Sefer Hoshea, chapter 4: "Hear the word of Hashem, children of Israel, for Hashem has a grievance with the inhabitants of the land, for there is no truth, nor lovingkindness, nor knowledge of God in the land. Swearing falsely, and lying, and murdering, and stealing, and committing adultery - they broke through all boundaries, and bloodshed touches bloodshed." The Radak explains that the prophet now returns to words of rebuke for that generation.
"Hear the word of Hashem, children of Israel, for Hashem has a grievance with the inhabitants of the land." "Hashem has a grievance" - the Holy One, blessed be He, says: I have a legal claim against them. For I gave them the land on condition, and the condition was that they execute righteousness and justice. If they do so, then the eyes of Hashem are upon it from the beginning of the year to the end of the year. But come and see that they act in direct opposition to those conditions. There has been a breach of contract here.
See: Hashem has a grievance with the inhabitants of the land because there is no truth, no kindness, and no knowledge of God in the land; there is swearing falsely, deceit, murder, theft, and adultery. All of this is the antithesis of the conditions I originally established with them, which required justice and righteousness. Consequently, I concealed My countenance from them, and then "the land mourns, and all who dwell in it languish," as we will see further on. What brought this about? The breach of conditions began with them.
I promised that My eyes would watch over them for good, but only on condition that they practice righteousness and justice. Yet since they breached the conditions first and failed to practice righteousness and justice, verse 3 follows: "Therefore the land shall mourn, and all who dwell in it shall languish." This came as a direct consequence of their prior deeds, for they committed severe offenses - swearing falsely, lying, murdering, and stealing. They broke the covenant, so I, too, withdrew My covenant with them.
Yirmiyahu similarly said, "If there is one who executes justice, who seeks truth, and I will pardon her." That is, had there been decent individuals, the Holy One, blessed be He, would have been willing to forgive, yet the reality was grim. But the Radak asks: Did we not find other prophecies that indicate otherwise? King David said, "They have given the dead bodies of Your servants as food to the fowl of the heavens, the flesh of Your pious ones to the beasts of the earth." This shows there were pious individuals, there were servants of Hashem! How then can it be said that the entire land consisted of wicked people, and that had there been even one person executing justice and righteousness Hashem would pardon her, whereas Hashem concealed His face because of their wickedness? Clearly, there were upright people!
The Radak answers that there were indeed righteous people among them, but they were few. Moreover, not only were they few, but they also went into hiding out of fear of the wicked majority. Consequently, in practical terms, there was now no truth, no kindness, and no knowledge of God in the land. "No truth" - there is no one who acts with integrity, nor anyone who speaks the truth. "No kindness" - and all the more so is there no kindness. Truth means giving you what you are owed; kindness means giving beyond what is owed, performing an act of benevolence. If even truth is lacking, all the more so is there no one doing kindness.
"Nor knowledge of God in the land." What is this "knowledge of God in the land"? The Radak cites three possibilities. First, there is no knowledge of God to perform justice and righteousness. We find that practicing justice and righteousness is itself called knowledge of Hashem. Where do we see this? The verse states: "Did not your father eat and drink and execute justice and righteousness? Then it was well with him. He judged the cause of the poor and needy; then it was well. Is this not knowledge of Me?" What do we see knowledge of Hashem means? Showing favor to the poor, performing justice and righteousness. Therefore, after stating there is no truth and no kindness - meaning no justice and righteousness - there is consequently no knowledge of God in the land.
The Radak's second explanation is that "knowledge of God" refers to contemplation of His Godliness, blessed be He: investigating the divine order, meditating on Hashem's reality - in other words, thinking about the Holy One, blessed be He. In simple terms, no one gives thought to the Holy One, blessed be He. Targum Yonatan translates "no knowledge of God" as "there is none who walks in My fear" (leit dimehalchin bedichlati). Thus, knowledge of God signifies the fear of God.
The Malbim explains: "Hear the word of Hashem, children of Israel, for Hashem has a grievance with the inhabitants of the land." Here the Malbim takes an entirely different approach from the other commentators: the words spoken here are actually spoken by the people. This is not divine speech, but the voice and claim of the people. What is their claim? The Malbim explains that the people argue against the prophets: You come to contend with us, you come to rebuke us, telling us we are doing evil, forbidden things. But who holds a grievance against us? The Holy One, blessed be He. If the Holy One, blessed be He, has a grievance with us, why are you interfering? Let the Holy One, blessed be He, settle His own issues with us. "For Hashem has a grievance with the inhabitants of the land" - the grievance belongs to the Holy One, blessed be He; it is Hashem's lawsuit. They sinned against Him, so He has cause to contend with them. If so, what business does any mortal man have fighting the Creator's battle? Let the Creator be; Hashem will fight His own battle and pour out His wrath against those who rebel against Him. Therefore, do not come to rebuke the people! Leave it to the Holy One, blessed be He, and He will do as He sees fit.
