"And when you have completed these, you shall lie down a second time upon your right side, and you shall bear the iniquity of the house of Yehudah forty days: a day for a year, a day for a year I have appointed for you." After that He says: when you have completed these, when you finish the 390 days, lie down another 40 days, and this time upon your right side. Why? As we explained, Rashi says: this teaches that the house of Yehudah sinned from the time the ten tribes were exiled until Yerushalayim was destroyed, 40 years. Here we have 40 years during which the house of Yehudah sinned, from the exile of the ten tribes until the destruction of Yerushalayim. We will soon see that it was not exactly 40 years, since it was more than 40 years, but at the point in time at which the prophet now stands, 40 years had passed. It emerges, then, that in addition to the 390, which is the charge against Shomron and Israel as a whole, another 40 years of Yehudah's sin alone were added here. The reckoning is 22 years of Menashe. How do you know it is 22 years? It is not written explicitly. We learn it from what is written: "like all that Achav did." And Achav reigned 22 years. From this we know that Menashe sinned for 22 years. Two years that Amon reigned, who was a great wicked man who lay with his mother and more, and another 11 years of Yehoyakim. This prophecy was delivered to Yechezkel in the fifth year of Tzidkiyahu. So it comes out: 22 of Menashe, two of Amon, that is 24. Another 11 of Yehoyakim, that is 35. Add to this that it was delivered to Yechezkel in the fifth year of Tzidkiyahu, meaning Tzidkiyahu had already reigned five years, so that is another five years, together you reach 40. The total of all is 430 years. We have arrived, then, at the days of their being here in the land, 430 years. That is 390 plus 40.
Now pay attention. Rashi will now work out for us how we arrive at what is written in several places, that Israel goes into exile for 70 years because they nullified 70 sabbatical years. How do we arrive at this reckoning of 70 years of exile following the nullification of 70 shemitot? Rashi says: after this prophecy they remained another six years. So from 40 we arrived at 46. It emerges, then, that we reached 430, another six years, we reached 436. Rashi says: do the reckoning, you have here eight jubilees. How much is a jubilee? 50 years. How much is eight jubilees? 400 years. We are speaking of 436. You have here eight jubilees and another 36 years. In eight jubilees we have eight cycles of shemitah. That means 7 times 8. How much is 7 times 8? 56. It emerges, then, that we have 56 shemitot in how many years? In 400 years. That is eight jubilees. And another eight jubilee years, for when there is a shemitah, besides keeping the shemitah one must also keep the jubilee. The shemitah is the 49th year and the next year is the 50th, which is also the jubilee. So it emerges, then, that we have now counted 56 shemitah years. Add to this that there were also eight jubilees in these 400 years, together we reached 64. From 56 it rose to 64. Good, up to here is the reckoning of 400 years. But we said it was 436 years. In the 36 years, we take off a year, 35 years, we have 7 times 5. That means you have another five shemitot. Five shemitot. Every seven years, yes, a shemitah, you have another five shemitot. That makes 69 shemitot. We had 64 shemitot and jubilees of the 400 years, another 5 shemitot of the 35 years, we reached 69 shemitot.
Another five of the 36 years, together you reached 69. Good, we are still missing one more. What about this one that we are missing? The final jubilee year was reckoned to them as an iniquity, since in their iniquity they were exiled from it and in the end did not reach it, they did not arrive at the jubilee, so you reach 70 years in which Israel did not observe a shemitah. Therefore they were exiled 70 years, to fulfill what was said: "then shall the land make up for its sabbaths, all the days of its desolation." All the days on which it was supposed to be desolate, it will now be desolate. During our 70 years of exile the land was desolate, to fulfill the 70 years of desolation that we were supposed to leave and let the land rest. This is what is written at the end of Divrei HaYamim: "to fulfill the word of Hashem by the mouth of Yirmiyahu, until the land had made up for its sabbaths, all the days of its desolation it rested, to fulfill 70 years." Here we have arrived at the reckoning of 70 years in which they were supposed to keep the shemitot and jubilees and did not keep them, and therefore the land will rest by itself, it will take by itself the rest of the land, and it exiled us for 70 years.
