Sefer Yechezkel, chapter 34. This chapter is the haftarah for parashat Bechukotai according to the custom of the Yemenites and the Italians. "And the word of Hashem came to me, saying. Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel, prophesy and say to them, to the shepherds, thus says Hashem: Woe to the shepherds of Israel who were feeding themselves. Should not the shepherds feed the flock?" And the word of Hashem came to me, saying. After the Beit HaMikdash was destroyed, the kingdom of the house of David was nullified. We saw that Tzidkiyahu's eyes were blinded, Yechoniah was in exile, the Holy One blessed be He... This is a prophecy to the shepherds, who were in fact the cause. And the reason was that they did not feed the flock in the place proper for it. The meaning is that the shepherds are the leaders of Israel, the flock is the people of Israel, and "you are My flock", the people of Israel are considered Hashem's flock, and the shepherds did not feed the flock properly, meaning they did not lead the people of Israel fittingly. We are speaking here of the leaders of Israel. And since this is so, Hashem removed them from their task. This comes to show that Hashem's judgments were just. The Holy One blessed be He removed the shepherds from their kingship because their kingship was not fitting. Therefore He says: Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel, prophesy and say to them, to the shepherds. Thus says Hashem Elokim: Woe to the shepherds of Israel who were feeding themselves.
The Malbim explains that this prophecy, notice, is doubled. "Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel, prophesy and say to them, to the shepherds." Why twice? He explains that this prophecy was in fact also said for the future, concerning those who would in the future feed them, and it also begins concerning those who existed at that time. Therefore He says here twice the expression "prophesy". "Prophesy against the shepherds of Israel", this concerns the future. Furthermore, "prophesy and say to them, to the shepherds" who exist at that time, for they too need this message, that this message is relevant to them as well. "Woe to the shepherds of Israel." "Woe" means, this is an expression of pain. "Woe to the shepherds of Israel", or some say that "woe" is an expression of oratory, speech and pathos, so one says "woe". Woe to the shepherds of Israel, what is the statement to them? Say to them: shepherds can be of two kinds. There are shepherds whose goal is to benefit the flock, and there are shepherds whose goal is to receive from the flock. What can I profit from the flock? So He says to them: the shepherds whose purpose is to benefit the flock, their entire aim is only to do what the flock needs and to benefit them, as it is written of David, "And He chose David His servant and took him from the sheepfolds." Chazal say that the Holy One blessed be He tested him with the flock. Moshe Rabbeinu, Hashem tested him with the flock. Yaakov Avinu was a shepherd of the flock.
He says, these people, the Malbim explains, are called shepherds of the flock. Their purpose is to feed the flock. In contrast, there is a shepherd who profits from feeding the flock. He receives the shearing, he receives the milk. Here the flock feeds him. Do you hear? The flock feeds them. As it were, the flock grants to them, gives to them. Now this can also be mutual. He feeds the flock and the flock feeds him. The meaning is, he leads them with justice and integrity, and they too give him beneficial things from what they have to give. They give him milk, they give him wool, and then it turns out that he feeds them and they feed him as well. The Malbim says: in earlier generations, the shepherds of Israel were such that they fed them. Meaning, they did not benefit from the public, but only fed the flock. That is, their entire aim was to benefit the flock. Like Moshe Rabbeinu, who even when he was harmed through feeding the people of Israel, as we know, "Erase me now from Your book that You have written", Moshe Rabbeinu was ready to give his life for them, because he truly fed them. His entire concern was to lead them, to benefit them. So He says: Woe to the shepherds of Israel, where are those shepherds who fed them, who led the people of Israel and this was their entire aim? For today the reality has changed. "Should not the shepherds feed the flock?" Today the reality has changed, since today there are no such shepherds, for the flock feeds the shepherds. Meaning, as we explained, they are the ones who constantly only grant and give to the shepherds, while the shepherds give nothing to the flock. And now He will detail for us throughout the entire chapter this harsh reality, how the entire concern of the leaders was how to receive from the public and how to take everything it has, without giving the public anything.