Notice that they actually admit there are serious flaws in the nation's conduct. There is corruption, and they themselves enumerate the failings. Yet they insist: Do not interfere! You, the prophet, do not act as the spokesman for the Holy One, blessed be He. If Hashem wants to wage His grievance, let Him wage it; do not fight the Creator's battle for Him. What was their underlying motive? "You, the prophet, are bothering us, so step aside. Your words sting us, they disturb us, so be quiet." But wait, what if Hashem desires this? "No, if Hashem wants, let Him act directly." In simple terms, they wanted to sideline the prophet so his words of rebuke would no longer disturb them.
And so they say: Look, "Hashem has a grievance with the inhabitants of the land" - meaning Hashem has justified grounds to contend with us, we admit it. "For there is no truth, nor kindness, nor knowledge of God in the land." What does this mean? The Malbim explains that the mitzvos are divided into interpersonal commandments (bein adam lechavero) and commandments between man and God (bein adam laMakom). Interpersonal conduct centers on kindness and truth; that is the core of relations between man and his fellow. And that is missing from the land. But a mere absence of kindness or failing to administer truthful justice would only denote a passive lack of virtue, not necessarily active evil. Yet he shows that not only is the positive absent, there is outright active wrongdoing: "Swearing falsely, and lying, and murdering, and stealing, and committing adultery." It is not merely that kindness is absent, or that they fail to do good; rather, they perform the very opposite.
"Swearing falsely and lying" - they take oaths in Hashem's Name, for alah denotes an oath, as in "if a person hears the voice of an oath (alah)." "Lying" (kachash) means they deny the reality of Hashem, blessed be He. This is the opposite of the knowledge of God. Thus, "no knowledge of God in the land" does not merely mean an absence of comprehension, as though they simply failed to attain spiritual perception; rather, they do the very opposite: swearing falsely and actively denying God's existence. "And murdering, stealing, and committing adultery" is the exact opposite of truth and kindness. Not only do they fail to practice truth and kindness, but they actively murder, steal, and commit adultery.
Corresponding to the first five of the Ten Commandments, which are largely duties between man and God - "I am Hashem," "You shall have no other gods," and so on - the prophet mentions "swearing falsely and lying." Denying "I am Hashem your God Who took you out of the land of Egypt" is the sin of denial (kachash), rejecting the reality of Hashem. Alah corresponds to "You shall not take the Name of Hashem your God in vain," swearing falsely by His Name, as alah means an oath. Our Sages teach regarding "And Moshe agreed (vayo'el) to dwell with the man" that he swore to him. Exactly what he swore was discussed elsewhere and need not be entered into now, but in any case, alah signifies an oath, the violation of "You shall not take." And kachash - denying Hashem's reality - stands against "I am Hashem" and "You shall have no other gods before Me." They also deny the Shabbat, for the Shabbat was established to instill in us faith in Hashem's creation and ongoing sustaining of the world.
"Murdering, stealing, and committing adultery" correspond to the second tablet, the commandments between man and his fellow man. In all these, "they broke through all boundaries" (partzu) - meaning these transgressions proliferated wildly, to the point that "bloodshed touches bloodshed." There was so much bloodshed that the blood of one corpse flowed and mingled with that of another; the dead were so numerous that streams of blood converged. Thus the people acknowledge, as the Malbim explains: Hashem indeed has a grievance against us. It is true, our deeds are terrible. But leave it to the Holy One, blessed be He! Leave it to Hashem; if He chooses to contend with us, let Him do so. You, the prophet, do not interfere; stay out of this matter entirely!
