“Blow the shofar in Giv'ah, a trumpet in Ramah; sound an alarm at Beit Aven: behind you, Binyamin!” This verse is somewhat complex, and we will examine two explanations for it. Rashi explains that blowing the shofar is meant to sound an alarm against the sword of the approaching army divisions. “Sound an alarm at Beit Aven: behind you” - meaning that the army division is coming after you, Binyamin. In other words, there is a warning here to Binyamin, because an army division is already behind you; an enemy army is in pursuit of you. As is known, in those days, in order to sound an alarm and provide deterrence, they would blow a shofar, thereby transmitting announcements to the people - whether of war, an assembly called by the king, and so forth. Just as we saw in the wilderness that there were trumpets, where each specific type of blast signaled a different announcement: at times the gathering of the camps, at times setting camp, and at times war. Here, then, they must sound a blast to notify Binyamin that the army is already present, the enemy is already here: “behind you, Binyamin.” And why “behind you, Binyamin”? Radak explains that this is because he had already conquered Ephraim. That is, according to this explanation, we are speaking after the stage in which the ten tribes had already been conquered. Who is next in line? “Behind you, Binyamin” - the enemy is already behind you, Binyamin, waiting to exile you as well. Rashi cites Targum Yonatan, who interprets these verses more along the lines of the Midrash. Targum Yonatan translates: O prophets, lift up your voices like a shofar; prophesy that murderous nations will come upon them because they crowned Shaul of Giv'ah. Do you hear? “Blow the shofar in Giv'ah” - that is, announce that nations will come to strike you down because you crowned Shaul, who was from Giv'ah. Cry out as with a trumpet; proclaim that kings will come upon them with their legions, because they did not accept the words of Shmuel of Ramah. What is “a trumpet in Ramah”? Announce with a trumpet in Ramah that they are destined to be punished because they did not accept the words of Shmuel. As everyone recalls, this matter of crowning Shaul was displeasing to Hashem and to Shmuel. Shmuel lamented, “They have rejected me,” and the Holy One, Blessed be He, told him: “It is not you they have rejected, but Me they have rejected.” Ultimately, he crowned Shaul for them, but the initial request for a king was improper. Why was it improper? We have already discussed this in that context, and there is no need to repeat it here, but it is clear that the request was inappropriate. And regarding this, as it were, He tells them: “Blow a shofar in Giv'ah” - because you appointed Shaul from Giv'ah as ruler; “a trumpet in Ramah” - because you did not listen to the words of Shmuel the Ramathite. It is on account of this that the enemies will advance against them: Because they did not accept the words of Shmuel of Ramah. Sound alarms against them, you warriors - yevavot is an expression of teru'ah, an alarm, as in “a day of blowing” being a day of weeping (yevava); “warriors” refers to the soldiers in battle - because they betrayed My word and turned away from My service, and did not serve before Me in the Temple situated in the land of the tribe of Binyamin. Now, seemingly, the Beit HaMikdash was in the land of Yehudah, but Chazal have already explained that a narrow strip of land extended from the territory of Binyamin into it, so that the site belonged both to Binyamin and to Yehudah. Thus, according to the explanation of Targum Yonatan, this entire verse speaks of the enemy that will advance against them and of the ancient sin of crowning a king contrary to Hashem's will.
The ten tribes ruled - Shomron ruled over the kingdom of Yehudah and Binyamin from the time Yoash defeated Amatzyahu king of Yehudah. In the days of Pekach ben Remalyahu, the Israelites fought the people of Yehudah and subjugated Yehudah beneath them; this took place during the reign of Achaz. The territory of Binyamin bordered the territory of the descendants of Yosef - that is, Ephraim and Menasheh. At that time, Binyamin was subject to the kingdom of Ephraim. Since Ephraim represented the ten tribes and was the ruler, Binyamin, being adjacent to them, was placed under their dominion. The prophet now commands the people of Binyamin to blow the shofar in Giv'ah, which belonged to Binyamin, sound the trumpet in Ramah, which likewise belonged to Binyamin, and sound an alarm in Beit Aven, which was also in Binyamin's tribal portion, as is written in Yehoshua regarding the territory of Binyamin: “And its goings out were at the wilderness of Beit Aven.” In all these places they are to blow and proclaim, saying: “Behind you, Binyamin!”
