The Book of Hoshea, Chapter 8: "Put the shofar to your palate! Like an eagle against the House of Hashem, because they have transgressed My covenant and rebelled against My Torah." "Put the shofar to your palate" means place a shofar to your mouth - so Hashem instructs the prophet. Why "to your palate"? Radak asks: after all, the shofar is placed to the lips, not the palate! Radak explains that this is because the sound passes across the palate after emerging from the throat. When a person sounds a shofar, he expels breath, and that breath passes over the palate into the shofar.
"Put the shofar to your palate! Like an eagle against the House of Hashem." Who is this eagle who will swoop upon the House of Hashem? Radak explains that this refers to the enemy: proclaim aloud and announce with a blast of the shofar that the enemy will swoop like an eagle upon the House of Hashem. Rashi explains similarly: the meaning is that the enemy will come, ravage the land, and destroy the House of Hashem as well. The reason is: "Because they have transgressed My covenant and rebelled against My Torah." They abandoned the Beit HaMikdash, and therefore I too will abandon it and permit strangers to come and destroy it.
Malbim, by contrast, explains: "Put the shofar to your palate," my master the prophet, for you shall come like an eagle to the House of Hashem. "Like an eagle against the House of Hashem" does not refer to the enemy who comes to destroy it; rather, Malbim says, this refers to the prophet himself, whom the Holy One, blessed be He, commands to hasten to the House of Hashem, flying like an eagle so as to stand there in the House of Hashem and sound the shofar. Whenever they wished to issue a momentous proclamation - one that would become widely known and resound far and wide - they would sound the shofar. Hashem says: Stand there in the Beit HaMikdash, in an elevated place, so that all the ends of the earth will hear this declaration you are to deliver, and announce to them that all this calamity is coming upon them because they transgressed My covenant and rebelled against My Torah.
And why specifically at the House of Hashem? Malbim offers an additional explanation: because this was a message addressed not only to Shomron, who sinned profusely, but also to Yehudah. Although Yehudah lagged behind Shomron in their sins, and Yehudah and Binyamin also had righteous kings, they nevertheless needed to be aroused as well, for corruption existed among them too. And indeed so it was: they repented in the days of Chizkiyahu, the king of Assyria marched against them, and Hashem hastened like an eagle to protect His nest, as it is written (Yeshayahu 31:5), "Like hovering birds, so will Hashem of hosts protect Yerushalayim."
"To Me they will cry, 'My God, we know You, Israel!'" What is the meaning of "To Me they will cry"? There are three interpretations here. Rashi, following Targum Yonatan, explains: "To Me they will cry" - when distress overtakes them, they will cry out to Me. They will then say to Me, "My God, we know You" - after all, we are Your people; as if the verse reads: "To Me Israel will cry, 'My God, we know You!'" After all, we are Your people and we know You, so have mercy upon us. But Hashem says, I will not have mercy upon them, as stated in the following verse, and the reason is: "For Israel has abandoned good." Israel abandoned what is good, and therefore "the enemy shall pursue him."
Radak explains: "To Me they will cry" - Israel ought to have cried out to Me in their time of trouble. What should they have cried? "My God, we know You" - we know, our God, that there is no savior other than You, and only You can deliver us. Malbim, by contrast, explains that "To Me they will cry" stands in contrast to what was written earlier (7:14), "And they did not cry out to Me in their heart." Here it is a command: "To Me let them cry!" Tell them to cry out to Me; tell them to declare, "My God, we know You" - meaning, we know that this calamity comes from You through Divine Providence, and that everything we suffer is punishment for having abandoned Your covenant and rebelled against Your Torah. Thus, there are three interpretations: according to Rashi, "To Me they will cry" is a prediction of what will occur - when trouble strikes, they will cry out; according to Radak, it means they ought to have cried out, yet failed to do so; and according to Malbim, it is a divine command: instruct them to cry out to Me when distress arrives, so that I may deliver them.