Let us note, now He commands him: "and you shall lie down upon your right side." Why your right side? Here too Rashi says that since Yehudah is in the south of the Land of Israel, as we saw that Shomron is on the left side, it emerges, then, that for Yehudah it is fitting to write the right side, just as Shomron is the left, and corresponding to it he lay upon the left side.
The Malbim explains that here too He commands him to bear the iniquity of Yehudah 40 days corresponding to the 40 years, but notice, not as Rashi explained, that these are the 40 years during which Yehudah sinned, but corresponding to the 40 years from when Yirmiyahu began to prophesy about the destruction. Yirmiyahu began to prophesy from the 13th year of Yoshiyahu until the destruction. From then in fact the decree was issued that the Temple would be destroyed, and He warned them for 40 years, day by day. It emerges, then, that there are here 40 years of warning, corresponding to which you shall lie upon your right side. And although the Malbim says that these 40 years, according to this reckoning, are included within the 390 years, they are not separate, they are absorbed within them, he says that nonetheless one must distinguish between them. That is, why do I count them separately? Because the 390 years are shared, they belong to everyone, both to the exiles, Shomron, and to Yehudah, those who were still here. But in contrast, this iniquity of not heeding the rebuke of Yirmiyahu is a private sin only of Yehudah. Shomron had already been exiled, there is no command relating to them here. Therefore here He tells him: lie upon your right side separately.
And why upon the right side? As we explained earlier, the Malbim follows his approach that Hashem revealed His right hand and His mighty arm over them and sent them prophets, and they were led with the conduct of the right, for the conduct of the right is a conduct of kindnesses, and since this is so, corresponding to it there must be, separately, 40 years. Only He tells him: know that these days will be reckoned, these years which are 40 years will be reckoned as days. Why? Very well, when we spoke of the 390 years, we said why they were reckoned to them as days: because there was merit to argue on their behalf. What was the merit? They had no rebuke. Hashem conducted Himself with them in a natural way. That was regarding the ten tribes. Now, regarding the tribes of Yehudah and Binyamin, there is no such merit to argue on their behalf. And if there is no such merit, says the Malbim, then what is the reason that here Hashem reckoned for them a day for a year? Here seemingly He should have told him: 40 years you shall lie upon your right side. Why here does He say to him a day for a year? He tells him: why? Because you, there is here your own merit, since you bear the suffering, as He told him "lie upon your right side," from which it may be understood that in the Malbim's view this is literal and not a metaphor or some prophetic vision, but literally: lie upon your right side. So it may be understood. And if so it emerges, in your bearing the suffering that, as it were, was here as a consequence of their deed for 40 days, through this you will atone, and through this 40 days alone will suffice and not 40 years.
And from where does the Malbim derive this precisely? The Malbim says: notice, it is written "a day for a year, a day for a year I have appointed for you." What is "I have appointed for you"? It is because of you, it is by your merit, through you; your merit is what causes it to be only a day for a year.
"And you shall set your face toward the siege of Yerushalayim, with your arm bared, and you shall prophesy against it." And toward the siege of Yerushalayim, now He tells him: you shall now set your face toward the brick, which is essentially Yerushalayim here in the story, which is engraved there, upon which Yerushalayim is engraved. He tells him: set your face toward the siege of Yerushalayim. You will lie upon your left side, and the brick will be before you, and likewise when you lie upon your right side, the brick will be before you. Set your face toward the siege of Yerushalayim, let your face be toward Yerushalayim which you engraved upon the brick, with your arm bared, and you shall prophesy against it. And then you shall say the prophecy thus. What is this bared arm written here? The commentators here explain that a bared arm is an expression for an arm prepared for war. When a person wants to strike and fight forcefully, the garment weighs him down. So he lowers it, lowers the garment, pulls it up, and then he can make the movements with his hand much more nimbly. Especially in their times, when the garments were much heavier, much more cumbersome, so accordingly, in order to fight one had to pull up the garment and then fight. That is the bared arm. What does it come to tell them? It is a sign and a symbol of Nevuchadnetzar, who will come and fight against them. The bared arm expresses war. And then "you shall prophesy against it," when you besiege the city this way with all the symbolism we saw above, with the rampart and with the siege you made around it and with the pan He told him to use, then you shall prophesy and say to them words of admonition and tell the people that the city will be captured if they do not repent.
