"Ephraim mixes himself among the nations; Ephraim is a cake not turned." Malbim explains: "Ephraim mixes himself among the nations" - by assassinating their kings, they brought it about that Ephraim became intermingled and assimilated among the nations. Why? Because regarding Menachem, Scripture states that he called upon the king of Assyria to assist him, so that his hand might be strengthened to hold the kingdom. And when Pekach conspired against Pekachiah son of Menachem, the king of Assyria came to take up his cause. That is to say, Menachem enlisted an outside power to aid him, and Pekachiah son of Menachem enlisted the king of Assyria to aid him. In the process, he took up the dispute against the king of Judah and exiled the land of Naftali. Later, when Hoshea son of Elah killed Pekach, the king of Assyria came against Hoshea. It turns out that they brought this upon themselves: you forged alliances with foreign kingdoms so they would help you, but in the end, they became your undoing. They caused this to themselves by assassinating their kings, which forced the kings to seek external support; and once the foreign enemy arrived, he struck down those living here.
In the parable, Ephraim thereby became "a cake not turned." Since we have spoken thus far of an oven - "they are all bakers" - the prophet continues the same metaphor: they were not properly baked in an oven heated by that fire, but rather resembled an unturned cake. In their time, they had a chararah, a cake baked directly upon glowing coals. This appears frequently in the Gemara, such as "a dog that took a chararah." A cake baked on coals does not necessarily mean a sweet cake, but bread. Why was it called an ugah? Because it was round (agol). Any round loaf is called an ugah, as in "he drew a circle (ag ugah) and sat within it," or the children's song, "Circle, circle, let us dance in a ring." Children might think the song refers to an edible cake, but that is not the intention; there, ugah means a circle. By the way, this is also the origin of the word challah, because in their time challah was also round, from the word machol (a circular dance), which likewise denotes something round. At any rate, this cake - this loaf, this bread - was baked upon coals, and one had to flip it so it would bake thoroughly on both sides. If not, the bottom gets scorched from the glowing coals, while the top remains unbaked dough. Thus he says: "Ephraim is a cake not turned." An unturned cake means they were like bread baked directly on coals that was never flipped over.
What is the meaning behind this? The next verse explains: "Strangers have devoured his strength, and he knows it not; gray hairs are also sprinkled upon him, and he knows it not." Just like this unturned cake, which on the one hand burns from below, and on the other hand remains raw dough, unfit to eat, so it happened to Ephraim. "Strangers have devoured his strength, and he knows it not" - the king of Assyria consumed their strength, took their wealth, and exiled them; this corresponds to the cake scorched and burned from beneath. On the other hand, "gray hairs are also sprinkled upon him, and he knows it not." This refers to the top of the cake: when it is not flipped, the top remains soft, a limp, slack dough. This is like an aged man with gray hair whose vigor has failed. His strength is feeble like the unbaked top of the cake; his limbs have grown weak, his temperament frail. So too, they became weak, and their might became like an old man whose vitality is spent. Thus, on the one hand, they were burned from below - the king of Assyria devoured their strength just as coals consume the cake - and on the other hand, they weakened from above, remaining like limp, soft dough, like a gray-haired man.
Radak explains "gray hairs are also sprinkled upon him": a person typically repents of his evil ways in old age. That is generally human nature. Seeing that his strength is gone and he is going the way of all the earth, he repents before his death. When a person is young, he is fiery and full of desires, plans, and pleasures, and repentance is far from his mind. But later, as one matures and grows old, suddenly you see him among the regular synagogue attendees; suddenly you see him connecting and drawing near. What happened? He realizes he is approaching the end of his days, so he takes no chances and recalculates his route. Says Radak: this is the meaning here. These tribulations were a metaphor for old age, a time meant for repentance and awakening. Yet see: "gray hairs are sprinkled upon him" - even in the days of Pekach son of Remaliahu and Hoshea son of Elah, the final kings, despite all this, they did not turn from their way. They did not act like an elder who repents at the end of his days; rather, they persisted in their corruption.