What does this mean? Do not follow the kingdom of Ephraim; do not adopt the conduct of the ten tribes, but rather: “Behind you, Binyamin!” That is, proclaim to all the people that they should follow the conduct of Binyamin, who is aligned with Yehudah, and not follow behind Ephraim. We find, then, that there is a call here to the tribe of Binyamin, who lived in proximity to Ephraim, and especially since they were subject to the rule of Ephraim: we say to them, do not be drawn after Ephraim; be drawn after Binyamin, for Binyamin is affiliated with Yehudah. And we saw that Binyamin did not go into exile until the second exile, when Yehudah was exiled.
The Malbim explains that there is a difference between tik'u (blow) and hari'u (sound an alarm), as well as between a shofar and a chatzotzerah (trumpet). “Blow a shofar... sound an alarm [with] a trumpet” - this is how it appears in the verse. What is the difference between them? The Malbim explains that the trumpet was more distinguished than the shofar. You see that they blew trumpets in the Beit HaMikdash. The trumpet possessed a higher status; it was more special and evidently more finely crafted. And the teru'ah (alarm), says the Malbim, is more rousing than a simple teki'ah (blast). A teru'ah is a sobbing sound, whereas a teki'ah is a straight, unbroken sound - toooo. A teru'ah, by contrast, is tu-tu-tu-tu-tu-tu; when there is a teru'ah, it is far more alarming and awakening. Therefore, he notes, pay attention to the fact that it is the way of the verses to progressively intensify. At first: “blow” (tik'u) - which is less intense than a teru'ah - with a “shofar,” which is less prestigious than a trumpet. Subsequently, in the next stage, the situation becomes graver, so with a “trumpet,” a superior instrument, they “sound an alarm” (hari'u), for a teru'ah is more stirring. Thus, the verse is structured in this manner, progressively intensifying in order to awaken Binyamin to follow the leadership of the tribe of Binyamin rather than the leadership of the tribe of Ephraim.
“Ephraim shall be desolate on the day of rebuke; among the tribes of Yisrael I have made known what is faithful.” First of all, here we find the idiom hoda'ti ne'emanah (“I have made known what is faithful”), which people often use without knowing its biblical origin (“I hereby faithfully notify you...”). Let us understand what is written here. Radak explains that there is a rebuke here to Ephraim: they are being told, “Ephraim shall become a desolation” - at the time when retribution comes, Ephraim will be punished. Now, he speaks of a “day of rebuke.” What is a day of rebuke? Radak says this refers to the time when they were in the wilderness. When the people of Yisrael were in the wilderness, that was termed a “day of rebuke,” for then Hashem spoke to them directly. And at that time, Hashem made known to them faithfully: “If you walk in My statutes... then I will give peace in the land... and the land shall yield its produce... and your threshing shall reach until the vintage... and a sword shall not pass through your land.” Since they did not obey Me, I will exile them. This is what He tells them here: Ephraim shall be desolate, for see, on the day of rebuke I made known what is faithful. On the day of rebuke back then, when I gave them the Torah, I made known to them faithfully that when they stray from the path, they will be exiled.
Radak notes that there is a Midrashic exposition: Rabbi Abbahu said in the name of Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Chanina, on the day the Holy One, Blessed be He, contends with them in judgment. What is “at the time of rebuke”? The time when the Holy One, Blessed be He, contends with them. And to what does this refer? You find that when the ten tribes were exiled, Yehudah and Binyamin were not exiled. The ten tribes argued, “This is unfair, a double standard!” The ten tribes would say: “Because they are members of His palace (palatin), He did not exile them.” What is the King's palace? The Beit HaMikdash. Because they were, so to speak, His neighbors, He showed them leniency. “They are no less wicked than us; why, then, are we specifically exiled while they are not? Is there favoritism in this matter, Heaven forbid?” But Heaven forbid that there is favoritism; rather, their measure of sin was not yet full. Once they sinned, they were exiled. It tells you: the reason they were not exiled was not favoritism regarding the King's palace, but because their measure was not yet full. For as we have explained several times, the kings of Yisrael were all wicked, whereas among the kings of Yehudah there were also righteous kings, and their spiritual deterioration was much slower than that of the ten tribes. So Rabbi Abbahu says: Then the ten tribes heard, and having no reply left, they said: “The Almighty is mighty, He is truth, for He shows no favoritism even to the members of His own household!” This fulfills what is stated: “Among the tribes of Yisrael I have made known what is faithful” - I made known that I am faithful. This is the meaning of the verse: “Ephraim shall be desolate on the day of rebuke; among the tribes of Yisrael I have made known what is faithful.” In other words, the tribes claimed: How is it that only we are exiled and not Yehudah and Binyamin? Hashem says: Later, when I also exile Yehudah and Binyamin, then “on the day of rebuke, among the tribes of Yisrael” - the ten tribes - “I have made known what is faithful”; I have demonstrated My faithfulness, showing that I have no double standard, and whoever strayed from the path will ultimately be exiled.