"Israel has abandoned good; an enemy shall pursue him." According to Malbim, who understands this as a command - instruct Israel to cry out - all of this is what they must articulate in their confession. What should they say? "My God, we know You," and we recognize that "Israel has abandoned good" - we acknowledge that since we abandoned the good (the Torah and its mitzvot), consequently "an enemy shall pursue him"; we have received the punishment that the enemy now pursues us. And once there is recognition of the hand of Hashem, an opening is immediately created for redemption and salvation.
"They crowned kings, but not from Me; they made princes, and I knew not; of their silver and their gold they made themselves idols, so that it may be cut off." "They crowned kings" - Radak, and likewise Ibn Ezra, explain that this refers to the reign of Yeravam. They crowned Yeravam, "but not from Me" - they did not inquire of Hashem. This presents a difficulty, as Radak immediately asks: after all, Yeravam's kingship was ordained by Hashem! Was it not Achiyah HaShiloni who informed him of his future reign? Radak answers: True, it was indeed from Hashem, but when the people crowned him, they did not inquire of Hashem. Hashem had spoken with Yeravam, but as for the people, before accepting him as king, they were required to consult Hashem, and that they failed to do. Achiyah the prophet never told the people, "Hashem commands you to crown him"; he merely told Yeravam that he would rule, but gave no directive to the people to crown him. It turns out, then, that when the people acted, they acted entirely out of their own independent initiative.
Furthermore, Radak adds: even if one were to argue that there was a divine mandate to crown him, nevertheless, at a certain point the people must have realized that something had gone fundamentally astray. They saw that the man had completely lost his bearings - erecting golden calves, barring the pilgrimage to Yerushalayim - and they surely recognized that something was terribly wrong. Why did they continue following him? Why did they not remove him from his throne? For when Achiyah HaShiloni promised him the kingdom, he explicitly made it conditional upon doing what is upright and good in the eyes of Hashem. And all the subsequent kings of Israel, Radak notes, were just like him: they too were crowned without consulting Hashem, with the sole exception of Yehu ben Nimshi, who was anointed by direct Divine command; all the rest arose without a command from Hashem. Thus: "They crowned kings" - they crowned a king for themselves, "but not from Me."
"They made princes (heisiru), and I knew not." Regarding the word "heisiru," commentators differ on its meaning. Most authorities - including Rashi, Targum Yonatan, and Radak - explain "heisiru" as related to appointing ministers and rulers (sarim). Just as "himlichu" means they appointed a king, "heisiru" means they appointed princes. Note that "heisiru" is spelled here with a samech rather than a shin, yet it carries the meaning of "sar" (prince). Just as they appointed a king without My sanction, so too "heisiru, and I knew not" means they placed princes and leaders over themselves without My approval. Heaven forbid that "and I knew not" means it was hidden from Hashem, for nothing is concealed from Him; rather, it means without My consent. They appointed leaders whose conduct was abhorrent to Me, rulers who would only cause the people to sin and become corrupted.
"Of their silver and their gold they made themselves idols, so that it may be cut off." "Of their silver and their gold they made themselves idols" - as seen earlier in Sefer Hoshea (2:10), "I multiplied her silver, and gold they used for the Baal"; they used all their wealth for idolatry. "So that it may be cut off" - what does this mean? There are several interpretations. One explanation, offered by Radak, is: so that their name would be cut off and they would be exiled from their land. That is, where did all their actions inevitably lead? "So that it may be cut off" - they took steps that brought about their own destruction and exile from the land. Alternatively: "Of their silver and their gold they made themselves idols, so that their silver and gold would be cut off." By dedicating their wealth to idolatry, they caused Hashem to strip that wealth from them, measure for measure: because they used silver and gold for idols, Hashem would cut off their silver and gold.
