Sefer Yeshayahu, chapter 59. "Behold, the hand of Hashem is not too short to save, nor is His ear too heavy to hear." The fact that you were not saved is not due to any shortness in Hashem's hand. Here he actually returns to the previous chapter. In the previous chapter we saw that there is a complaint: why do we cry out and the Holy One, blessed be He, does not answer? Why do we pray and the Holy One, blessed be He, does not save? The answer is: the hand of Hashem is not too short to save. The fact that until now you were not saved is not due to any shortness of His hand. This was essentially the argument, as it were: why does the Holy One, blessed be He, not save us? Perhaps His hand is too short? Perhaps His ear is too heavy to hear? And the Malbim explains: "His hand is too short" means a lack of ability. Perhaps the Holy One, blessed be He, cannot save us. "His ear is too heavy to hear" means that Hashem can, but He no longer watches over us. He no longer casts His eyes upon us. And if He does not watch over us, then many troubles can befall, and the Holy One, blessed be He, as it were, His ear is too heavy to hear. Hashem, as it were, does not hear us, He is far off, He does not want to know of our distress.
"But your iniquities have been separating between you and your God, and your sins have hidden His face from you, from hearing." The prophet says: I will tell you the resolution of the matter. Do you know the reason why, as it were, you see that you cry out and the Holy One, blessed be He, does not answer? It is not that the hand of Hashem is too short to save, nor that His ear is too heavy to hear, but rather your iniquities form a barrier. They form a kind of screen that separates, as we say on Yom Kippur and Rosh Hashanah, screens that separate between us and Hashem, blessed be He. Your iniquities have been separating between you and your God, and your sins have hidden His face from you, from hearing.
The Malbim's way is always to explain that iniquity (avon) implies heresy. Avon always derives from the sense of distortion, distortion of the intellect. In contrast, chet, sin, is not necessarily connected to heresy, but rather to pursuing desires. Therefore chet also expresses more of an inadvertent lapse than does avon. For avon is distortion of the intellect: a person distorted his reasoning in order to pursue emptiness. In contrast, chet is more inadvertent, since he is drawn after his desire. Chet always expresses inadvertence. And chataim means being drawn after desire and pursuing matters of physicality and materiality, and through this distancing oneself from Hashem.
On this he comes and says to them: Behold, you have first of all your iniquities. Iniquity is heresy. And this is the aspect of "separating." The Malbim says: heresy is a wall, a divider, a barrier between us and Hashem, blessed be He. It is a wall between us and Hashem, blessed be He. This is "your iniquities have been separating between you and your God." So this separation, this partition, is from both sides, both from our side and from Hashem's side. From your side, you are a heretic, you do not want to accept faith in Hashem. From Hashem's side, Hashem will certainly not save one who denies Him. So in practice, from both sides the iniquities separate between you and your God. Note, therefore, that here the expression is "between you and your God." It is two directional. Between you and Hashem, and between Hashem and you.
In contrast, regarding sins, he only says "have hidden His face from you." He does not say "between you and Hashem," but only Hashem in relation to you. And why? Because sins, as we said, do not mean I deny Hashem. So one cannot say that I hide my face from Hashem. I continue to believe in Hashem, I only continue to follow the desires of my heart. But what does this cause? That the Holy One, blessed be He, hides His face from you. And this is "have hidden His face from you." I cannot say "between you and your God" because you do not hide your face from Hashem, but Hashem hides His face from you. Therefore, "have hidden His face from you, from hearing."
The Malbim says: the two halves of the verse correspond to each other. Against what they argued, against what we said, "the hand of Hashem is not too short" - you think the hand of Hashem is too short? That the Holy One, blessed be He, is prevented? He says: no, it is your iniquities that separate. And because of this, as it were, Hashem cannot save you, there is a dividing wall. And against what you say, "His ear is too heavy to hear" - "His ear is too heavy" means He hears but does not hear well, His ear is too heavy to hear - regarding this he says: Hashem hides His face. Hiding His face is not a wall. Hiding His face means He senses your presence but does not save. A wall means, as it were, Hashem has departed. In contrast, hiding His face is like "too heavy to hear." You think His ear is too heavy to hear, as though you need to cry out a great deal until Hashem hears. No, there is a hiding of the face. And this hiding of the face stems from your sins, that you follow the desires of your heart.
The Maharsha explains, there is a Maharsha in Sanhedrin 65, who says, according to what is expounded in the mouths of the masters of truth, that with every deed of man a spiritual entity is created according to the deed, whether good or evil. And the destructive angels that come from your iniquities are the ones separating between you, preventing the holy spirit from resting upon you. What does "your iniquities have been separating" mean? He explains it literally. He says it is not that you have a sin, and as a consequence I will hide My face, I will not look. He says: no, it is not so. Rather this itself, the iniquity itself, hides. Why? Because in essence an iniquity is the creation of a destructive angel. And the moment you have created a destructive angel, that destructive angel stands between you and Hashem, blessed be He. So this is literally "your iniquities separate." The iniquity itself, the destructive angel itself which is the product of the iniquity, itself separates. It is not an act of punishment, that because you sinned, in response I will hide My face. No. Rather, you sinned means you created here a destructive angel, and the Holy One, blessed be He, says: I have no way to connect with you. The destructive angel stands here in the middle. So it is literally, your iniquities have been separating between you and your God.