Rav Saadia Gaon explains that alah is not derived from swearing a common oath, but refers to entering the curses of the covenant (alot haberit). That is, Israel entered into the imprecations of the covenant, the solemn oath at Mount Sinai. He is not referring to people simply swearing falsely in daily life, according to Rav Saadia Gaon. It is written, "Cursed is the man who makes a carved or molten image," yet they make idols and molten images! Furthermore, they deny the God Whom they accepted as their deity, breaking through the safeguards and fences of the Torah. Not only that, but as Targum Yonatan translates, partzu also connotes licentiousness (peritzut): they cohabited with their neighbors' wives and fathered children by them, bursting all moral bounds. And "bloodshed touches bloodshed" - as noted, the blood of the slain touched one another.
"Therefore the land shall mourn, and all who dwell in it shall languish, with the beasts of the field and the fowl of the heavens, and even the fish of the sea shall be gathered up. Yet let no man contend, and let no man rebuke, for your people are like those who quarrel with the kohen." "Therefore the land shall mourn" - this continues the argument of the people, according to the Malbim's explanation. The people argue: Hoshea, do not rebuke us! Are terrible sins being committed by the nation? Yes, and therefore Hashem will fight His own battle, and the land will mourn. The Holy One, blessed be He, will exact retribution from the sinners, and Hashem will cause the land to mourn and every dweller in it to languish (umlal). Umlal means all inhabitants of the land will be cut off. In Hallel we say, "In the Name of Hashem, for I will cut them off (amilam)" - amilam means destruction, just as berit milah involves cutting away the foreskin. Thus, "the land shall mourn, and all who dwell in it shall languish" means every inhabitant of the land will be cut off, extending even to the beasts of the field, the animals that cannot speak, as well as the birds of the sky and the fish of the sea, which will all perish. Hashem will wage His grievance and cut off all life; leave it to the Master of the Universe! But let no mortal man contend, and let no man rebuke the people. All this is the people's message to the prophet: Leave us alone; let Hashem rebuke us.
In effect, this demonstrates that they preferred the land to be laid waste rather than endure the rebuke of the prophets. One can see how intolerable it was for them to hear prophetic chastisement. Incidentally, this also reveals that they retained an inner sense of truth. When a person lacks any regard for truth, someone can repeatedly tell him how flawed he is, and he just shrugs: "Fine, right, okay." It does not bother him; it does not pierce his heart. But when a person inherently recognizes truth, he knows deep down that the critique is valid, and that is precisely what torments him. The rebuke rattled them. In our times, by contrast, someone might develop a thick skin; the prophet would speak, and the person would think, "Can he scream into everyone's ear personally? He's standing in a public square talking. Fine, I just won't go there, I won't listen." Why let it bother you? Yet they had enough integrity that when a prophecy was delivered and it was harsh, it genuinely disturbed them. What then did they prefer? Not to hear it at all. The very hearing created internal agony: How can you live in direct defiance of how you ought to live? Thus they were willing to make absurd claims: "Do not rebuke us! Let the Holy One, blessed be He, rebuke us, let Him wipe out the land, but let Him do it!" Anything to rid themselves of the thorn of the prophet constantly reminding them of their wrongdoing.
"For your people are like those who quarrel with the kohen." The prophet now addresses the people of Israel: Not only do they refuse to hear rebuke, but they pick a quarrel with the kohen! As the verse says, "For the lips of the kohen should safeguard knowledge, and they should seek Torah from his mouth, for he is an angel of Hashem of Hosts." The kohen is supposed to guide and rebuke the people; the kohanim were the keepers of the Torah. Yet look: not only do they refuse to heed prophecy and rebuke, but they go and pick fights with the kohen who comes to teach them knowledge, arguing with him and turning around to rebuke him!
In his commentary on word meanings, the Malbim explains that the calamity intensifies progressively. As the Malbim has noted several times, when describing evil, the pattern is to move from bad, to worse, to worst of all, always proceeding from the lesser to the more severe. So too here: first "the land shall mourn," then "all who dwell in it shall languish," and worse still, nothing will remain, including the beasts, the birds, and even the fish. Hashem may do all of this, as long as you prophets do not come to chasten us! Note the two expressions used here: "Yet let no man contend (al yariv), and let no man rebuke (ve'al yochach)." What is the difference between contention (riv) and rebuke (tochachah)? The Malbim explains that contending involves force and aggression, picking a fight, whereas rebuke appeals to rational proof. Tochachah shares a root with debate and demonstration (vikuach, hochatot) - offering intellectual arguments for one's position. Contention is aggressive; rebuke is gentle and reasoned. Thus they said: We do not want anyone contending with us forcefully, nor do we want anyone rebuking us gently. We reject both.