The Malbim explains that here lies the reason for what was said previously. According to the Malbim, we explained the preceding verse, “Behind you, Binyamin,” as an instruction to the people of Binyamin to distance themselves from Ephraim - not to follow the path of Ephraim, even though Ephraim and the ten tribes rule over Binyamin; not to follow their ways, but to separate from the kingdom of Ephraim. And now the prophet explains to them why: he tells them, “For Ephraim shall be desolate.” Do you want to be like them? I advise you to stay far away from them, for on the day of rebuke, Ephraim will indeed be exiled! Therefore, I warn you, Binyamin: follow behind Binyamin; follow the tribe of Binyamin, do not follow the tribe of Ephraim. I warn the men of Binyamin not to veer and be inclined after the ten tribes, because on the day of rebuke - the day designated for Hashem to rebuke the people of Ephraim, namely the day they will be exiled - you will witness their distress from the sidelines. On the other hand, if you join them, you will be exiled together with them. Therefore, I hereby faithfully inform you that it is not worthwhile for you to join Ephraim; rather, remain separate from them.
The Malbim, in his commentary on the words, explains that “on the day of rebuke” means like a day of distress and rebuke - that is, on the day they are exiled, which is called “Ephraim shall be desolate on the day of rebuke.” The day of their exile is called the day of rebuke. However, he offers another explanation in Be'ur HaMilot: one may connect “Blow the shofar in Giv'ah” with “on the day of rebuke.” What is a day of rebuke? A day of rebuke is a fast day. Radak previously explained in the name of his father that a fast day was a time when the community would gather together. What is the connection between fasting (tzom) and gathering? Tzom implies gathering, like tzomet hagiddim (the junction of sinews) - meaning a place where many sinews converge, or a road junction (tzomet), where multiple roads meet. This is the definition of tzom. So on a fast day, when the people gather, the elder would deliver words of rebuke and exhortation. It follows, then, that “on the day of rebuke” connects to what was stated earlier: Blow the shofar in Giv'ah, a trumpet in Ramah, sound an alarm in Beit Aven - when? On the day of rebuke! On the fast day, when you gather everyone, proclaim, and what shall you say to them? “Behind you, Binyamin!” Turn away from Ephraim; follow behind your own tribe, the tribe of Binyamin, and do not follow the tribe of Ephraim, for “Ephraim shall be desolate.” It emerges, then, that all this is to be proclaimed on the day of fasting and rebuke.
“The princes of Yehudah were like those who move a boundary; upon them I will pour out My wrath like water.” What is this referring to? We continue with the Malbim's explanation. The Malbim explains: Among the tribes of Yisrael, the princes over Yehudah were like boundary-movers; upon them I faithfully announce that I will pour out My wrath like water. The meaning is that among the tribes of Yisrael - that is, the ten tribes - there were now rulers over Yehudah. What is meant by “princes of Yehudah”? They had now become princes and rulers over Yehudah. Ephraim, mentioned earlier, representing the ten tribes, had become princes over Yehudah. As explained earlier according to the Malbim, we are speaking of the period when Binyamin and Yehudah were subject to the rule of the ten tribes. Concerning this, the prophet tells you: the reality is that the ten tribes rule over Yehudah, having become the princes of Yehudah. And they are likened to boundary-movers. What does it mean that they were “like boundary-movers”? The boundary of Yehudah belongs to the dynasty of the House of David. When you come here to rule, you encroach upon the boundary of the kingdom of the House of David. Hashem promised David to give a lamp to his sons for all time, that he would retain at least one tribe. When you come and rule over them, you are encroaching upon their territory. Therefore He says: Among these tribes of Yisrael, I have made known what is faithful. What is “faithful”? It is a firm and decreed verdict: says Hashem, “I will pour out My wrath like water.” I will pour upon them like water My evrah - evrah meaning My wrath, which will be poured out upon them. This is as written in Yeshayahu: “Within sixty-five years, Ephraim shall be broken from being a people” - meaning that Ephraim will be exiled.