The Malbim explains, not like Rashi that the face of the prophet was constantly toward the brick. The Malbim says the brick was placed on his left side. And then it emerges that all the time he lay upon his left side, the brick was before him. Since it was on his left side, as it is written "and you shall set your face toward it." Only that then, when he lay upon his left side, he had not yet been told to bare his arm. "With your arm bared" is not written then. Why? Because then he prophesied to the ten tribes. And to the ten tribes Hashem indeed did not bare His arm. To the ten tribes Hashem sent hardly any prophets, Hashem did not lead them with the conduct of the right, which is the conduct of kindness, which is the conduct of abundance, the miraculous conduct. That is the allusion of the left side, the left hand. In contrast, during the last 40 years, where he lies upon the right side, there the brick is placed, notice, on his right side, and then he sets his face toward the siege of Yerushalayim with his arm bared and he prophesies against it, in order to hint to them: here the Holy One, blessed be He, bared His right hand to you. Here the Holy One, blessed be He, bestowed abundance upon you, did you kindnesses, gave you His prophets to rebuke you, and even so you did not repent. The charge against you here is far more severe, and therefore here He is required to bare His right hand as well, and to have His face toward the right side.
"And behold, I have put ropes upon you, and you shall not turn from one side to the other until you have completed the days of your siege." I have put ropes upon you, Rashi explains: the decree of My commands, or My commands, shall be severe upon you, as though you were bound with ropes, that you should not turn from one side to the other. That is, according to Rashi this is a metaphor. Not literal ropes, but since I commanded you to lie upon the right side and afterward I commanded you, and before that I commanded you to lie upon the left side, it is as though I bound you not to change the side. That is, you are warned to fulfill My command in its entirety, exactly as I commanded you. Until when? Lie thus as one bound, until you have completed the days of your siege, until you finish these days which I commanded you to be in, as if in a siege. Why "your sieges"? The Malbim says: because here we spoke of two kinds of sieges. There was a siege of 390 days and there was a siege of 40 days. The lying on the left side and the lying on the right side. "Your sieges" is plural, referring to the two kinds of siege. And the Malbim also says that "I have put ropes upon you" means that you are as though bound and forbidden, first, not to leave your house, and second, not to turn from the right side to the left side.
"And you, take for yourself wheat and barley and beans and lentils and millet and spelt, and put them in one vessel, and make them into bread for yourself; according to the number of the days that you lie upon your side, 390 days, you shall eat it." He tells him now that he is commanded also to make an allusion, after we saw an allusion to what will happen in the city and an allusion to the siege, He tells him: now you must make an allusion also to the food that they will eat during the siege. First He tells him: take for yourself wheat and barley, that is, since there will be a siege, take for yourself. "Take for yourself" means prepare and store up food; you will need much food for the days of the siege. Second He tells him: and put them in one vessel. What? Wheat, barley, beans, lentils, millet and spelt. All of these, except for the wheat and barley, are kinds of legumes. And He tells him: you must put them all in one vessel. What does this come to hint? The bread will not be pure. When the bread is pure, one eats wheat bread. Less pure, one eats barley bread, less fine. But when the bread is entirely composed of a mixture of wheat, barley, beans, lentils, millet and spelt, this shows that the bread is not pure. It shows that the bread is flawed, for there is no pure bread. It shows the harshness of the siege, you will have nothing to eat except bread made of various kinds of grains.