And "man" (ish), the Malbim explains, stands in contrast to Hashem. "Hashem has a grievance" - let Him contend, but let no man contend! That is, the grievance belongs exclusively to Hashem, not to any man. "Yet let no man contend, and let no man rebuke, for your people are like those who quarrel with the kohen." Rashi explains that the prophet is addressing the people here. The Malbim's interpretation is unique, since other commentators understand this entire passage as the prophet's own rebuke: Hashem has a grievance with the inhabitants of the land, for there is no truth, no kindness, and no knowledge of God. According to the other commentators, these are the prophet's words. Only the Malbim interprets this as the people's own voice, cataloging the land's troubles while insisting that the prophet refrain from rebuking them. According to Rashi, then, the prophet is rebuking them for warning the true prophets not to contend with them or rebuke them, just as Amatzyah, the priest of Beit-El, warned: "Do not prophesy against Israel, and do not preach against the house of Yitzchak." This occurred during the reign of Yaravam the son of Yoash, when Hoshea prophesied. Here is another example of how the people despised the words of prophecy.
"For your people are like those who quarrel with the kohen" - Rashi quotes the Targum: "They quarrel with their teachers." They pick fights with those who instruct them, with the kohanim charged with "They shall teach Your laws to Yaakov." They confront them solely to avoid hearing their words. As the Radak notes, this is symptomatic of a generation that judges its judges, turning around to rebuke and criticize those appointed to guide them. Some explain "like those who quarrel with the kohen" to mean: "You, the kohen, come to rebuke us?" The people retort, "You are worse than we are!" You come to label us corrupt? You commit far worse deeds than we do! They attack the kohen to rebuke him instead. He also cites another explanation: some interpret "like those who quarrel with the kohen" as an allusion to the assembly of Korach, who contested and challenged the kehunah itself.
"Therefore you shall stumble by day, and the prophet also shall stumble with you by night, and I will destroy your mother." According to the Malbim's interpretation, the people are rebuking the kohen: You come to rebuke us? You yourself have stumbled into corrupt ways by day, under the open sun, committing sins in public! "And the prophet also shall stumble with you" - not only that, but the very prophet who reproves us also stumbles with you by night. What does this imply? The prophet may not have sinned openly by day, but surely he too is a hypocrite, and who knows what transgressions he commits in secret at night! Notice: they could find open fault with the kohen, but what could they say against the prophet, who is holy of holies, over whom the yetzer hara has no mastery? Therefore, against the prophet, they claim: You stumbled by night; the prophet surely sins under cover of darkness. And what is the conclusion? "I will destroy your mother (vedamiti immecha)." There are several explanations of damiti. The Malbim explains that "your mother" refers to the congregation, Knesset Yisrael. Earlier the prophet said, "Contend with your mother, contend" - you, the children (the kohen and prophet), contend with the mother, Knesset Yisrael, the collective Jewish people, and rebuke the public. Here, the people retort: I, your mother, Knesset Yisrael, what do you want from me? I have merely resembled you (damiti, from dimayon, resemblance). You, the kohen, are a public transgressor by day, and the prophet is surely a secret sinner by night. If so, I am merely mimicking your deeds and abominations! Why do you act self-righteous, coming to rebuke me? I am just like you; as you perform corrupt deeds, so do we, so you have no right to rebuke us!
Notice that this has been the foolish way of covenant-breakers in every generation. Even today, one of the favorite pastimes in popular media is to find a rogue individual or criminal from the observant community, showcase him, and put him on public display in the pillory. What is the unspoken message? "You see? Everyone is the same; everyone is corrupt. It is not just us. Nobody is truly righteous." When someone comes along speaking of morality, fear of Heaven, integrity, and family sanctity, they point to an isolated scandal and claim everyone is alike. This is precisely what that generation did: they quarreled with the kohen and argued with the prophet, insisting, "Whatever we do, you do as well!" Do you have proof? "No, but surely you do it behind closed doors!" For instance, someone once argued regarding Torah institutions, refusing to believe that drugs are nonexistent there. The person insisted that it was impossible - there is no place without drugs, and surely yeshivot are simply covering it up. It was completely inconceivable to that person that a place without drugs, alcohol, or violence could exist. When told that students do not slash the tires of the rosh yeshivah or mashgiach, that boys do not raise hands against one another, it sounded like an impossible utopia. When someone is deeply mired in the mud, he simply cannot fathom that anyone else is clean. And if a single scandal surfaces, he breathes a sigh of relief: "See? The religious are just the same; they just hide it in secret!" "The prophet also shall stumble with you by night" - what can be said against the prophet? "He must be sinning secretly at night. Did anyone see it? Of course not, it was at night, but surely he is guilty!" Look at how far someone will go when seeking an excuse for wrongdoing, grasping at baseless fabrications just to say, "I have merely resembled you." I, the congregation, am only copying the corrupt ways of you, our rebukers - the prophet and the kohen - so what right do you have to demand anything of me?