The Malbim explains why it says here evrati (“My wrath”). There is a difference between ka'as (anger) and evrah (overflowing wrath). The Malbim says: evrah is when punishment strikes even someone who is not a sinner. It is when anger overflows its bounds, punishing sinners and non-sinners alike, as in “When a fire breaks out and catches thorns...” Why is this expressed by the term evrah? The Malbim explains: because the wrath passes (over) beyond its boundary. Its proper boundary is to affect only the sinners, but when the anger consumes both sinners and non-sinners, it is said to have transgressed its limit (avar et gevulo). This is always the meaning of the term evrah. The Malbim says that this is what happened here: “I will pour out My wrath (evrati) like water.” The primary sinners were the tribe of Ephraim, who held the monarchy and made the golden calves. The remaining nine tribes were drawn after them, following Yeravam ben Nevat; they were, as it were, seduced or coerced. Yet, the divine fury against the tribe of Ephraim will reach the level of evrah. What does this mean? It will punish everyone, including the other tribes. And it is “like water” - just as when you pour water in one place, it does not remain there but spreads out, so too My wrath, which is fundamentally directed at Ephraim who “shall be desolate,” will spread like water and consume the remaining nine tribes as well; that is, in total, all ten tribes will be exiled.
Radak, and similarly Rashi, explains that what is written here, “The princes of Yehudah were like those who move a boundary,” refers to Yehudah themselves, unlike the Malbim. What the Malbim did was resolve a textual difficulty, since the verses here appear disjointed: first speaking to Binyamin, then to Ephraim, and then returning to Yehudah, which is linked to Binyamin. The Malbim addresses this apparent lack of order in the text; according to the Malbim's explanation, the verses are arranged with remarkable elegance, as all of them are addressed to Binyamin alone: “Behind you, Binyamin” is a rebuke warning them not to be drawn after Ephraim; “For Ephraim shall be desolate” is the following verse giving the reason; and after that, “The princes of Yehudah were like boundary-movers, upon them I will pour out My wrath” continues the address to Binyamin and Yehudah, warning them that wrath will be poured upon their oppressors, so stay away from them. The entire prophecy has a single audience. According to the other commentators, however, there is a difficulty: why does it address Binyamin at one moment, Ephraim the next, and Yehudah after that, crossing back and forth when it is essentially a single line of thought? In any case, let us examine how Radak and Rashi explain it. They indeed explain that this is an address directed to the princes of Yehudah. The verse says to them: “The princes of Yehudah were like boundary-movers.” What does this mean? Radak says: like a person who encroaches on his neighbor's boundary, so too they hastened to adopt the wicked ways of their fellow kings in Yisrael. That is, the princes of Yehudah attached themselves to the kings of Ephraim, just as one moves a boundary to merge with a neighbor, and adopted their ways. Therefore, “upon them I will pour out My wrath.” And what did they do? “Like those who move a boundary.” Radak explains this literally: they stole fields, which is the literal meaning of moving a boundary (massigei gevul). However, Radak asks: if so, why does it say ke-massigei gevul, “like those who move a boundary”? If they actually moved boundaries, it should say massigei gevul! The prefix kaf is a comparative particle, which is appropriate only for something that is not literally so, but merely similar. Why say “like”? Rashi is troubled by this, and Radak resolves it: do not be surprised that it says ke-massigei gevul, for we find similar usage in Tanach, such as “Sell me as of this day” (ka-yom) - what is ka-yom? It means sell to me today! Thus, you see that Scripture can use the comparative kaf even where it appears superfluous. Here too, ke-massigei gevul means actual boundary-movers; the kaf does not change the literal sense. So there is a rebuke against the princes of Yehudah who moved the boundaries of their neighbors: someone owned a field adjacent to the princes of Yehudah, and the princes would encroach upon it. Just as a boundary-mover stealthily enters his neighbor's field and annexes ten cubits to his own field, they would seize the heritage of the weak and add it to the estates of the princes of Yehudah. This is similar to what is written in the prophecy of Yechezkel: “And My princes shall no more wrong My people, robbing them of their inheritance.” You learn from this that it was their practice to wrong them and take their ancestral estates.