Malbim offers an entirely different explanation; in fact, according to Malbim, this whole verse is interpreted in a novel light. Malbim explains that "They crowned kings, but not from Me" does not refer to Yeravam, as Radak and Ibn Ezra suggest, but rather to various kings whom the populace selected on their own, rather than through a prophet of Hashem. And "heisiru" - note carefully - Malbim interprets in its literal sense of removal (hasarah): subsequently, they deposed them from the throne, "and I knew not," meaning that their removal was also contrary to My will. Let us explain what this refers to. Malbim explains that two kings were removed from the throne for the "terrible offense" of refusing to fall in line with the calves and idolatry instituted by Yeravam. While they were not great tzaddikim, they were not thoroughly wicked either; they simply refused to perpetuate the idolatry of the calves that Yeravam had erected. Malbim recounts the history of these kings: the first was Shallum ben Yavesh. Malbim notes that if one examines the text closely, Scripture nowhere states regarding Shallum ben Yavesh that "he did evil in the eyes of Hashem," as it routinely records for all the other kings of Israel. Could one suggest this is merely because he reigned for only a single month, and how much evil could one perpetrate in a month? Malbim refutes this: regarding Zimri, Scripture records that he reigned for only seven days, yet it nonetheless states (I Melachim 16:19), "and he died for his sins which he sinned... walking in the way of Yeravam" - in just seven days! Had Shallum ben Yavesh, who reigned a full month, followed the sins of Yeravam, Scripture would surely have noted it. It follows that Shallum ben Yavesh, even if not an outstandingly righteous king, was unwilling to adopt the sins of Yeravam or walk in the way of the calves and the Baalim.
Malbim continues that the populace in Shomron split into two opposing factions. One faction supported the king, encouraging his refusal to continue with the calves of Yeravam, while an opposing faction sought aggressively to reinforce the calves and uphold the path of heresy established by Yeravam ben Nevat - the media figures, the various leftists, the "New Israel Fund" types, and all sorts of elements who sought to champion the calves and their adherents so as to perpetuate the corruption begun by Yeravam ben Nevat. Consequently, they brought in Menachem ben Gadi. Menachem ben Gadi marched against Shallum ben Yavesh, assassinated him, and seized the throne. This was an appointment orchestrated by that faction opposed to Shallum ben Yavesh, who engineered his removal so that someone aligned with their own agenda would rule.
Menachem ben Gadi needed to secure his grip on power, which was no simple task, so he paid a thousand talents of silver to Pul, the king of Assyria, to bolster his kingdom and help him consolidate his rule over the Ten Tribes. He required foreign backing because he faced domestic resistance from the supporters of Shallum ben Yavesh, who had just been deposed and who opposed Menachem ben Gadi's intent to reinstate the calves. That was the first king. Malbim explains that a second king met a similar fate: Hoshea ben Elah. Regarding Hoshea ben Elah, Scripture states (II Melachim 17:2), "And he did evil in the eyes of Hashem, yet not like the kings of Israel who preceded him." He did evil, but not completely. Why? Because he did not worship the calves. Chazal teach that he also abolished the border guards that Yeravam had stationed along the roads to prevent Israel from making pilgrimages to Yerushalayim; he removed those sentries and allowed the people to go up. The faction wedded to the sins of Yeravam - those who bitterly opposed the abolition of the calves - rebelled against him as well. And what did they do? As is ever their foolish way to this very day, when they oppose a ruler here who does not conform to their agenda, they go and slander him to foreign nations. Just as happens today when things do not suit them - going and telling foreign nations how terrible he is and what dreadful things he is doing, photographing some settlement that was built, someone who extended a balcony, taking satellite photos - that has been their way ever since. The faction that followed the sins of Yeravam opposed him and informed upon him to the king of Assyria, and the king of Assyria came and threw him into prison.
It turns out, then, that the removal of these two kings from their throne was without Hashem's consent. What does "without Hashem's knowledge" mean? Contrary to Hashem's will. Malbim explains that this is the meaning of "they removed them, and I knew not": they crowned all their other kings without My sanction - I did not approve of any of them. But when there were finally two kings whom I did approve of, they deposed them from their throne! Those were the two kings just mentioned, Shallum ben Yavesh and Hoshea ben Elah: they removed them against My will, for at least these two kings caused far less harm; at the very least, you should have allowed them to remain!