Another matter: "and make them into bread for yourself, according to the number of the days that you lie upon your side." He tells him to prepare bread for 390 days. These are the days that he lay upon his side. True, we also saw an additional 40 days, but now He is speaking of the 390 days during which the king of Bavel besieged Yerushalayim. The Malbim works out the reckoning: on the tenth day of the tenth month, what is the tenth day of the tenth month? The tenth of Tevet, in the ninth year of Tzidkiyahu. And he captured it in the end in the fourth month, of the 11th year of his reign, on the 7th or the 9th of the month. These days of the siege lasted 18 months, as is explained in Yirmiyahu. In the middle of the siege the king of Bavel left Yerushalayim because of the army of Paroh, he heard that Paroh was now coming against him, and following this he left Yerushalayim and went to fight with Paroh, but he told them: take into account that I will yet return. And as it appears, says the Malbim, this was in the tenth year of the reign of Tzidkiyahu. And then it emerges that when he returned to the siege a second time, it was at the beginning of Iyar. And from then until the ninth of Tammuz, which is the year of the destruction, was 430 days. And when Nevuchadnetzar left the city, they prepared bread for themselves for the days of the siege. And they prepared bread for themselves for 390 days. That is, how much were they short? 40 days. That is, they did not prepare enough bread for all the days of the siege of 430 days. They prepared bread only for 390 days, which is about a year and a month, yes? For a year is about 360 days, and here we are speaking of 390 days, that is about a year and a month. And what is the reason they did not prepare more? Because they did not find more. That is, they prepared according to the amount of the wheat and millet and beans and lentils that they had in the vicinity. And they did not find more than that, and therefore prepared bread only for 390 days. This is what He tells him: according to the number of the days that you lie, 390 days; according to the number of the days that you lie, that will be the bread they will manage to prepare. And then it emerges that when there remained the last 40 days of the siege, they were already in utter famine. For until now they still prepared bread for 390 days and ate it. But the siege was 430 days. And accordingly it emerges that for the last 40 days they already had nothing to eat, and then they died of famine and pestilence and sword within the city, until the city was breached, as is brought in Yirmiyahu chapter 21, verse 4, and in several places. So according to this it emerges that during the 390 days they ate by weight. Eating by weight means by measure, according to a set amount, for each person they weigh out exactly how much he will eat, so that the bread will not run out quickly. And when 390 days passed, they no longer had even bread by weight.
And this is what He continues and says: "and your food which you shall eat shall be by weight, 20 shekels a day; from time to time you shall eat it." This comes to hint at the siege and that they will eat their bread by weight. It is written here "bemishkol," by weight; the Radak says that "bemishkol" is of the form of "mizmor," like "zemer" and "mizmor," so too here "mishkol," yes? The meaning is: because of the famine they will eat it by weight, and eat it once a day. Their custom was to eat two meals a day, and on Shabbat, in order to create a change, one eats three meals. But on a weekday two meals, morning and evening. Here He tells him: there will be one meal a day. Out of great scarcity, one meal from time to time you shall eat it. Once a day they would eat because of the lack of bread. Likewise they would drink the water by measure. "Bimsurah" means according to a measure, as we will see in the next verse. And about this He tells him: this will be in the first 390 days. And afterward you will be constricted even more, for even the 20 shekels a day, which is the amount of bread they ate a day, even that you will not have. "And water by measure you shall drink, a sixth of a hin; from time to time you shall drink." And water by measure you shall drink; "mesurah," our Sages say, is a small measure that is one of 30 of a log. One of 30 of a log means something like 11.5 cubic centimeters. With water the cubic centimeter and the gram are the same. So He is speaking of there being here an amount of something like 11 cc of water, 11 grams of water. Notice, then you say, this is the mesurah, and then you say a sixth of a hin. A sixth of a hin is already a much larger amount. A hin is 12 logs. A sixth of a hin is two logs. Two logs is 690 cc. That is already almost 700 grams of water, 690 cc; a cc is a measure of volume, a gram is a measure of weight, yes? So in any case we are speaking of a much larger amount. First you spoke to me of 11.5 grams, now you speak to me of close to 700 grams. Rather the Radak explains that the intent is that you will have an amount of 690 cc a day. Notice, but how much will you drink? You will drink by measure. Each time a small sip. Each time 11 grams. This is essentially the idea. And then accordingly it emerges that there is no contradiction here. You will drink water by measure; how much will you have a day? A sixth of a hin. And this you will have from time to time you shall drink. This comes to hint at how this will characterize the thirst and the great famine that they will have when they are in Yerushalayim during the siege, from the ninth year of Tzidkiyahu until the 11th year.