Rabbeinu Sa'adyah Gaon, as cited by Radak, interprets the matter more metaphorically. It does not refer to boundary encroachment in the literal sense, but rather to encroaching upon the boundary of the mitzvot. That is, the mitzvot are like a boundary that Hashem set, not to be transgressed. When the princes of Yehudah transgress the word of Hashem, they are “like those who move a boundary” - you go and move the ancient landmark set by the ancestors, the boundary of the mitzvot, violating the curses of the covenant. If so, this is the meaning of boundary-movers: a rebuke to Yehudah. Notice that according to this, the emphasis is precisely on “like boundary-movers” (ke-massigei gevul). The comparative kaf is perfectly understood, because it is not literal land-grabbing, but rather, as Rav Sa'adyah Gaon explains, something analogous to moving a boundary, when one transgresses the commandments commanded by Hashem.
Radak's father explains that “like boundary-movers” means that the princes themselves did not literally move boundaries, but when people came before the princes to complain about neighbors who encroached upon their land, the judges ignored them. A person would bring a claim before the princes, who were also the judges, saying: “My neighbor moved my boundary,” and the judge would turn a blind eye. What happens when a judge turns a blind eye? It is as if you yourself moved the boundary! If you steal and act directly, you are a thief; if you enable another to steal and ignore it, you are an accomplice to the theft. This is what the verse means by “The princes of Yehudah were like boundary-movers”: they watched people move their neighbors' boundaries and rob their fields, yet failed to administer justice. Therefore, Scripture holds them culpable as though their own hands were involved in the crime.
Ibn Ezra explains: they did evil to those under their authority secretly, like one who moves his neighbor's boundary in secret. That is, if someone wishes to move a boundary, he does so at night when no one is watching; he moves the fence, and when you return a week later, you are uncertain whether the fence was here or further in, and you let it be. It is always done covertly so that it cannot be detected. In the same way, they acted maliciously in secret against the people under their authority, and that is the meaning of “the princes of Yehudah were like boundary-movers.”
“Ephraim is oppressed, crushed in judgment, because he willingly walked after vanity [or: a commandment].” Radak explains: “Ephraim is oppressed” - oppressed by the nations, who exploited him and crushed him with harsh decrees. According to Ibn Ezra, it refers to the kings of Ephraim, who oppressed and defrauded the people. And why did this befall him? “Because he walked after tzav.” What is tzav? Today one might say “he followed the dictates of fashion,” but Radak offers a different explanation: they followed the commandments (mitzvot) of Yeravam ben Nevat. That is the meaning of “he walked after tzav” - he walked in the path commanded by Yeravam. And what is “because he willingly walked” (ki ho'il halach)? Radak says: he walked of his own free will. That is, initially they were not inclined after Yeravam, and only after a time did they decide to align themselves with Yeravam's golden calves. It turns out that when they followed him, it was willingly. This is the expression ho'il halach - not merely that he went, but that he was willing, consenting to the corruption that Yeravam introduced among them. Tzav, Radak explains, means a commandment (mitzvah), like a line of rule (kav). Even though “the decree of Yeravam” is not explicitly named, Scripture frequently speaks with brevity. Thus, when they did not walk in the commandments of God, they walked after tzav - after which tzav? After the dictate of Yeravam, after the command of the wicked king who led them.
The Malbim explains: “Ephraim is oppressed.” Note that here too there is an address to the tribes of Binyamin and Yehudah; the entire passage is directed to them. The prophet tells them: Know that Ephraim is destined to be plundered. And observe that this will happen not merely through the general overflow of wrath (evrah) mentioned earlier - where wrath oversteps boundaries and sweeps away everything like water. Hashem says: I have an individual claim against Ephraim, for he caused the multitudes to sin. Therefore, he will be “crushed in judgment” (retzutz mishpat). He will be crushed through strict justice - not by an indiscriminate overflow of wrath, but through lawful judgment. With an overflow of wrath, you might say, “I was merely caught there, so I was punished along with everyone.” Not so here: Ephraim is addressed directly, as the one responsible for all that transpired with Yehudah and Binyamin. In terms of strict justice, he initiated the sin by following the command of Yeravam, who came from their tribe; the tribe of Ephraim initially embraced the calves, and they were the ones who caused the multitudes to sin. Consequently, the claim against them is direct: “Ephraim is oppressed, crushed in judgment” - not merely because they are part of the ten tribes, but through a direct indictment against them.