"Of their silver and their gold they made themselves idols." What does this refer to? Malbim explains: as long as the upkeep of the calves was sponsored by the king, the royal treasury funded it; there was a dedicated government budget for maintaining the calves. Just as today, there is never any shortage of very generous budgets for all manner of modern "calves": even a dance troupe can receive millions, and universities receive billions, and no one may ask questions about where the money goes because that supposedly infringes upon "academic freedom" - no one may interfere! "We will distribute the funds as we see fit" - and while everywhere else "sunlight is said to be the best disinfectant," as the High Court loves to quote, that does not apply to the universities; they do as they please, spend money wherever they wish, pay billions to whomever they want, and no one may intervene. So too then: when there was a king, he would fund the calves from state coffers; that was why there was a national budget, from which the calves were financed. But once the king did away with the calves, what could the opposing faction do? Those determined to maintain the calves were forced to dig into their own pockets. They spent their own private money to sustain the calves, because Shallum ben Yavesh and Hoshea ben Elah cut off their funding. Now the faction had to finance them themselves. Malbim says this is what the verse means: "Of their silver and their gold they made themselves idols." When the kings no longer supported the idolatry from state funds, the people made idols from their own silver and gold. Why? "So that he may be cut off" - Malbim explains that this was done so that the reigning king would be cut off: so that Shallum ben Yavesh would be eliminated, and Hoshea ben Elah would be deposed. They funded idols with their own silver and gold - in simple terms, maintaining the calves to rally the opposition and preserve their agenda against those seeking to abolish the calves. By organizing a large movement around the calf worship, their objective was "so that he may be cut off" - to depose the reigning king who opposed the calves. That is the meaning of "of their silver and their gold they made themselves idols, so that he may be cut off."
"Cast away your calf, O Shomron! My anger burns against them; how long will they be incapable of purity?" The Holy One, blessed be He, has abandoned you, people of Shomron, on account of the calves in Beit El. The verse is elliptical: "He has cast away [you because of] your calf, O Shomron" - Hashem, blessed be He, has abandoned you because of your calf, on account of the calves you made. "How long will they be incapable of purity" from the defilement of those calves? Radak asks: was the calf located in Shomron? The calf was in Beit El! Radak answers that since Shomron was the capital of the kings of Israel from Achav onward, and the kings were the ones who promoted the idolatry of the calves, Scripture says, "Cast away your calf, O Shomron." The indictment is directed against Shomron, the seat of the monarchy. As Scripture states concerning each king, "he walked in the sins of Yeravam; he did not turn away from them," the guilt of the calf is placed squarely upon Shomron. "How long will they be incapable of purity" - how long will they be unable to cleanse themselves from this sin of the calves?
Radak also explains: what is the meaning of "zanach egleich Shomron"? Your calf has cast away Shomron. Your calf drove you away - that is, what caused you to be expelled from Shomron? Your calf! It was your calf that brought about your exile from the land. Malbim, however, explains that "zanach egleich Shomron" is the continuation of the previous verse. Malbim provides an additional explanation for "so that he may be cut off": so that the king who abandoned your calf would be cut off! All their private financing of idolatry was "so that he may be cut off" - and who was to be cut off? The king who abandoned your calf, O Shomron! That refers to Hoshea ben Elah and Shallum ben Yavesh, who spurned the calves; the people sought the downfall of the king who abandoned the calves, and therefore funded them out of pocket. Therefore, Hashem says: "My anger burns against them." Why? Malbim explains that until this point, Divine wrath was focused upon the monarch. The populace was viewed as somewhat coerced, since the king actively promoted the idolatry and the initiative came from him; the people were treated as unwitting or under duress. But once two kings arose - Shallum ben Yavesh and Hoshea ben Elah - who did not encourage the calves, and indeed opposed them, what happened? A faction among the people arose and funded idols from their own silver and gold! Malbim explains that this is why "My anger burns against them" - the wrath is now directed against the people themselves. Previously, the anger was aimed at the king, but because they took it upon themselves to finance the cult when the king opposed it, "My anger burns against them." "How long will they be incapable of purity?" - how long will this sin of the calves persist among them? For now they were under no royal compulsion; the king himself opposed the idolatry, and they were completely free to serve Hashem. How long, then, will they remain incapable of purity and cling to this idolatry?
