything she had, even while in the house of the lovers, was given to her by Me! She thought they gave it to her. Therefore she says: "If they had opened the door, I would have stayed with them; but now that they shut me out, I return to my husband." Her repentance is rooted in error and a total failure to recognize the truth. Therefore, this repentance cannot be accepted, and therefore the punishments that follow must come.