The Malbim explains: “Because he willingly walked (ho'il halach) after tzav.” The Malbim notes that ho'il can connote beginning, and the expression ho'il always conveys consent after prior hesitation or resistance. That is, if one desired something from the outset, the text would say “he desired” or “he did because he wanted,” or another expression of willing intent. But if at first he objected and subsequently consented, the term ho'il is used. And observe, says the Malbim, that it is not coincidental that the root is y-a-l (י-א-ל). Why? Because it belongs to those roots that convey a concept and its opposite, such as lesharesh (to uproot) and lehashrish (to take root), where one means pulling out by the roots and the other means growing roots; or killes, which can mean to mock and deride (le'ag ve-killes) or to praise and extol (romem ve-killes). There are several such contronymic roots. Here too, the Malbim explains, it is a root with opposite senses: al denotes prevention or refusal, whereas ho'il denotes agreement. Why, then, ho'il? The Malbim says: because it specifically denotes agreement after refusal. Whenever there was an initial objection followed by subsequent agreement, Scripture uses the expression ho'alti - as in “I consented in my goodness to do such and such,” meaning initially I was unwilling, but later I agreed. The Malbim cites several examples: for instance, “And Moshe consented (vayo'el Moshe) to dwell with the man” - initially Moshe did not wish to stay, but after Yitro urged him, Moshe consented; or “Consent (ho'el) and take two talents” - at first Na'aman offered a gift to Elisha the prophet, and the prophet refused, taking nothing, but later Geichazi pursued him and said, “Consent and take,” showing that ho'el follows initial refusal; similarly, “Behold now, I have consented (ho'alti) to speak unto the Lord” - it was unfitting for me to speak, yet I have ventured to do so; or “Moshe undertook (ho'il Moshe) to explain this Torah” - initially he did not explain it, thinking he might yet live longer, but when he realized his days were ending before entering the Land, he undertook to explain it. Thus, ho'il always indicates something one initially hesitated to do and later consented to do. The same occurred here with Ephraim: initially, Ephraim did not immediately follow Yeravam ben Nevat and his golden calves; only later did they consent to follow him. Therefore, “he willingly walked (ho'il halach) after tzav” - ho'il signifies consent that followed initial hesitation.
“Therefore I am like a moth to Ephraim, and like rot to the house of Yehudah.” “I am like a moth to Ephraim” - consuming and destroying Ephraim. Know that their destruction, both of Ephraim and of Yehudah, is not a natural decline; rather, it is through divine providence, meaning by the decree and will of Hashem. I destroy them like a moth and like rot, which consume and ruin everything. Now notice, says the Malbim, that He says He will be like a moth to Ephraim, but like rot to the house of Yehudah. What is the difference between a moth and rot? The Malbim explains: a moth is an external agent that arrives from the outside - a moth lands and consumes the garment. Rot, on the other hand, comes from within - the fruit itself decays from the inside. The Malbim explains that Hashem depicts their destruction accordingly. How will Ephraim be destroyed? Hashem's presence does not dwell among them, for Ephraim represents the ten tribes; thus Hashem, as it were, comes to destroy them through divine providence from without. Yehudah, by contrast, has Hashem dwelling in their midst, for Yehudah is the site of the Beit HaMikdash, the sanctuary of Hashem in the territory of Yehudah and Binyamin. There, Hashem does not come from the outside to destroy them; His presence is within. Therefore, He alludes to this with the term “rot” (rakav), which operates from within, for the Shechinah dwells within Yehudah; hence, from within it will be “like rot to the house of Yehudah.”