"And the pride of Israel testifies to his face; yet they have not returned to Hashem their God, nor sought Him for all this." What does "the pride of Israel testifies" mean? Rashi explains based on the Targum: "and the glory of Israel was brought low, and they see it." That is, they witness the fall of Israel's glory, how it is diminished and brought low; they have been reduced and humbled, "yet they have not returned to Hashem their God." You see this, you understand that the consequences are disastrous, so why not repent? Nevertheless, even though they were brought low - Rashi notes that v'anah is past tense, like "and one called to the other and said," or "and he made him a coat of many colors" - even though Israel's glory was brought low and humbled, "yet they have not returned to Hashem their God, nor sought Him for all this." Despite everything, they persisted in their evil deeds and did not repent of their corruption, taking no lesson to heart.
Malbim explains this in contrast to what was stated earlier in chapter 5, verse 5, that "the pride of Israel shall be humbled to his face." There, Malbim explained that their pride would be broken when they felt they were being punished for their corrupt deeds, which would humble their arrogance. Then, as it says there, "with their flocks and with their herds they shall go to seek Hashem." When one realizes, "I brought this evil upon myself, and I am to blame for all this suffering," they will go to seek Hashem. Now the prophet says: see that this indeed occurred, yet they did not go to seek Hashem! Even though the pride of Israel was humbled before his face, and they were degraded, sinking into deep poverty and humiliation - despite being subjugated, they did not humble themselves before Hashem, did not return to Him in repentance, and "nor sought Him for all this." What does it mean to "seek Him"? To seek Hashem through sacrifices and prayer. Sometimes a person does not fully repent, but at least turns to Hashem. That too is something; at least he recognizes Him as the address. Here, however, although they cried out, their plea was merely: "Send us help, save us!" There was no turning to Hashem through sacrifices and prayer, no genuine approach that expressed an acknowledgment of sin and an awareness of their wrongdoing.
"Ephraim is become like a silly dove without understanding; they called to Egypt, they went to Assyria." "Ephraim is become like a silly dove." Radak explains that Ephraim is compared to a dove trapped in a snare due to its sheer gullibility. That is the meaning of a "silly dove" (yonah fotah, from peti, a simpleton). In its great foolishness, it enters the net, sees grain, walks in to eat, and fails to realize it is trapped; it lacks the understanding to see that a net has been spread to capture it. Today, unfortunately, many people likewise lack the understanding to realize that another kind of net is spread out, trapping many good people. Once there was a net that snared doves; today, unfortunately, there is the internet. How many, like a silly dove without heart, fall into that net without taking it to heart! At first, someone only wanted Torah lectures, or simply needed online banking - that is the naive dove - but then he was enticed and reached places he should never have gone. Our Sages taught that there is no guardian against licentiousness. One must not rely on his willpower, but on one thing alone: anyone who must use it for work must install robust filters that cannot be bypassed, filters placed not on the personal computer, but at the internet service provider level. That is the only way the Gedolei Yisrael permit someone with an absolute necessity to engage with these devices. Otherwise, one is "like a silly dove without understanding," trapped in a snare out of pure gullibility.
Returning to our subject: Ephraim, explains Radak, would go to seek help from Assyria and Egypt, but you are a fool to believe they will help you. What actually happened? Not only did they not help them, they came and caused them harm! The dove walks innocently, and they, naive like the dove, were certain they would receive aid. The State of Israel long ago ceased viewing the UN as a helpful body where it can lodge complaints about the actions of Hamas or Hezbollah; everyone knows no relief will come from there. In the exact same way, faithful Jews have never turned to the Supreme Court to seek relief in religious matters. When Aharon Barak was named an honorary member of the Reform movement after stepping down from the bench, we understood which way the wind blows, what kind of people they are, and what their agenda is. For a moment we never considered asking them for help - both because they are the last ones who would ever help, and because the very act of seeking their aid confers legitimacy upon them, as if they are a judicial authority for us. To us, they have no standing whatsoever. We pray every day, "Restore our judges as at first and our counselors as at the beginning," and any judge who adjudicates contrary to the laws of the holy Torah, the Shulchan Aruch rules and the Rambam codifies, has raised a hand against the Torah of Moshe. Thus, we know in advance whom not to approach. But here the verse says: Ephraim was like a silly dove. Naively, he approached Assyria and Egypt, confident he would receive relief and assistance from them.