"For it is from Israel, and a craftsman made it, and it is no god; for the calf of Shomron shall be broken into splinters." "For it is from Israel" - Rashi explains the verse as meaning that this calf was funded by collecting the silver and gold of each and every person in Israel. Where did this calf come from? "For it is from Israel" - from them, from their silver and gold. And what does "vehu" (and he / and it) signify? The letter vav seems difficult. Rashi explains that "vehu" indicates that this calf too originated from them: not only the first golden calf made when leaving Egypt, where everyone removed their earrings and brought silver and gold, but this calf as well is from Israel. The vav adds: "and this one too" - not only the calf in the wilderness, but this calf as well was fashioned from their silver and gold. "A craftsman made it, and it is no god." "A craftsman made it" means that a mortal artisan fashioned it, so it is no deity. Do not imagine, says Radak, that it possesses any intrinsic power or godliness (for "El" denotes power and dominion). A craftsman made it; how could a manufactured object possess greater power than its maker? A person can only impart the power he himself has; he cannot invest something with greater power than he possesses. If an artisan fashioned it, could it possibly have more power than him? The craftsman made it, and suddenly it is deemed a god that creates and forms? Who - this idol that a craftsman just finished shaping? Therefore Scripture says: "A craftsman made it, and it is no god" - it possesses no independent power whatsoever. Moreover: "for the calf of Shomron shall be broken into splinters." "Shevavim" means splinters or fragments (as in the Talmudic phrase shiva mikshora, a splinter from a beam). The calf will crumble into splinters. You will see that not only is it powerless to save its worshippers, it cannot even save itself, for it will disintegrate into pieces. That is "the calf of Shomron shall be broken into splinters."
According to Radak, "For it is from Israel" is not explained as Rashi does (that it came from the silver and gold of Israel), nor as Malbim does (that it was financed by Israel's own wealth). Rather, Radak explains that "for it is from Israel" means they did not borrow this idolatry from the Gentiles as an imported cult; rather, "it is from Israel" - they devised the calf entirely on their own, from within themselves, just like the calf they made in the wilderness. Malbim explains "for it is from Israel" in line with our previous discussion: until now, the kings made the calves. Once Shallum ben Yavesh and Hoshea ben Elah arrived and opposed the calves, the calf was made by the populace - "it is from Israel" - they supplied the funds, as stated: "of their silver and gold they made themselves idols." And that is why it says, "a craftsman made it" - an artisan among the people of Israel made the calf, not the king. Thus Scripture declares: the calf of Shomron is from Israel, a craftsman made it, and it is no god, "ki shevavim yihyeh." We explained that "shevavim yihyeh" means it will be broken into splinters, as Radak explained and as Targum Yonatan implies. But Malbim offers a novel interpretation: "shevavim yihyeh" - they do not worship it because they believe it possesses divine power, but rather so that they may be "shovavim" (wayward and unruly)! Israel wished to cast off restraint ("leave them to abandon, the backsliding daughter"), and therefore they made the calves so that through them they could throw off the yoke of Heaven and do whatever pleased them. "Return, Israel, to Hashem your God" (14:2), because the people of Israel strayed like wayward youths (shovavim). They deliberately made calves knowing full well they were no gods. One might ask: why create a god from whom you receive nothing? "I receive a great deal from it! Do you know what I receive? A justification to abandon Hashem! Then I can follow the stubbornness of my heart and do whatever I desire without pangs of conscience." As Chazal observed (Sanhedrin 63b), Israel served idols only to permit forbidden sexual relationships publicly, allowing them to follow their wayward impulses. "Shovavim" refers to wild, undisciplined conduct. Thus: "it is from Israel, and a craftsman made it, and it is no god" - they too know it is no god; why then make it? "Ki shevavim yihyeh" - so that through the calf of Shomron, the people who serve it might become "shovavim" (unrestrained and lawless).