"And a barley cake you shall eat it, and it shall be baked in the sight of them with balls of human dung." And a barley cake you shall eat it. He says: you shall eat a cake which is a barley cake. Rashi explains: its shaping is unsightly, like the shaping of barley, and not pleasing like the shaping of a wheat cake. Anyone who has seen health bread, whole bread, and the like, cannot dispute that a challah looks far more beautiful. Its shaping is pleasing, it looks far more shining, it looks far more nicely made. Barley bread today, perhaps all these kinds of bread are considered boutique breads and health breads and they are expensive, but in any case, in terms of their status, one sees that they are considered inferior breads. And certainly in terms of taste, the pure bread and the challah are considered far finer in their taste than barley bread. So this is what He tells you: and a barley cake you shall eat it. The meaning is: its shaping will be unsightly, like the shaping of barley. For what is He speaking of with me? Wheat and barley and beans and lentils and millet and spelt, correct? All of these we are speaking of. He tells you: true, you speak of the whole mixture, but its form, its shaping, will not be pleasing like the shaping of wheat bread but like the shaping of barley bread. And the Radak explains, this that we explained is Rashi's interpretation. The Radak explains that "a barley cake you shall eat it" is as though it were written here "and like a barley cake you shall eat it." The meaning is: as though you will eat this cake like a barley cake without all the mixtures. Why? He means to say, a barley cake is eaten with more relish than a cake with all the mixtures we saw earlier, which shows its inferiority. They mixed into it many kinds of legumes, this shows its inferiority. But since there will be famine, you will eat it with such eagerness as though it were a barley cake. For a barley cake is considered finer than a cake composed of all these legumes. So this is "like a barley cake you shall eat it," you will eat it with such appetite as though it were a barley cake. Ah, says the Radak, if He comes to speak of the appetite, then go further. Say "like a wheat cake." For a wheat cake is eaten with far more appetite. That would seemingly be the more extreme comparison, to say how hungry you will be, that you would eat it as though it were a special challah. The Radak says: to that extent He does not exaggerate. To that extent He does not exaggerate, since it is far-fetched that the mixed cake would be eaten with appetite like a wheat cake alone. To say to that extent, that he ate it with such enthusiasm as a wheat cake out of great hunger, He does not exaggerate. Therefore He said: you will eat it with enthusiasm as though it were a barley cake.