"For your palms are defiled with blood, and your fingers with iniquity; your lips have spoken falsehood, your tongue murmurs injustice." "For your palms are defiled with blood" - that is, he now begins to enumerate the iniquities they have, concerning what he spoke of earlier. You spill innocent blood. "Your fingers with iniquity" - what is he speaking about here regarding the fingers? The Radak says there are two possibilities. Either as we saw above, that a person extends an accusing finger toward his fellow. Or, if it is more severe, that a person gives a fist to his fellow, and the fist is made of the fingers. So "your fingers with iniquity." "Your lips have spoken falsehood" - this speaks of iniquity in speech. "Your tongue murmurs injustice" - which also relates to the iniquity of the sin of the mouth. And what is written, "your palms are defiled" (nego'alu) - what does "defiled" mean? The Radak explains, and Rashi also explains, that it derives from filth. Like "defiled bread," meaning filthy bread.
The Malbim explains that here there is reference to two kinds of iniquities. There is iniquity between man and his fellow, and this is the first part: "For your palms are defiled with blood." The whole hand is defiled with bloodshed. And after this he moves to speak about the fingers. The Malbim says: when we speak of the hand and afterward of the fingers, that means we spoke of the general and afterward descended to the particulars, for the fingers are the particulars of the hand. If so, the Malbim says, at first he speaks of how the whole hand is defiled with the blood of bloodshed, and afterward the fingers, meaning the particular actions, the completion of the deeds, this too was done in iniquity. What does he mean to say? This speaks of the first part. That the first part speaks of the intentional sinner, of the heretic, who performs his deeds with contempt. He says: your hands are full of blood. "Your lips" - now he moves to speak of matters between man and God. "Your lips have spoken falsehood" - meaning corrupt beliefs, false opinions. And not only do you do this merely with your lips outwardly, "your lips have spoken falsehood," but also "your tongue murmurs injustice."
The Malbim explains in several places, and we bring this mainly in the lessons on Sefer Mishlei, that there is a difference between "your lips" and "your tongue." Whenever "lip" is written, it speaks of external speech. "Tongue" speaks of internal speech. Therefore, in connection with the tongue, we always find the expression "murmuring," thought. Why? Because in essence it speaks of internal speech. What does a person say within himself? What do I think to myself? So the more fitting expression is "tongue," because the tongue is internal. In contrast, the lip, the lips, are external. So there is what you put out externally, how you express yourself, and there is what passes within you, how you speak with yourself. So here he says: you have two things, two deficiencies. Not only is there the first part, which is external speech, "your lips have spoken falsehood" - so sometimes there can be a situation where deep within myself I know the truth but speak lies, and this is less bad than deceiving myself as well. For if deep within myself I know the truth and speak lies, there is a chance that at some point I will still return to the good. There is a chance that at some point I will regret and change my ways. But if not only do I speak falsehood, but I also believe in the falsehood I speak, what are the chances that I will correct myself? The chances are slim, for I am imbued with belief in the falsehood. Therefore he says there is here iniquity upon sin. The first part: "your lips have spoken falsehood." One might have thought perhaps deeper within you at least know the truth, so you have a chance. He says: no, "your tongue," which as we explained is internal speech, "murmurs injustice." You also think it and murmur it in your heart. So in practice there is no chance of your correction, for you believe in your falsehood, and even internally your tongue, which is internal speech, murmurs injustice. So how can this situation be corrected?
And since this is so, "none calls in righteousness, and none pleads in faithfulness; they trust in emptiness and speak vanity; they conceive toil and give birth to iniquity." The Radak explains: "none calls in righteousness" means there is no one who rebukes his fellow and tells him: do your deeds in righteousness. That is, if there is sin and iniquity and there is still someone who rebukes, there is a chance for correction. But "none calls in righteousness." There is not even someone who will stand and call: gentlemen, there must be righteousness. None calls in righteousness.
The Targum Yonatan says something that is a fearsome rebuke to every single one of us. "There is none who prays in truth." There is no one who prays a prayer truthfully. There is no one who prays truly. That is, here when a person prays, his prayer is merely with the lips outwardly. Many times, out of his hurry to leave, his prayer is with the lips and he is also stressed (lachutz). Do you understand? Out of being so stressed, his prayer is only with the lips. And the most fearsome of all is that in essence "with their mouth and with their lips they have honored Me, but their heart is far from Me." Regarding this he says there is no one who prays truly. And "Hashem is near to all who call upon Him" - what is the condition? "To all who call upon Him in truth." The essential thing is in truth.