"For they sow the wind, and they shall reap a whirlwind; it has no standing grain; a stalk will produce no flour; if it should produce, strangers will swallow it up." "For they sow the wind" - Malbim says that they are now receiving the recompense of their own deeds. Just as they sowed wind, they will reap a whirlwind. A wind is gentle; a whirlwind is devastating. You sowed lightly, but you will reap a magnified tempest. "It has no standing grain" - when a person sows, he expects to see standing grain, wheat growing tall; but here, "it has no standing grain." From the seed they sowed, no standing stalk will rise, no wheat will grow, and they will not enjoy the fruit of their labor. "A stalk will produce no flour" - it is a plant from which no grain will emerge to yield flour. One might think that in such a state, foreign nations would have nothing to seek from us, since we are a stalk that produces no flour, yielding nothing. Yet Scripture states: "strangers will swallow it up, if it should produce." Even if something begins to grow from their toil, and even if it will never produce flour - being thin, blighted, and unfit to mature - strangers will still swallow it up. Why? Because "perhaps it will produce." Who knows? Perhaps in the future grain will grow from it and yield flour! Therefore, they do not let it grow at all, and while it is still in its bud, they immediately swallow it up.
What is the nimshal (analogy)? "Israel is swallowed up; now they have become among the nations like a vessel no one wants." "Israel is swallowed up" - so too Israel was consumed; strangers will swallow them up, meaning they will come and take them, seizing their property, money, and all that they possess. Even though now "they have become among the nations like a vessel no one wants" - like a stalk that produces no flour, of no use or value - the nations nevertheless swallow them up out of concern that perhaps in the future they might yield flour. As Radak explains, they are now in the eyes of the nations like an unwanted vessel. Why? Radak explains, as we saw earlier, that they went to seek help from the nations, and the nations mocked them - "this is their derision in the land of Egypt" (7:16). The nations treated them with contempt: "Look at these weaklings coming to beg for our help!" They mocked them, viewing them among the nations like an unwanted vessel. The nations look down upon them as lowly and worthless, and now, pathetic, they come begging for aid.
"For they have gone up to Assyria, a wild donkey alone by itself; Ephraim has hired lovers." "For they have gone up to Assyria, a wild donkey alone" - Rashi explains: "a wild donkey alone by itself" means they became like a wild ass wandering solitary on its own, roaming from place to place. "Ephraim has hired lovers (hitnu ahavim)" - Rashi presents two interpretations: either it is related to jackals (tanim), like the wild beast roaming the deserts in search of mates, adulterously consorting with strangers - meaning just as a beast roams seeking lovers, so too we abandoned Hashem to seek help from Egypt and other nations; or, Rashi adds, "hitnu ahavim" is derived not from tanim but from "etnan" (a harlot's hire). Since Israel's turning away from Hashem to the nations is consistently depicted as harlotry, whenever there is harlotry there is hire (etnan), the fee paid for prostitution. So too here, they hired lovers to obtain aid from the nations, abandoning their Master and Husband, who is the Holy One, blessed be He.
Malbim explains: what was the reason they were swallowed up and became like an unwanted vessel? Because they subjugated themselves to the kings of Assyria: "For they have gone up to Assyria." And after they went up to Assyria and accepted its king's suzerainty, what did Ephraim do? "Ephraim has hired lovers" - after accepting the king of Assyria, you went and solicited the love of the king of Egypt! It is like an unfaithful woman who strays from her husband, offering hire to other paramours to abandon her husband and rebel against him. And he is in the state of "a wild donkey alone by itself." What does "a wild donkey alone by itself" mean? Malbim explains: a wild donkey accustomed to the wilderness wanders far from its home, as it says (Yirmeyahu 2:24), "a wild donkey accustomed to the wilderness, in her lust sniffing the wind." Yet even though it strays far from home and moves away from its natural habitat, its habit is nevertheless to roam alone. "Alone" means it does not seek companionship; it prefers solitary wanderings. Ephraim, however, resembles the wild ass on the one hand in their reckless wanderings, but on the other hand seeks many companions. In that respect, Ephraim is not like the wild ass: "They have gone up to Assyria, a wild donkey alone by itself" - the wild ass stays alone, but they are a wild ass that hires lovers and pursues the intimacy of the nations.