This is one explanation, that of the Malbim. Others interpret "and I will destroy your mother (vedamiti immecha)" differently. Rashi explains that damiti is related to nidmu, being struck dumb and bewildered, standing speechless. Drawing on the Targum, he explains that these words are prophetic rebuke from the prophet to the people - not, as the Malbim suggested, the people talking back to the prophet. "Therefore you shall stumble by day, and the prophet also shall stumble with you by night" means: you stumble by day, and the false prophets stumble along with you by night. These are the words of the true prophet rebuking the people for their daytime stumbling and the false prophets' stumbling at night. "And I will shame your congregation" (ve'avahit kenishtachon) - "and I will silence your mother" means you will stand utterly stunned and speechless from the shame and disgrace of your corrupt deeds. The Radak similarly explains that this is part of the prophecy directed against Israel: you will stumble, and the false prophet who misleads you will stumble with you by night. Why does it specify "by night"? Because stumbling over a stumbling block is far more common in the dark; you stumble even in broad daylight, while the false prophet will stumble with you as one falling in the dark, which is even worse. The Radak explains vedamiti as an expression of destruction (cutting off), as in "all the people of Canaan are destroyed (nidmah)," "the king of Israel is destroyed (nidmah)," or in the haftarah of Tisha B'Av, "and it will be cut off there." We thus have three interpretations of damiti: struck dumb with shame, cut off in destruction, or resembling in conduct.
"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge; because you have rejected knowledge, I will also reject you from being a kohen to Me; and since you have forgotten the Torah of your God, I will also forget your children." "My people are destroyed (nidmu) for lack of knowledge" - the Radak explains that here, too, it connotes destruction: My people are cut off because of a lack of knowledge, for there was no one to instruct them or teach them the proper path. "Because you have rejected knowledge" - this is addressed to the kohen: you despised knowledge, and consequently failed to teach the people knowledge. Had you valued and loved knowledge, you would have imparted it to the nation, but since you personally rejected it, you certainly did not teach it to them. Therefore, "I will also reject you from being a kohen to Me." Since you fail to perform the duties incumbent upon a kohen, the Holy One, blessed be He, says: I will reject you from serving as a kohen before Me in My House, just as occurred with the sons of Eli, whom Hashem rejected from the priesthood for this very reason, having failed to fulfill their sacred role.
The Radak asks: How can it be said that "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge," as though no one was there to inform them? There were always true prophets in every era, and the true prophets taught knowledge. How can it be said that the people perished because no one taught them, when the true prophets rebuked them daily, rising early and sending them warnings? He explains that the kohanim were tasked with teaching the Torah, yet the kohanim themselves strayed from the upright path. We are speaking here of a time of great corruption, when even the kohanim of Hashem went astray. Consequently, the people had someone to lean on for justification. When the prophet came to rebuke them, the people pointed to the kohanim who had strayed. The kohanim represented spiritual authority; if they engaged in corrupt behavior, the people felt vindicated in following suit. And what of the true prophets? Countering them were false prophets who profoundly misled the people. As the Radak notes, the false prophets possessed great skill in mimicking the true prophets in speech and mannerisms; they would catch fragments of authentic prophecies and proclaim them, taking credit when they materialized, or grew their hair long to project an image of ascetic holiness. A pervasive doubt arose among the people as to who was the true prophet and who was the false prophet. Consequently, "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge." Despite the presence of true prophets, when the kohanim are corrupt and false prophets sow confusion, it is no surprise that divine knowledge failed to guide them, and they were destroyed for lack of knowledge.