Targum Yonatan translates "a silly dove" as l'yona serichta. What is serichta? The Ba'al HaAruch explains that it means tearing and scratching her face. Radak notes that this is based on Arabic, where a woman who strikes and scratches her face in mourning is called sharchah or sarchah. At any rate, she is like a grieving dove that scratches and strikes itself in times of catastrophe. This is indeed the Arab custom: at funerals, they scratch their faces and tear out their hair. The Torah expressly forbids this: "You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead," "You shall not gash yourselves." To them it may be customary, but that is the imagery of a yonah fotah.
Malbim explains: "Ephraim is become like a silly dove without understanding" - they acted entirely without intellect and without forethought, blind to the consequences. For they were already subjugated under the Assyrian empire; Assyria had conquered them. In that reality, why would you call upon Egypt? When you called upon Egypt, the king of Assyria naturally interpreted it as treason: "I am the ruler here, and you call upon Egypt to assist you?!" The king of Assyria saw that Hoshea son of Elah was conspiring against him, having sent messengers to So, king of Egypt. Therefore Scripture records: "and the king of Assyria shut him up, and bound him in prison... and besieged Samaria... and carried Israel away into Assyria." There was thus a double folly: first, being subjugated under one king, you turned to his rival, thereby entangling yourself with the first and inciting his wrath. Second, after calling upon Egypt, Scripture states that Hoshea went to Assyria. There it is written: "And the king of Assyria shut him up, and bound him in prison. Then the king of Assyria came up throughout all the land, and went up to Samaria, and besieged it three years." This implies that initially Hoshea son of Elah - not to be confused with Hoshea the prophet; King Hoshea son of Elah was the final king of Ephraim - went to him voluntarily as a submissive vassal. He went of his own accord, and the king imprisoned him and marched on Samaria. Had he remained in Samaria, his position would have been far stronger. That is why he is called "a silly dove without understanding." You took a senseless, irrational step: walking right into the hands of a monarch with whom you are deeply entangled? We are not speaking of an orderly, law-abiding government, but of a ruthless regime like the Ayatollahs in Iran, who seized the entire American diplomatic staff as hostages. Today no civilized nation would do that, but when dealing with tyrants, who cares about norms? To them, hostages are leverage until money is released. This illustrates that when you are in conflict with someone, you do not deliver yourself into his hands, especially when he recognizes no law. Yet that is precisely what Hoshea did. He thought he could appease the king of Assyria, but Assyria threw him in prison, and with no king left to defend the land, Assyria invaded and conquered it. It was an act devoid of all sense, "like a silly dove without understanding. They called to Egypt, they went to Assyria." First, "they called to Egypt," enraging Assyria who ruled over them; then, "they went to Assyria," handing themselves over like ripe fruit into their enemy's hand! This monumental folly brought catastrophic ruin upon them.
"When they shall go, I will spread My net upon them; I will bring them down as the fowls of the heaven; I will chastise them, as their congregation has heard." "When they shall go, I will spread My net upon them." While Hoshea went to Assyria, Hashem says: Do you think he acted out of mere foolishness, lacking logic? That is a mistake; it came from Me! "I will spread My net upon them" - I spread a net for him there and placed the thought in his heart to go, in order to punish him, for he was an evil king. Through this: "I will spread My net upon them; I will bring them down as the fowls of the heaven." Malbim explains: a hunter cannot catch a bird high in the sky. What does he do? He spreads a net below, and the bird descends and is trapped. The bird spots seeds on the ground, swoops down, and the net catches its feet. So too, the king of Assyria could not capture Hoshea son of Elah as long as he was fortified in Samaria, which was under siege. But Hashem says: I spread a net for him, like a silly dove, so that he went to him on his own as a submissive servant, walking directly into Assyria's trap. Hashem declares: this came from Me. It was not mere spontaneous folly; I planted that foolishness within him. "When they shall go, I will spread My net upon them; I will bring them down as the fowls of the heaven; I will chastise them, as their congregation has heard."