"You eat the fat and clothe yourselves with the wool, you slaughter the fatling, but you do not feed the flock." He says to them: the fat of the flock you eat. The wool of the flock you wear. The fatling, meaning the healthy, strong sheep, from which, even though you can benefit from its shearing, from its wool, or from its milk, it is more precise to say from its milk, since He is still speaking of it alive. With all this, He says, it would be fitting for you to watch over them, to care for them, yet you do not feed the flock. You do not feed them, but slaughter and think what I can receive, what I can profit. To benefit them, to grant to them, you have no intention at all. And this is: "The weak you did not strengthen, and the sick you did not heal, and the broken you did not bind, and the driven away you did not bring back, and the lost you did not seek, and with force you ruled over them and with harshness." Now He begins to enumerate the manner in which the shepherds conducted themselves with the flock, and how much this conduct was harsh conduct. He says: the weak you did not strengthen. "Weak" (nachlot), and afterward He mentions the sick (cholah). So the weak and the sick apparently are the same thing. The Malbim says there is a difference. "Weak" means she is a little ill. Meaning she is not on the line of health, this is the beginning of illness, and therefore it comes in the passive form, nachlot. Weak of constitution and needing strengthening. In contrast, the sick has already fallen into actual illness. So the weak, who need strengthening, you did not strengthen. And the sick, the one who has already truly fallen into illness, who already needs healing, her you did not heal. "And the broken you did not bind." The broken, whose fracture needs to be bound, you did not bind. "And the driven away you did not bring back." The driven away means the one who was driven from her place, you did not return her to her place. "And the lost", the one who was completely lost and now one must go and search for her, you did not seek. It turns out then that the entire matter of feeding the flock was not for the benefit of the flock, but for the detriment of the flock.
And this is what He concludes and says: "and with force you ruled over them and with harshness." You ruled over them with force. "Ruling" (rediyah) is from the expression of ruling over a people, dominion over a people by force. "And with harshness", you enslaved them with harshness, and the entire aim was in order to eat of their flesh, and not to manage and lead them with providence and mercy, as befits one who feeds the flock. The Malbim explains that there is a difference between "driven away" and "lost". He says here, "and the driven away you did not bring back and the lost you did not seek." The Malbim says that the driven away is one who has been driven outside his place. In contrast, one who is lost has been completely lost. Driven away can be in the area, but one who is lost has vanished entirely. This says, both these and those you did not care for. "And they were scattered without a shepherd, and they became food for every beast of the field, and they were scattered." The flock, the Malbim says, needs to be gathered together, and there needs to be a shepherd who watches over them at the time of their gathering. The flock is always fed as a group. He says here, we saw that the flock was driven away, was lost, and not only that, but also the flock as a whole was scattered. "And they were scattered", and this is because there was no shepherd, there was no one who cared for them. And through their being scattered, "they became food for every beast of the field." Consequently every beast of the field could rule over them, there was no shepherd to lead them.
"And they were scattered." Why does it say "and they were scattered" a second time? The Malbim says, because once the beast of the field came, then they scattered further. So they dispersed scattering upon scattering. So the first "and they were scattered" is that there was no shepherd, and afterward when the beasts of the field came, then they scattered further, and therefore it again says "and they were scattered". "My flock wandered over all the mountains and upon every high hill, and upon all the face of the earth My flock was scattered, and none sought and none searched." The Malbim says, there was still a possibility that they would return to the place on their own, that they would gather on their own. But through their being scattered, that we saw the beast of the field come and they scattered far off, through this they ascended to the mountains. And from the mountains they scattered upon every high hill, to the hill beneath it. The mountains are always the high place, and beneath the mountain there is the lower place where the hill is located. This is as it is written in Yirmeyahu chapter 50: "My people were lost sheep, their shepherds led them astray, on the mountains they turned them away, from mountain to hill they went, they forgot their resting place." Meaning, through their ascending to the mountain, they descended to the hill, they forgot their place, so their scattering was great, they scattered in every direction. And through this, "upon all the face of the earth My flock was scattered." The meaning is that they dispersed in great scattering, having forgotten the place to which they need to return. "And none sought and none searched." What is the redundancy of "none sought and none searched"? The Malbim says, when the flock is lost, then the shepherd goes in order to search for them. When he does not find them, then he begins to ask people, tell me, did you perhaps see sheep wandering here? Did you perhaps see some lambs here? So he begins to demand of the people, if you did not see, if you did not find, I will give you identifying marks, return them to me. So He says, not only is there none who demands from someone who found the lost object, there is also none who searches, no one even went out to look. It is not that I already went out and saw people and began to ask.