"And since you have forgotten the Torah of your God." The Torah was entrusted to the kohanim, as stated: "For the lips of the kohen should safeguard knowledge, and they should seek Torah from his mouth," so that they would instruct the nation. Moshe Rabbeinu wrote this Torah and delivered it to the kohanim, the sons of Levi: "They shall teach Your laws to Yaakov." But you, the kohen, as noted, "I will reject you from being a kohen to Me," because "you have forgotten the Torah of your God." You forgot the Torah, abandoning your duty to teach it. The punishment for this is: "I will also forget your children." You will perish because I have rejected you from serving as a kohen to Me. You might ask: Will my sons succeed me? Hashem replies: "I will also forget your children" - the honor of the priesthood will not pass to them, and they too will either perish or be exiled. But how can forgetfulness be attributed to the Holy One, blessed be He, before Whose Throne of Glory there is no forgetfulness? The Radak explains that this is spoken figuratively, in human terms. When someone pays no regard to a matter, we say he forgot it, meaning he withdrew his attention from it. It is like the verses "Has God forgotten to be gracious?" and "He will not forget the covenant of your fathers," which use the metaphor of remembering and forgetting, though literal forgetfulness does not apply to Him.
The Malbim explains that "and since you have forgotten the Torah of your God" represents calamity compounded upon calamity. At first, while the Torah was still remembered, even though divine knowledge was lacking - "because you have rejected knowledge" - there was still study of Torah, even without true contemplation of Hashem. Regarding such a state our Sages stated: "Would that they had forsaken Me but kept My Torah," for the light within it would return them to the good. But once "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge" and "you have rejected knowledge" - showing no desire for the knowledge of Hashem - and on top of that "you have forgotten the Torah of your God," what remains to restore you? What can possibly rectify your state? The Malbim writes that after the forgetting of Hashem and the forgetting of His Torah, Hashem declares there is no longer any hope: "I will also forget your children." There is no longer any prospect that a righteous branch might emerge from your descendants, for how could righteous offspring arise after the Torah of your God has been forgotten?
According to the Malbim, "My people are destroyed (nidmu)" does not mean cut off as the Radak explained; rather, consistent with his earlier approach to "and I will destroy your mother (vedamiti)" as meaning resemblance, the Malbim explains nidmu from the root of similarity: My people have become similar to those devoid of knowledge. Just as the kohen lacks knowledge, so too My people have become devoid of knowledge, following in his likeness.
"As they increased, so they sinned against Me; I will change their glory into shame." "As they increased, so they sinned against Me" - the Radak explains that Aharon had the Torah of truth in his mouth, but now that his descendants have multiplied - "as they increased" - they sinned against Me and forgot My Torah. That is, the more I multiplied them, instead of showing gratitude, appreciating and thanking Hashem for bestowing goodness and multiplying their numbers, "as they increased, so they sinned against Me." In direct proportion to how much I multiplied them, so they rebelled against Me. Therefore, "I will change their glory into shame." I granted them honor and abundance, and in return they sinned against Hashem; therefore, I will exchange their glory for shame and disgrace.
He offers another explanation of "as they increased": I multiplied their wealth and possessions, as it is written, "Yeshurun grew fat and kicked," and "I multiplied silver and gold for them, which they used for the Baal." That is, instead of wealth prompting them to thank Hashem, the more their wealth grew, the more they sinned against Me. With every increase in wealth came an increase in sin. Therefore, "I will change their glory into shame" - their honor will be converted into disgrace.
The Malbim explains: What is "I will change their glory into shame"? The glory of the priesthood is that the Holy One, blessed be He, granted the kohen the privilege of eating from the Master's table (shulchan gavoha). What is offered as a sacrifice to Hashem is eaten by the kohen: the kohanim eat and the owners achieve atonement. Their eating is a level of sanctity that effects rectification and atonement. The kohen is like a minister dining at the royal table; when the king dines, the minister partakes of the royal feast, which is the highest privilege. But since they are unworthy of this glory - having been rejected from serving as kohanim - "I will change their glory into shame." I will exchange that honor for humiliation by distancing them from the Altar of Hashem, removing them from Hashem's table, so that they no longer receive the priestly gifts.
"They eat the sin-offering of My people, and set their heart on their iniquity." "They eat the sin-offering of My people" - when it comes to partaking of the sacrifices, as explained above, they do not eat from the offerings of Hashem with pure intentions of rectifying sin, where the kohanim eat and the owners are atoned for. Rather, what do they eat? They feed off the sins of My people! What a devastating indictment: you make your living from the sins of the people! If someone had not inadvertently desecrated Shabbat, where would your food come from? A person violated Shabbat by mistake, brought a sin-offering, and the kohen had a meal. Thus, "they eat the sin-offering of My people" - what does he eat? The sins of the people. He eagerly awaits the people's sins so that he has food to eat!