“When Ephraim saw his sickness and Yehudah his wound, Ephraim went to Assyria and sent to King Yarev; but he could not heal you, nor relieve you of your wound.” “When Ephraim saw his sickness” - they failed to comprehend that everything was through divine providence, preordained by Hashem because they had strayed from the path. Instead, they imagined this was some natural malady. When facing a natural sickness, people seek natural remedies to alleviate the illness and recover. As the Ramban writes regarding King Asa, that even in his illness he consulted physicians: what place do physicians have in the home of one who fears Hashem? The Ramban explains that for a person of true piety, turning to doctors only reflects a lack of complete trust in Hashem's healing; one who possesses the highest level of bitachon understands that if an illness has come, it is from Hashem, and the One Who sent the illness will send the cure. Such was the indictment against Ephraim: they failed to realize there was a divine message here, and therefore they did not seek remedies from the Master of the Universe through repentance. Instead, they sought remedies on the material plane. When troubles arise, what do they do? They send an appeal to the king of Assyria, hoping the king of Assyria will heal their malady, aid them, and rescue them. This refers to Menachem ben Gadi sending a thousand talents of silver to Pul, king of Assyria, to secure his hold on the kingdom; similarly, Achaz sent a bribe and tribute to the king of Assyria to assist him against Pekach ben Remalyahu and Retzin, king of Aram, who were waging war against him. Thus both Achaz and Menachem ben Gadi turned to outside help rather than realizing: turn to Hashem! You have an issue with the Master of the Universe; the Holy One, Blessed be He, delivered you into the hands of your enemies. Now the verse describes that Ephraim saw his sickness (cholyo) and Yehudah his wound (mazoro). Choli and mazor both describe illness (though, as we shall see, mazor can also denote healing). Why, then, does Scripture write cholyo regarding Ephraim and mazoro regarding Yehudah? The Malbim explains: there is a difference between them. A choli is an internal illness - bodily weakness, internal fever, and the like. A mazor, by contrast, is an affliction resulting from a wound inflicted externally; it comes from without. Why is a wound called mazor? Because medicaments were spread (zoru) upon the wound - as in “they have not been pressed, neither bound up” (lo zoru meaning medicinal powders were not sprinkled over it). The Malbim provides another explanation for why mazor relates to both illness and cure: it was used for treating external wounds, as in “and he wrung the fleece” (vayezer et hagizah), meaning to squeeze out. In external injuries, there is often swelling and pus, which is pressed and squeezed out (vayezer) to heal the wound. In any case, mazor refers to an external injury, such as an open wound or externally applied remedies, whereas choli refers to internal sickness and physical weakness. Notice, says the Malbim, that Scripture deliberately varies its language: regarding Ephraim, it is recorded that he sent to the king of Assyria to help him against internal rebels; hence for Ephraim it was an internal ailment, which is why it says, “When Ephraim saw his sickness” (cholyo). Yehudah, on the other hand, sent to Assyria to save him from foreign kings attacking him from the outside; hence it was an external injury, which is why it says, “and Yehudah his wound” (mazoro). Yehudah saw his external affliction and sent for assistance. Concerning this it says: “and sent to King Yarev” - that is, he sent emissaries to the king of Assyria to plead his cause (yariv rivo). Why “King Yarev”? The king who would champion my fight against Pekach and Retzin of Aram who rose against me - an external wound inflicted by outside enemies. Yet neither Yehudah, nor Binyamin, nor Ephraim succeeded in their efforts. Both, says the Malbim, failed to achieve their hope: corresponding to Ephraim going to Assyria to cure his internal sickness, Scripture states, “but he could not heal you”; and corresponding to Yehudah seeking relief for his external wound (mazoro), it says, “nor relieve you of your wound.” Look at Achaz: not only was there no relief, but Assyria distressed him and did not strengthen him. Achaz of Yehudah, who thought he would find a cure against the external enemies, received no healing for his wound. In truth, what you did was futile, simply because you did not turn to the right Address: instead of turning to Hashem, you turned to external powers for help.
It says here lo yigheh. Yigheh denotes healing. We are familiar with this today from Geha Hospital; gehah means healing, as in “A merry heart does good like a medicine” (heitiv gehah). But the Malbim explains that gehah is related to removal (hotza'ah). What does this mean? As in “Take away (hago) the dross from the silver” - meaning remove the impurities mixed within the silver; or “removed (hoga) from the highway,” meaning taking someone off the road so he no longer travels upon it. The prophet means that he will not extract the purulent discharge festering in the wound: “nor relieve (yigheh) you of your wound.” When you have an external wound containing discharge, you need mazor - which, as we explained, involves extracting it or applying medicaments - and gehah, healing by way of extracting the noxious injury and removing it from the body. The enemy will do none of this! See that when Ephraim went to Assyria, no benefit came of it. Notice, says the Malbim, that regarding Ephraim it says that he went himself, and not merely to the king, but to all of Assyria, for they all became vassals to Assyria; thus it is written, “Ephraim went to Assyria” (vayelech Ephraim el Ashur). Regarding Yehudah, however, it says, “and sent to King Yarev,” because Yehudah did not go to become his slaves, but merely sent an embassy to the king himself. He is called “King Yarev” because Achaz approached him solely to fight his battle (tariv rivi): I am not coming to be your servant or a protectorate state, but merely asking that you champion my cause. Hence he calls him King Yarev - a king intended to fight his fight.