"Even though they hire among the nations, now I will gather them; and they shall begin to diminish on account of the burden of the king of princes." "Even though they hire among the nations, now I will gather them" - Hashem says: even though they now give hire to the nations, seeking their affection and making alliances with them, nevertheless there is still hope: "now I will gather them" from the places to which I dispersed them, and bring them back to their land. On one condition: "and they shall tremble a little from the burden of the king and princes." What does this mean? If they tremble a little - "vayachello" in the sense of chīl, trembling and dread - from the burden that the prophets carry concerning them, that is, from the prophecy of retribution. If the king and princes tremble a little from the words of prophecy, if they are moved in some measure by the words of rebuke, Hashem says: I will gather them. That is what He says: "Even though they hire among the nations," straying with the nations and distancing themselves from Me, there is still a possibility that "now I will gather them" - as long as "they tremble a little" from the burden of the prophecy delivered to them. Who should tremble a little? The king and princes.
"Because Ephraim has multiplied altars to sin, altars have become to him for sinning." But they did not tremble before the burden of Hashem; they were unmoved by the words of the prophets and did not shudder at the harsh prophecies. On the contrary: "Ephraim has multiplied altars to sin." Malbim explains that when they allied with the nations, they did not merely pay hire for a political alliance or military defense; they forged a pact involving faith and Baal worship as well. They joined with them in worshipping their idols, multiplying altars upon which to sacrifice to the pagan gods. This was not merely a defense pact; it was a full alliance and assimilation with the Gentiles in every sense, worshipping their gods. "Altars have become to him for sinning" - Malbim explains that in Ephraim's warped view, the altars he built for idolatry were not considered a sin at all; only the altars upon which sacrifices were offered to Hashem - namely, in the Beit HaMikdash - were considered by him to be a sin! Sacrificing to idols was deemed proper, while offering sacrifices to Hashem was viewed as a transgression. And why?
"Were I to write for him the multitude of My Torah, they would be considered as something alien." Malbim explains: the altars that I prescribed for him in My Torah - the altars designated for sacrifices to Hashem, the altar in the Beit HaMikdash according to the Torah - "were considered as something alien"; they were regarded as foreign altars. Why? A person who went to sacrifice on Hashem's altar was killed, while one who went to sacrifice to the Baal was praised and applauded. And why? Because they asserted that those altars of Hashem were a sin! They held that Hashem is the God of gods - exalted and elevated beyond all. "Exalted as He is, would you dare offer Him a sacrifice? Do you think He pays any attention to you?" Rather, they claimed He has intermediaries and ministers - the sun, the moon, the angels, the stars, and the constellations - and they are the ones who must be served. They are closer below, and to them it makes sense to offer sacrifices. "So you go and sacrifice directly to Hashem? That is a sin!" In their eyes, sacrifices should be brought only to those lower ministers who execute Hashem's word, upon whom sacrifices ostensibly have an effect. Thus, "altars have become to him for sinning": the altars to Hashem were now deemed by him to be a sin, whereas sacrificing on the altars of the Baal was regarded as proper. Rashi explains: "Were I to write for him the multitude of My Torah, they would be considered as something alien" - I continually admonish them through the prophets and convey the multitude of My Torah, and the prophets warn them regarding the words of the Torah (as Radak adds), yet "they were considered as something alien" - it is entirely foreign to them, as if I were speaking to them of something unfamiliar and completely disconnected from their lives.
"As for the sacrifices of My roasted offerings, they slaughter meat and eat it; Hashem has not accepted them. Now He will remember their iniquity and punish their sins; they shall return to Egypt." "The sacrifices of havhāvai" - the commentators explain this as related to roasting in fire (lehavah, flame). Just as the root l-k-ch drops the lamed in the imperative kach, so too lehav drops the lamed to become hav, havhāvai. "The sacrifices of My roasted offerings, they slaughter meat and eat it" - meaning that the burnt offerings dedicated to Heaven were offered without any intention to please Hashem or bring an offering to Him; their sole aim was simply to "slaughter meat and eat it." Why place it on the altar? Simply to eat meat! Not as an olah (burnt offering), not as a holy sacrifice to Hashem - they treated it as entirely mundane. And they would say: "Hashem has not accepted them" - they claimed Hashem has no interest in these sacrifices because He does not supervise human affairs (as explained earlier), being exalted above all. Therefore, they sacrificed to the Baalim, the heavenly bodies, and the angels from whom they believed influence emanated. Offering a sacrifice to Hashem was viewed by them as futile or sinful. All this stemmed from their failure to tremble before the burden of the prophets' words; they were unaffected by rebuke, and the words of the prophets inspired no awe in them. Furthermore: "Now He will remember their iniquity and punish their sins" - when He remembers their iniquity and visits punishment upon them, and the king of Assyria arrives and the blows begin to fall, you see that your iniquity is remembered; yet even then they felt no fear of Hashem, but rather "they shall return to Egypt." What does "they shall return to Egypt" mean? Malbim explains: they turned to Egypt as though regressing to Egypt, as if the Holy One, blessed be He, had never redeemed them from Egypt to be His people. They turned back the clock to the state in Egypt when they were idolaters - before they were told, "Withdraw your hands from idolatry and take for yourselves a lamb" - reverting in time to idolaters as they were in Egypt, before Hashem chose them as His nation.