Not only is there none who demands, there is also none who searches. And the Malbim explains, that to search for the lost is always in order to find it, as it is written "and you shall seek and find", "I sought him but did not find him." And the demanding of the lost, the meaning is, I arrive at a person with whom the flock is found, so I demand of him through identifying marks, I give him marks, as in "you shall seek out your brother" and return it to him. Chazal say that it must be through identifying marks. So regarding the lost object, first one searches and afterward one demands. First one looks, and after I have arrived at a person I give him marks so that he returns it to me. But here He wanted to tell you how much no one is interested, He tells you there is none who demands, to ask for marks, and there is not even one who went out to search for them. Therefore "shepherds, hear the word of Hashem. As I live, says Hashem, surely because My flock became a prey, and My flock became food for every beast of the field, for lack of a shepherd, and My shepherds did not seek My flock, and the shepherds fed themselves and did not feed My flock." "As I live" is a decree that comes with an oath. Chazal say this is a decree that is not torn up. When Hashem swears, it means that this matter will be fulfilled no matter what. "Because My flock became a prey, and My flock became food for every beast of the field, for lack of a shepherd." There was no one to watch them and every beast of the field ruled over them. "And My shepherds did not seek My flock." The shepherds did not seek the flock. And this flock became a prey, and the reason for this is the lack of a shepherd. For if there had been a shepherd he would have managed them and led them in safety. And this is considered, Chazal say, like leading her to a place of bands of wild beasts and robbers. Leading her to a place of bands of wild beasts and robbers, it is written that he is liable. For although you may say that here it is an armed robber, the gentiles who came are like an armed robber, there is a certain law of duress, but one who leads the flock to a place of bands of wild beasts and robbers cannot claim duress. Why did you take the flock to that place? Or one who abandoned the flock cannot claim it was duress.
He says, and moreover, "and My shepherds did not seek My flock." It was also necessary to invest effort in order to save them. How? Through shepherds, through staffs. It is written that if bands came or predators came to the flock, the shepherd is obligated to go and call for help. And then people would come with staffs, they would come with force and drive away the wolves or the robbers or whoever it might be. And if he did not do this, kept his hand in the dish, then again he bears responsibility for what happened to the flock. So here too, "My shepherds did not seek My flock", they did not go to save them with shepherds and staffs. And especially since their law, the Malbim says, is like that of a paid guardian. For "and the shepherds fed themselves". What is "and the shepherds fed themselves"? As Chazal say about the sons of Yaakov, when they went to seek Yosef, Chazal say that they went to feed. At first it is written that they went to feed, before Yosef went to search for them, so when they went to feed it is written that they went to feed themselves. Chazal say there is a dot over the word "et", that they went to feed themselves. What is the meaning of feeding themselves? The plain meaning is that they went to care for themselves. Something like what is written here, that the shepherd does not seek the good of the flock but his own good. But at a deeper level the meaning of the matter is that through this feeding they ultimately fed themselves. Since through this feeding they took Yosef and threw him into the pit, and he went down to Egypt and became a ruler there, and provided for their sustenance. For the tribes were sustained by virtue of Yosef being a ruler. It turns out then that in this entire course they fed themselves. Ultimately they saw to buying food for themselves at the end of the whole process. In any case, "the shepherds fed themselves", the meaning is that they fed themselves. The leaders fed themselves, led themselves, cared for themselves. So why did they not feed My flock? And against what He said, "for lack of a shepherd", do not say that perhaps they decided, that is it, I am so to speak abandoning the field, I no longer take responsibility for the flock. So what do you want from me?