“For I will be like a lion to Ephraim, and like a young lion to the house of Yehudah; I, even I, will tear and go away; I will carry off, and none shall deliver.” “For I will be like a lion (shachal) to Ephraim” - Hashem says to them: Your error is that you do not understand that your affliction is not natural, but providential, as we explained. If so, there is no purpose in seeking healing from flesh and blood; you must turn directly to Hashem, Blessed be He. “Like a lion to Ephraim, and like a young lion to the house of Yehudah.” The Malbim explains the parable: works of natural history note that when a lion is still young, it is called a kefir. In that stage, it does not venture out on hunting expeditions; it remains in its lair, and if prey approaches, it pounces, but it does not roam abroad in pursuit of game, staying hidden and ambushing nearby. By contrast, when it grows into a mature lion and becomes a shachal - an older, full-grown lion - it has lionesses and cubs to sustain, so it must venture far out into the open to hunt and bring them prey. Concerning this He says: “For I will be like a lion (shachal) to Ephraim, and like a young lion (kefir) to the house of Yehudah.” To Ephraim He is likened to a shachal, because, as we explained, Hashem goes out, as it were, from the Beit HaMikdash to strike Ephraim afar; thus He resembles a shachal, a mature lion that journeys away from its lair to strike. To the house of Yehudah, however, He is like a kefir, because Yehudah is situated right beside the Beit HaMikdash; Hashem does not, so to speak, depart from His place, but strikes them from His sanctuary, His lair. This mirrors what we saw earlier: “For I am like a moth to Ephraim, and like rot to the house of Yehudah,” where rot is an internal decay affecting Yehudah because the Beit HaMikdash and the Shechinah are in their midst, whereas Hashem, as it were, journeys out to Ephraim, causing damage from the outside like a moth. On this He says: “I, even I, will tear and go away.” You seek remedies from mortals, forgetting that everything originates with Me: I am like the shachal, I am like the kefir. This matter is not natural but guided by providence; I am the One Who tears. For Ephraim, “I will tear and go away” (etrof ve-elech) - why “tear and go away”? Because the shachal tears its prey and carries it far off. For Yehudah, on the other hand, where He strikes them in place, in the lair, it says: “I will carry off, and none shall deliver” (esa ve-ein matzil). There it does not say “I will go away,” because it happens in its place. “And none shall deliver” - no one can rescue from My hand; why then do you turn to Assyria? Can he rescue you from the hand of Hashem?
“I will go and return to My place, until they acknowledge their guilt and seek My face; in their affliction they will seek Me earnestly.” The Malbim explains: in contrast to what He said earlier, “I will tear and go away,” which refers to Ephraim, where the Holy One, Blessed be He, comes, as it were, from the outside and carries off the prey, He now says: Not only will I depart from Ephraim to Yerushalayim - for Hashem returns, as it were, to His place, and there in Yerushalayim years later Yehudah too was exiled, where He acted as the kefir striking from its lair - but Hashem says, “I will return to My place.” Do not think that I will merely return from there to the Beit HaMikdash; rather, “I will return to My place” means to the Heavens. I will withdraw completely from them “until they acknowledge their guilt.” This will continue until they repent on their own: “until they acknowledge their guilt and seek My face” - ye'eshmu means they will recognize their guilt, seek My presence, and repent. Or, if they do not recognize their guilt on their own, at all events “in their affliction they will seek Me earnestly” (yishacharunani) - meaning they will suffer many harsh troubles and then seek Hashem out of the sheer weight of their afflictions, crying out to Hashem. The Malbim explains the difference between bikshu fanai (“seek My face”) and yishacharunani (“seek Me earnestly”): seeking the face is done through prayer or offerings, as in “And David sought the face of the Lord,” and “They shall pray and seek My face.” By contrast, meshacher refers to someone searching for something lost or concealed from him; that is termed meshacher. Additionally, says the Malbim, when He says they will either recognize their guilt and “seek My face” - what is “My face”? You seek someone's face when you can still see him; “seek My face” applies while Hashem is still accessible. But if not, then “in their affliction they will seek Me earnestly” (yishacharunani) - meaning I will have already departed from them, and what will happen then? A person can no longer “seek My face” because I am not there, so what will he do? He will have to search earnestly (leshacher) and seek Me out, for as explained, leshacher means searching for something that has vanished from sight. Some explain that the term leshacher derives from shachar (dawn) - meaning when someone desperately desires something, he sets out to seek it at the crack of dawn. This is the meaning of someone who desires an audience with a king or a minister, so he “seeks his face at dawn” (meshacher panav), rising early in the morning to meet him. It turns out, then, that the expression leshacher is also connected to the word shachar.