By the way, when we speak here of a "cake," we have already explained several times, we are not speaking of the concept of cake as we say it today. For "cake" when one says it today is pastry. That is what is meant by cake. It means things with sugar, with cocoa and other matters. In contrast, in their times when they spoke of "ugah," ugah means challah. "Ugat retzafim" means a challah of coals, which they made upon coals, "retzafim" like "reshafim," yes? Like a charrah. And here when we speak of "ugah," it is called ugah because ugah means circle. As we say "he drew a circle (ugah) and stood within it." "Ugah ugah ugah in a circle it is drawn." And there are those who think that they sing there about a cake. There they sing about a circle. Today people do not know the expression "ugah," "he drew a circle." They do not understand it, so they think they are speaking here about some pancake. So there they are speaking of "ugah" in the sense of "he drew a circle," made a circle. And we spoke in the past that the word "challah" too comes from this language. Since "challah" is from the expression of round, like "machol," for "machol" means a circle. So too the challah, and the ugah, both are expressed by a round thing. It is very likely that this is like the pitot that the Arabs make, that the pita is their form of bread, which is a round thing. Or simply a challah that was round. Why? One takes a piece of dough, pinches off dough, places it on the surface. How does it become? Round. Automatically dough that you place on a surface will be round. Today people take it and make all kinds of shapes, but ordinarily the challah is supposed to be round. So therefore both challah and ugah are from the expression of a circle, and "dar" too is from the expression of "machol."
So, a barley cake you shall eat it. And it shall be baked in the sight of them with balls of human dung. What is "with balls of human dung"? The meaning is: this cake will be baked by means of balls of human dung. That is, this cake, they would bake, they would use a tabun, they would use fuel. So sometimes they would put wood, and sometimes they could also use, for example, date pits or olive pits and various other things of this kind. And sometimes also, when they had no other fuel, they would bake the cake by means of dung. Animal dung. And here He says: this cake will be so disgusting that this cake will be baked with balls of human dung. Animal dung is not disgusting, it is not foul. Certainly no one craves it, but it is not, it is not disgusting like human dung. A person, by contrast, who stands next to human dung, his excrement stinks. "He who increases knowledge increases pain." The Gemara says that a child, the moment he has knowledge and eats grain, his excrement begins to stink. So He comes to say how low the situation will be, to the point that this cake will be baked with balls of human dung, by means of balls of human dung, with which they will bake the cake. It is written here "te'ugenah in their sight." The Radak says: there are those who want to say that the meaning is: you, the prophet, "te'ugenah" in their sight, meaning you shall bake the cake. But he says this is difficult to explain thus, for then it should have said "te'ugenah" with a dagesh in the nun. Here it is written "te'ugenah" with a soft nun. Therefore he says the meaning is: the women shall bake it. The women shall bake it in their sight. But if it were said of you, it should have said "te'ugenah," which is a command to you, you shall bake it in their sight, with a dagesh in the nun. He says: the women shall bake it, meaning this cake they will shape and make before the eyes of the people, since, as we explained, there is here a message for the people. This whole prophecy comes to express what will befall the people during the period of the siege. So it must be done in their sight in order that they understand the message.
The Malbim explains that at the completion of the days of the siege He commands him, first, to eat a barley cake. Barley is animal food. This comes to hint to him about the days of the exile, which will be after the end of the siege. To tell them: you will eat animal food. You abandoned the form of the Israelite, you drew back, turned backward, to be like beasts that do not speak. Who eats barley? Donkeys. So you, as it were, deteriorated to the level of beasts. So when you go into exile, you will eat there among the nations animal food. Regarding this, by the way, they say that this is the hint of why Israel would offer the Omer, when? The day after Pesach. And when would they offer the wheat meal offering? On Shavuot. So they would offer the two loaves from wheat. Why indeed is this one from barley and this one from wheat? Because when we left Mitzrayim we had not yet received the Torah, our food was animal food. We ate barley, as it were. That is, we were still at the level of a beast. When did we merit the form of a human? When we arrived at the standing at Har Sinai. And then we are considered as children to Hashem, we received the Torah, from here your food is wheat food. And on Shavuot they would offer the two loaves from wheat, yes? It emerges, then, that barley food comes to hint at the matter of beastliness. So you will eat a barley cake to hint that they deteriorated