I am in effect disconnecting from them. He tells you, it cannot be, for you say "and the shepherds fed themselves". This is called laying a hand upon it. And if he laid a hand, then why did they not feed My flock? Meaning, the moment you took and drew from it, you already bear responsibility, this is called laying a hand. Since he laid a hand upon them, he was obligated to feed them and obligated in responsibility toward them, toward everything that would happen to them. So then, after they fed themselves and benefited from them, surely they were required to give them protection. Therefore "shepherds, hear the word of Hashem." Why does He need to say again "therefore shepherds"? He explains, as we said earlier, that they have no pretext to come and say, no, we disconnected from them, we did not take responsibility. No, Hashem says to them, you are the shepherds. Since you drew from the flock and benefited from them, then you are their shepherd, you are obligated toward them. "Thus says Hashem Elokim: Behold I am against the shepherds, and I will demand My flock from their hand, and I will remove them from feeding the flock, and the shepherds will no longer feed themselves, and I will save My flock from their mouth, and they will not be food for them." "Behold I am against the shepherds", He says to them, against the fact that My flock became a prey and food, I will demand this from the hand of the shepherds, they will have to pay, for they were negligent in their guarding. And against what He said, "and My shepherds did not seek My flock", the punishment will be that I will dismiss them. "And I will remove them from feeding the flock." I will no longer let them feed My flock. Meaning, the kingship, the office that was in their hand, the Holy One blessed be He will take it from them, He will take the kingdom from them. "So that the shepherds will no longer feed themselves." Meaning, that the shepherds will no longer feed themselves. And against what He said, "and the shepherds fed themselves", they benefited from them and only took for themselves, Hashem says this is finished. Since now "I will save My flock from their mouth". "My flock from their mouth", meaning, they benefit only from the flock, eating their flesh, but give nothing, "and they will not be food for them".
They will no longer be able to continue eating them and benefiting from them, since I will distance them from the leadership of the people of Israel. "For thus says Hashem Elokim: Behold I Myself will demand My flock and inquire after them." Hashem says to them, do not think that now, the moment I take the shepherds from them, they will have no leadership at all. Meaning, if it is not I here who feeds the flock, as it were, who will now lead them? Hashem says, it is not so. After I have removed the shepherds from them, I Myself will be their shepherd. "For thus says Hashem Elokim: Behold I Myself will demand My flock and inquire after them." I will demand My flock and inquire (bikkur) after them. In the language of Tanach, bikkur always has the meaning of inspection. And this, by the way, is one of the corruptions of the corruptions of the Hebrew language: when people want to say to go to visit (levaker) a sick person, they say bikkur cholim. And from this people say, you come to drop by and visit so-and-so, to visit someone, not even sick, just an ordinary person. To go visit. Tractate Bikkurim. Yes? Going to visit. In fact, according to the holy tongue, it is quite incorrect to say this. Since the expression bikkur is from the language of inspection. When a person goes to visit the sick, this is not a visit of dropping by to ask how things are. It is to inspect his condition, to see what he lacks and to care for him. Like the incident with Rabbi Akiva, who went and saw that student, and said that one who does not visit the sick sheds blood. Since when he went and saw in what terrible state the man was, he helped him and cleaned and arranged and so on. That is, the visit is from the language of inspection. So Hashem says, so too here, "I will demand My flock and inquire after them." "I will inquire after them" means, as the Malbim says, to know the nature of the matter and its condition. This is to know what is lacking, what they need, what their needs are. And through this they will truly have a shepherd who is responsible to care for them for what is fitting for them. Hashem says, this is I.