What does this mean? Malbim explains: it is as if the verse reads, "as they hear, I will chastise their congregation, and I would redeem them" - connecting with the following verse. Even then, in that dire state, there was still a remedy had they accepted reproof and heeded rebuke. "As they hear" - the Holy One, blessed be He, says: I thought that if they would hear, if they would accept mussar, then "I will chastise their congregation." Ayasrem is from the root of mussar (instruction/rebuke). I delivered words of reproof to their assembly: "See what has befallen you because you strayed from the path, because you abandoned Hashem!" I thought that by hearing this, they would repent. They would realize the consequences of sin, and thereby, "I would redeem them." I thought it would be possible to deliver them from the hands of the king of Assyria. But see: not only did they fail to mend their ways, "they have spoken lies against Me." Far from accepting chastisement and recognizing that calamity comes from Hashem, they spoke lies against Me, denying Divine Providence, reward, and punishment. Thus, the suffering brought upon them yielded no benefit. Although "Woe to them! for they have fled from Me; destruction to them! because they have transgressed against Me" - they should have realized, "Woe to us, we have abandoned Hashem; destruction has come because we transgressed against Him!" And had they done so, "I would redeem them." But since they did not, and instead "spoke lies against Me," punishment inevitably followed.
We have interpreted ayasrem in the sense of suffering and chastisement (yisurim), as Rashi also explains. However, Rashi cites a second interpretation in the name of Menachem. The first interpretation was from Dunash ben Labrat, the renowned grammarian; the second is from Menachem, who explains that it derives from binding, from mosrot (bonds). Ayasrem means "I will bind them." The meaning would be: "I will bring them down, I will bind them as their congregation has heard" - I will bind them in chains. And what is "they have spoken lies against Me"? Rashi explains: I wished to redeem them from evil by sending prophets; I sent Jeremiah to rebuke them. Yet they spoke lies against Me, saying to Jeremiah: "You speak falsehoods; you are not a messenger sent by Hashem." When I send them an emissary and they dismiss his words as a lie not from Hashem, they certainly do not deserve to be redeemed.
The prophet continues: "And they have not cried to Me with their heart, when they howl upon their beds; they assemble themselves for corn and wine, and they rebel against Me." "And they have not cried to Me with their heart." Even when they howl upon their beds from the weight of their afflictions, they merely howl; they do not cry out to Hashem or seek Him. And even if they do cry out, it is not from the heart: "they have not cried to Me with their heart." It is purely lip service. One cries out with his lips only because he is under pressure, not out of a genuine inner desire to return to Hashem. "They assemble themselves for corn and wine" (al dagan v'tirosh yitgoraru). What does yitgoraru mean here? Malbim explains: yitgoraru comes from moving and dwelling (gerim) from place to place. Because of the dire shortage of grain, they had to constantly wander and reside in different places to find sustenance. Radak, on the other hand, explains that whenever grain and wine merchants arrived in town, everyone would crowd around them. According to this, yitgoraru is related to lo taguru, which Chazal interpret not only as fear, but as gathering, as in magor misaviv (nations gathered around). Taguru is like te'egru, to gather or amass (le'egor). Thus, when someone arrived to sell grain and wine, everyone gathered (yitgoraru) around him due to the severe famine and hardship. Rashi explains yitgoraru from the word megurot (granaries or storehouses), places where grain is gathered. According to Rashi, this explains why they did not repent: because their granaries were full of grain, they felt sated and lacked nothing. This is the exact opposite of the previous explanation: according to Rashi, the verse indicates that because they were satisfied, they felt no need to cry out genuinely to Hashem, since their storehouses were still stocked with grain: "they dwell by grain and wine, and they rebel against Me."