Radak, on the other hand, explains "they shall return to Egypt" as a historical description of what occurred when they returned to Egypt with Yochanan ben Kareiach. They violated the instruction of the prophet who commanded them not to return to Egypt, imagining they could flee there and find refuge. Hashem says: "He will punish their sins" - Hashem would punish their iniquity there even more severely than during the destruction of the land and the exile, for regarding those in Egypt it is written (Yirmeyahu 44:12), "they shall fall by the sword and by famine; they shall be consumed from the smallest to the greatest." Thus, for those who returned to Egypt, "He will remember their iniquity and punish their sins" all the more severely.
"Israel forgot his Maker and built palaces, and Yehudah multiplied fortified cities; but I will send a fire upon his cities, and it shall consume their palaces." "Israel forgot his Maker" - Radak explains that this is like "He made you and established you" (Devarim 32:6), meaning Hashem raised you and brought you to where you are today. "Israel forgot his Maker" - Israel forgot the Holy One, blessed be He, who nurtured him and elevated him to his stature. "And built palaces" - he built temples to worship idols in them, as Targum Yonatan renders: "and built temples for idols." Radak suggests another explanation: "Israel forgot his Maker" - he forgot Hashem who made him, "and built palaces" - he built fortified palaces to seek protection from the enemy. This corresponds to: "and Yehudah multiplied fortified cities" - they forgot that their salvation comes from Hashem and placed their trust in physical strongholds. Instead of recognizing that protection comes from Hashem and considering repentance, every spiritual breach is met with purely material defenses. When people forget Hashem, they seek physical solutions alone. This does not mean that practical efforts are unnecessary, but had the spiritual path been corrected from the start, all this would have been spared. Hashem protects His people, and even though the nations are powerful and Israel is like a lone sheep among seventy wolves, we would have been spared all these troubles without continually scrambling to plug each new breach as it arises. One would realize that our reckoning is with the Holy One, blessed be He, not with the nations surrounding us. "Israel forgot his Maker and built palaces, and Yehudah multiplied fortified cities" - Yehudah went and built fortified cities, thinking this would shield him. Hashem says: "But I will send a fire upon his cities, and it shall consume their palaces." None of this will avail; I will send fire upon the cities - the enemy will come by My will and burn the cities, consuming the palaces in flames, as it is written (II Melachim 25:9), "and he burned the House of Hashem and the king's palace, and every large house he burned with fire." Radak notes that "fire" may also serve as an expression for complete, total ruin, as though consumed by fire.
Malbim explains: "Israel forgot his Maker" connects back to what was stated earlier, "they shall return to Egypt." They returned, as it were, back in history to the period before I brought them out of Egypt - not knowing Me, worshipping idols. There in Egypt they forgot Hashem, who made them into a nation; that is "Israel forgot his Maker" - where? There in Egypt. You are the children of Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov, yet in Egypt they forgot this entirely. "And built palaces" - they built temples like the Egyptians, who had a designated temple for each star; they worshipped all the stars and constellations, constructing a temple for each. So too they built temples to engage in idolatry. "And Yehudah multiplied fortified cities" - until this point the prophet addressed the people of Shomron; now he turns to Yehudah: even though Yehudah serves Hashem in the Beit HaMikdash, he nevertheless multiplied fortified cities, trusting in his strongholds rather than in Hashem. Therefore, Hashem says, "I will send a fire upon his cities, and it shall consume their palaces."