Even more appalling, he actively instigates his own "meals." In simple terms: if you do not sin, I have nothing to eat, so I will cause you to sin so that I have food. This is the meaning of "and set their heart on their iniquity (ve'el avonam yis'u nafsho)" - he entices the soul of the people toward sin, so that "his soul" (nafsho) refers to the collective people. The Malbim notes that this aligns precisely with the grammar of the verse. Under Rashi's interpretation, it should have read yis'u nafsham ("they set their souls") - that the kohanim long in their souls for Israel to commit sins so they will have sacrifices to eat. But the text uses the singular nafsho, implying the soul of the people. Therefore, the Malbim explains: to bring about iniquity, they draw the soul of the people toward sin, enticing the nation into transgression, so that nafsho truly refers to the people rather than the kohen.
"And it shall be: like people, like kohen; and I will punish him for his ways, and repay him for his deeds." "And it shall be: like people, like kohen" - Rashi explains: I will equate the people to the disgrace of the kohanim. Just as the kohanim will face disgrace - as Hashem declared: "I will also forget your children," "I will also reject you from being a kohen to Me," and "I will change their glory into shame" - so too the people will share the same disgrace as the kohanim. I will desecrate the people through idolaters and foreign nations who will conquer, capture, and exile them, as will be seen further on.
The Malbim explains that the people were committing sins willfully. How? Through the people becoming like the kohen. As explained earlier, nidmu denotes resemblance: whatever the kohanim do, the people emulate. They learn to imitate their behavior. The ways of the kohanim were corrupt, "and it shall be: like people, like kohen" - the people followed and copied the corrupt deeds of the kohanim. Therefore, "I will punish him for his ways" - I will punish the kohen for his evil ways and repay him measure for measure. In the Malbim's reading, "I will punish him" refers to the kohen, rather than to the people as Rashi and Targum Yonatan suggest: I will hold the kohen accountable for his ways and repay him for his deeds. For it was from you that the people became like the kohen; you, the kohen, corrupted your ways, and the people learned from your example. Justice therefore demands that you bear the blame and face retribution.
What is the distinction between "his ways" (derachav) and "his deeds" (ma'alalav)? The Malbim explains that "ways" refers to character traits and the inclinations of the soul, which are the root of actions. "Deeds" (ma'alalim) are the outward actions themselves. The inner character traits give rise to the actions. Hashem says: before examining the deeds, one must examine the ways. Two people can perform the exact same physical action; one may deserve severe punishment, the second a light punishment, and a third may even deserve reward. The outward deeds are identical, but the crucial question is from which internal "way" the action sprang - which faculties of the soul motivated it. Consider an extreme example: relations between a woman and her father, one of the gravest transgressions imaginable. Yet regarding Lot's daughters, Chazal teach that in the merit of the older daughter's initiative she was rewarded, and our Sages cite the principle, "Greater is a transgression performed for the sake of Heaven." Without delving into the pre-Sinai status of the deed, the principle remains: an act may appear appalling on the surface, but the underlying motivation - the "way" - is what matters. In that instance, they genuinely believed the entire world had been destroyed, like the generation of the Flood, and that they had to preserve humanity, just as the sons of Adam married their sisters to populate the world. Thus, while the outward act appeared deeply negative, the internal motivation was altruistic.
The same principle applies when actions are negative: there can be a severe evil and a lighter evil. Suppose two people commit the exact same offense: both eat non-kosher pork. One walked past a deli, the aroma hit his nostrils, and he was overcome by appetite; he is a transgressor out of craving (le'te'avon). Another individual is actually medically prohibited from eating meat due to high cholesterol, and suffers stomach pain whenever he eats it, yet he deliberately buys and eats pork purely out of spite (lehach'is), to provoke the Master of the Universe. Can anyone compare their punishments? One who sins out of brazen defiance incurs a devastating punishment, whereas one who succumbs to physical desire is punished, but not to the same degree. The deeds are identical, but the "ways" are entirely different. Before determining the punishment for the deeds, Hashem examines the ways that led to those deeds. Therefore Hashem says: "I will punish him for his ways" - first I evaluate the traits of the soul from which the act originated, and in accordance with that, "I will repay him for his deeds." His punishment will be meted out based on how the inner "ways" influenced and drove those actions.