What is "they rebel against Me" (yasuru vi)? Malbim explains that this is related to ben soreir u'moreh (a stubborn and rebellious son). They act rebelliously, straying from the upright path, gluttonous and bibulous, neither turning to Hashem nor seeking Him.
"Though I have trained and strengthened their arms, yet they imagine mischief against Me." Radak explains: "Though I have trained" - when circumstances were favorable, they were strong against their enemies. Where did this strength come from? "I trained them." Radak explains that yisarti denotes binding, like mosrot (bonds), as in "He looses the bond of kings" - meaning binding and strengthening. Hashem says: Who bound and strengthened their arms? It was I. Whenever they prevailed over enemies, it came from Me. Yet they claimed it was not from Me, attributing it to their own prowess. "Yet they imagine mischief against Me" - when good happens, they say it is not from Me; but when evil strikes, they blame Me! "Yet they imagine mischief against Me": I strengthened them, yet they gave Me no credit; but when misfortune struck, they attributed the evil to Me. This reflects common human nature: when a person succeeds, and someone asks, "How did you manage it?" he replies, "Siyata d'Shmaya, believe me, Hashem helped me!" In truth, he thinks: "It was all me, though I must pay lip service to Hashem." But when tragedy or illness strikes, and someone asks what happened, he says: "It is all from Hashem, everything is from Him!" All troubles are blamed on Hashem, while successes are credited to oneself, with Hashem merely assisting. When troubles come, he does not reflect: "Why did this happen? We must repent, 'our iniquities have turned away these things'; let me examine what I corrupted." Instead, he absolves himself: "It's all from Hashem." He considers this trust in God, unaware that he takes no personal responsibility, treating it as an arbitrary Heavenly decree unrelated to his deeds. Success he credits to his own toil with a little Divine help, but misfortune he blames entirely on Heaven. Thus Hashem says: "Though I have bound and strengthened their arms," they failed to recognize Me; but when evil occurs, "they imagine mischief against Me," attributing the misfortune to Me.
Malbim explains: regarding the statement yasuru vi, where they are compared to a rebellious son, Hashem says: When I chastised this rebellious son, My intent was to "strengthen their arms" - to empower their resolve to repent and draw close to Hashem once more, as noted above: "I will chastise their congregation, and I would redeem them." I thought that through chastisement they could be redeemed from distress. "Yet they imagine mischief against Me" - they think My sole intention in chastising them is to do them harm! They fail to realize that all these afflictions are designed to rescue them, to awaken them before the final decree. Instead, "they imagine mischief against Me," assuming these tribulations were sent merely to torment them because Hashem seeks their ruin.
"They return, but not to the Most High; they are like a deceitful bow; their princes shall fall by the sword for the rage of their tongue; this shall be their derision in the land of Egypt." This verse is very challenging in its plain meaning. Radak explains: "They return, but not to the Most High (lo al)" - Al denotes the Most High. When trouble comes, they return and cry out to whom? To idols! Lo al - not to the Supreme King, to the Holy One, blessed be He. They turn to idolatry, pleading for idols to save them. "They are like a deceitful bow." What is a deceitful bow (keshet remiyah)? A bow that misleads. Radak explains that this refers to an archer who aims toward one target, but at the last fraction of a second jerks the bow and shoots elsewhere. He gives the impression he is about to hit one mark, but strikes another. The bow appears to point in one direction, but deceives and releases the arrow elsewhere. Even though the deceit belongs to the archer rather than the bow - for the bow shoots wherever it is pointed - the deceit is attributed to the bow because it displayed one direction and produced another. So too, says Radak, Israel would occasionally repent under Hashem's chastisement, but they were like a deceitful bow: aiming toward repentance for a brief moment, only to swerve away at the last second. Their repentance was fleeting and temporary, and they quickly reverted to their corruption. Radak points to the era of Eliyahu: when Eliyahu led the entire nation to proclaim, "Hashem, He is God! Hashem, He is God!", everyone thought a new era had dawned, that they had permanently abandoned the prophets of Baal, Jezebel, and falsehood, becoming devoted servants of Hashem. Yet immediately afterward, they reverted to worshiping the Baalim, the golden calves, and idols. Thus, "they return, but not to the Most High" - they do not return to Hashem; and even when they seem to return, it is like a deceitful bow, entirely temporary, quickly reverting to their former ways.