"Behold I Myself will demand My flock and inquire after them." The demanding, the Malbim explains, so there are here two expressions. The inquiry is to know the nature of the matter and its condition, so here there is also the inquiry of the flock in general, to know how many are lacking, and there is also the inquiry of the flock in particular. Therefore it is written "I will demand My flock and inquire after them." Apart from the matter of the inquiry of the flock in general, this is My flock in which I will need to see in each and every one of them what exactly he lacks and what I can give him. "As a shepherd inspects his flock on the day he is among his scattered sheep, so will I inspect My flock, and I will save them from all the places where they were scattered on the day of cloud and thick darkness." And this will be as the shepherd inspects his flock. What is "his flock"? His own flock. When a person works in someone else's business, then we all know how much he cares and how much he devotes himself and how much he only looks for how to finish and escape. But when a person works in his own private business, he stays there until midnight, even though no one gives you an addition to your salary. This is my business. He says, "as a shepherd inspects his flock", I will inspect them as the shepherd cares to inspect his flock, his own flock, for which he cares and about which he is concerned, he sees his own flock, he watches over them well. "On the day he is among his scattered sheep." Meaning, when the flock is scattered, "scattered" (nifrashot) from the expression of separating and moving away. When does this happen? On the day of cloud and thick darkness. On the day of cloud and thick darkness, which is a day of darkness, then the flock cannot see where they need to concentrate, so they separate, they part from their place and they are scattered. And then immediately he inspects them. What is "inspects them"? Counts, sees how many are lacking, goes to search for those who are not present. Hashem says, so will I inspect My flock, "and I will save them from all the places where they were scattered." All the places to which they separated and were scattered, "on the day of cloud and thick darkness." When there was cloud and thick darkness,
meaning, both through the leaders who were blind and led them in blindness, which is like cloud and thick darkness, and because of the enemies who came upon them, which means that this time is a time of cloud and thick darkness that caused a state of scattering, Hashem says I will gather them. "And I will bring them out from the peoples and gather them from the lands, and I will bring them to their land, and I will feed them upon the mountains of Israel, in the ravines and in all the dwelling places of the land." As we said, on the day of cloud and thick darkness they were scattered among the nations. Hashem says, I will bring them out from among the peoples. Many of them were captives among the peoples, as it is written "because My flock became a prey", so many of them were scattered among the peoples and among the lands. "And My flock became food", meaning the peoples who conquered them consumed them fully. Hashem says, I will bring them out from their dominion, and from the lands where they were dispersed, from there I will gather them. And I will bring them to their land. The meaning is to Eretz Yisrael. And there I will feed them upon the mountains of Israel, in the ravines and in all the dwelling places of the land. "In good pasture I will feed them, and upon the high mountains of Israel will be their fold. There they will lie down in a good fold, and in rich pasture they will feed upon the mountains of Israel." The Malbim explains that the flock needs a place where they feed during the day, and a place of resting, meaning where the flock lie down and rest during the night. This is called the fold of the flock. About this He says, the pasture will be good, and the fold will be in the mountains, where they are safe from robbers, safe from wild beasts, it is a high place, there they will rest. And even though, the Malbim says, in the mountains the pasture is usually not rich, the fold is not good, for it is hard to ascend there, and also there the growth is not like in the valley, where the growth is much better. Here He promises and says to them, know that the fold will be good, there they will rest, there they will feed. They will not need to descend from there to the pasture, for in the mountains I will see to it that they have good pasture there as befits them, even though this is not the usual case. For usually, as we said, in the mountains there is no good pasture and no good resting place. The Holy One blessed be He says, there I will provide for them good pasture and resting place. Which means that they will in fact be protected and guarded, for in the mountains there is protection and guarding, and on the other hand they will lack nothing of all the good that I will bestow upon them.