to the level of the beast, abandoned the form of the Israelite. Second, He tells him: bake the cake with balls of human dung. To teach them that although their food is animal food, nevertheless their excrement and their impurity is human, for the impurity stinks. And the reason is that they sinned in the form which is the speaking soul, and defiled it. That is, He wants to tell you: there are in you two defects. If He had said we descended to the level of a beast, a beast has a deficiency, and an advantage. What is the advantage of the beast? It is never defiled in its lifetime. The only creature in the world that is defiled in its lifetime is a human. All other living creatures have no impurity in their lifetime. At most there can be impurity at their death. For example in their carcass, there are cases where it defiles. And even then, it depends how it was slaughtered. But in any case there is a state of impurity at its death; a creeping creature defiles at its death, not in its lifetime. But a human has a reality that he can reach the most severe impurity. Both a beast and a creeping creature, when they become defiled, do not reach the summit of impurity. What is the summit of impurity? The father of the fathers of impurity, a corpse. This does not exist in a creeping creature, nor in a beast, in a carcass. There is no such level. It emerges, then, notice, that if we had descended only to the level of a beast, it would still have an advantage, for the level of a beast, its impurity is relatively slight, it does not defile in its lifetime, it does not defile at the peak of impurity. He tells you: no, know that here you still remain with the minus of a human. "With balls of human dung," to tell you that human dung stinks, to tell you that you still remained with the deficiencies of the Israelite man, and the deficiencies of the Israelite man are that he defiles in his lifetime, that he defiles after his death with severe impurity. In simple words: you did not descend to the level of the beast in the full sense of the word, in which case there would still be some advantage, but you remained with the deficiencies of the level of the human, for the level of the human is the soul, and you defiled the soul. And this is expressed in the stinking human dung, which is in the form of impure eating, in order to state that they defiled their soul.
"And Hashem said: thus shall the children of Israel eat their bread unclean among the nations where I will drive them." Thus shall the children of Israel eat their bread unclean. What relevance is there here to "unclean"? What impurity is there here? Rashi says: "unclean" means disgusting, yes? Thus in their exile among the nations they will not be able to keep their food from impurity, they will not be able to eat cleanly, explains the Radak. The Malbim explains that here in fact He told him two parables. And at first He will explain to him the second parable, and afterward He will explain to him the first parable. So at the beginning He explains to him the last parable, of the barley cake. The Malbim says: He tells him: know, in the days of their exile among the nations they will eat their bread, animal food, which will be unclean with the impurity of the nations. That is one thing. He begins from the last part, which is the matter of the barley cake that he will eat.
And then immediately the prophet protests against this. And he says: "Ah, Hashem Elokim, behold, my soul has not been defiled, and carcass and torn flesh I have not eaten from my youth until now, and no piggul flesh has come into my mouth." The prophet immediately protests and says: how can it be that You, Hashem, demand of me such a thing, to eat unclean bread? For my soul has not been defiled. The Radak explains: neither my soul nor my body is defiled. Not my soul from an evil thought, and not my body from unclean food. Carcass and torn flesh I have not eaten from my youth until now, and no piggul flesh has come into my mouth. This is somewhat puzzling. Is this something the prophet takes pride in? From my youth until now I have not eaten carcass and torn flesh and I have not eaten piggul flesh? Which man of Israel ate carcass and torn flesh or piggul flesh? How can it be that the prophet would take pride in this? So there are indeed several explanations for this. The first explanation, what the Radak explains: the Radak says the kohanim are warned about carcasses and torn flesh more than the people of Israel, more than the general public. Because in them there is a unique impurity. "Any carcass or torn flesh the kohanim shall not eat, so as to be defiled by it." Is the rest of Israel permitted? No. But the kohanim have a greater warning, for the kohanim must guard their holiness at a higher level. And he says: even from my youth I was careful of impurity, and no piggul flesh, about which the kohanim are warned, has come into my mouth. So how do You tell me to eat my bread in something unclean and disgusting? Our Sages expound: "my soul has not been defiled," I did not have impure thoughts by day and come to impurity at night. As our Sages warn that a person should not have impure thoughts by day about matters of forbidden relations and come, Heaven forbid, to seminal impurity at night. And carcass and torn flesh I have not eaten...