"Their princes shall fall by the sword for the rage of their tongue." The princes who ruled over them led them down an evil path, urging: "Let us go to Egypt for help; let us turn to other nations for support" - anything rather than turning to Hashem. They constantly advised seeking help elsewhere. This is "the rage of their tongue": through these words, they provoked God's wrath with their speech, angering Him by their counsel. Therefore their punishment was to "fall by the sword." In reality, that journey to Egypt brought only downfall and ruin. Many died along the way, as Isaiah prophesied: "The burden of the beasts of the South... the lioness and the lion," where wild beasts devoured some and others fell by the sword of enemies. Thus, the counsel of their princes to seek aid from Egypt caused their leaders to fall by the sword "for the rage of their tongue," because they provoked Hashem's wrath with their counsel.
"This shall be their derision in the land of Egypt." What does this mean? Rashi explains: when they arrived in Egypt, the Egyptians mocked them, saying: "Why have you returned to us? To bring calamities upon us? Was it not enough that you embittered our lives during the Exodus, that you now return to bring further troubles? Does your own Torah not state, 'You shall see them no more again'?" This is the meaning of "this shall be their derision in the land of Egypt" - the Egyptians derided them when they came seeking shelter under their shadow.
Malbim explains: "They return, but not to the Most High." Earlier, Hashem said, "I will spread My net upon them," like a silly dove or a bird soaring high. "They return" from the net, but when this bird escapes, instead of realizing it is free and soaring upward, it flies straight into another net! So "they return" - one might expect genuine repentance - but lo al, not upward. The bird does not ascend on high; from one net it flies into another. This reflects the historical reality: first they turned to Egypt, and after Hoshea son of Elah appealed to So, he then went to Assyria, delivering himself in person, and the king imprisoned him. Thus: "they are like a deceitful bow; their princes shall fall by the sword for the rage of their tongue." Malbim explains: it is as if the verse reads, "their princes were like a deceitful bow." The princes who went to the king of Assyria went to inform on Hoshea son of Elah, telling him: "Hoshea son of Elah made peace with Egypt and conspired against you." They failed to realize that they were shooting themselves in the foot! They thought they would gain support from Assyria, but what did Assyria do? He invaded and struck down all the inhabitants of the land! You went to inform on Hoshea, and consequently the king of Assyria came and killed you! Their princes were like a deceitful bow: those who sought to shoot an arrow at Hoshea son of Elah found that the king of Assyria turned on them as well, besieging Samaria and slaying them. Malbim explains that a deceitful bow acts like a boomerang - you shoot it far away and it returns to strike you, like a ricocheting bullet that hits the shooter. You sought to shoot an arrow at Hoshea son of Elah, and that arrow rebounded upon you - a deceitful bow - through the arrows of their own tongues. This is "for the rage of their tongue": the mechanism by which they brought this deceitful bow upon themselves was through slander, through the derogatory report they delivered to Assyria so that he would strike their rival. See how this caused their downfall! "This shall be their derision in the land of Egypt" - they made themselves a laughingstock in Egypt, where people mocked them: "Look, these people informed Assyria about an alliance with us, and in the end Assyria destroyed them!" The Egyptians, watching from the sidelines, derided them for causing their own ruin. Unfortunately, this dynamic often repeats itself: people are willing to harm themselves just to prevent a rival from leading. Today we see this among various radical groups funded by foreign foundations, who slander the people of Israel abroad, and even figures from academia who demand an academic boycott against their own country. A boycott against everyone, including themselves! What is the logic? "I am willing to shoot myself in the foot, as long as my opponent is bloodied too." Like Samson saying, "Let me die with the Philistines." This reflects total irrationality, a pattern that existed in ancient times and, unfortunately, persists to this very day.