One of the great sages of Israel once said that a person prays about many matters. But there is one matter about which a person prays with his whole heart. And what is that? Livelihood. He said: to our sorrow, it is specifically for livelihood that we pray with all our heart. But for the coming of Mashiach, for the salvation of Hashem, for the wicked to cease from the earth, for the doers of evil to be finished, for the Holy One, blessed be He, to be King over all the earth alone - regarding these he says our prayer is not truthful. Someone once came to one of the great sages of Israel; look, he came to pour out his troubles before him. And he said to him: Rebbe, when will Mashiach already come? That Rebbe said to him: I am sorry to disappoint you, that the Mashiach you are awaiting will never come. And the Mashiach who will come is one you never awaited. What do you mean? I am always awaiting him, what do you mean? The Rebbe's words were a riddle to him. The Rebbe said to him: I will explain to you. Mashiach will come to reveal the light of Hashem in the world. Mashiach will not come to solve for you the problems of your overdraft at the bank. And if a person awaits Mashiach for that, then he tells him: that is not the Mashiach who will come. The Mashiach you are awaiting will never come. And the one who will come will not think to fulfill your plans. So he is one you never awaited. For he will come to reveal the light of Hashem in the world, in order to teach understanding to those who stray. He says: is that what you awaited? Is that the Mashiach you awaited? Is that what you prayed for? So in practice, what the Targum says is fearsome beyond fearsome. "There is none who prays in truth." There is no one who truly prays truthfully, with all the heart. Regarding this we say: why has the son of Yishai not come, neither yesterday nor today? The masters of mussar say: why has the son of Yishai not come, neither yesterday nor today? We have been praying for thousands of years for Mashiach. Why? Because our prayers are toward bread. We ask that there be livelihood, so we demand the son of Yishai. We ask that the economic decrees be removed, so we want Mashiach. So therefore the son of Yishai has not come, because the prayers are not for the son of Yishai, they are toward bread. The demands are for bread. So this is what he says: "none calls in righteousness" - there is none who prays in truth.
"And none pleads in faithfulness" - why? Because the judge perverts justice. "They trust in emptiness and speak vanity." When he speaks with his fellow, he speaks to him one thing in the mouth and another in the heart. He speaks vanity with him. And upon what does he trust? How do you allow yourself to speak falsehood like this with your fellow? He trusts in emptiness. What does "in emptiness" mean? He relies on something that cannot be relied upon, that his fellow surely will not catch on that I am leading him around with deception. His fellow surely will not catch on that I am deceiving him. So you trust in emptiness, you trust in something that is emptiness and allow yourself to deceive your fellow and speak vanity.
"They conceive toil and give birth to iniquity." The thought, says the Radak, is the idea. This is what are called the first stages of bringing the matter into actualization. And afterward, when I perform the act, this is already considered birth. This is already the actualization. I first plan and afterward bring it out. So he says: with you even the plans, "they conceive toil" - even the idea is toil. Toil always comes to express falsehood. "Writers of toil." "And give birth to iniquity." Therefore it is no wonder that in the end you give birth to iniquity, you give birth, the results of the matter are iniquity and falsehood. Actions that are actions of evil, of corruption.
The Metzudat David explains further, that "they conceive toil and give birth to iniquity": sometimes a person did some negative act. Why did you do this? Truthfully, no, I did not think much. This is less bad than if you ask him: why did you do this? Yes, because he deserves it, he needs to receive this. When a person did evil with planning, this indicates evil of the heart. When a person did evil impulsively, you can say, well, temporary insanity. There are those for whom the temporary insanity is permanent, that is a problem. But in any case, you say he did not pay attention, he reacted with an irrational, illogical response. But with you, says the prophet, "they conceive toil." You first plan well the matter of toil and forgery, and afterward "give birth to iniquity," and then you carry out the act. This is very bad. It means that all your evil is planned. It is not incidental evil done in the moment, impulsively. "None calls in righteousness" - there is no one who calls upon Hashem in righteousness and with intention of the heart, according to the line taken by the Targum Yonatan.
The Malbim says: after describing to us all the injustices that were among them, he says there is an additional problem, that there is no one who rebukes, as we explained according to the Radak, "none calls in righteousness." Now regarding "in righteousness," the Malbim says the intent is in matters between man and his fellow. "And none pleads in faithfulness" - this is the faith between us and God. This is "none pleads in faithfulness." Its meaning: also there is no one who will rebuke about the fact that we commit transgressions and matters between us and Hashem, blessed be He. "They trust in emptiness and speak vanity." The Malbim says: among the heretics there are two sects. The Malbim speaks of the heretics of old, who denied with a level. Today's heretics are reality shows. That is the level, right? The level of shoes. No, not a level. But once the heretics would come with arguments. They would come with reasoned claims, they would come with premises. The Malbim says: there were two kinds of heretics. Even in the past there were those who based themselves on nothing. Why are you a heretic? I feel like it. That's it. I do not believe, and that's it. Leave me alone. This is one kind of heresy. They have no proofs, no evidence, no arguments. It is very difficult to argue with these. The moment a person comes and argues claims, I can enter into a discussion with him. But the moment a person says: leave me alone, I feel like it, that's it - there is not much to argue with him. This is the first sect. Regarding it he defines: "they trust in emptiness and speak vanity." They speak words of vanity and trust with a trust of emptiness. For had you come with a claim, I would say there is a basis for your trust, something to rely upon. But if you come without a claim, then upon what do you trust? "They trust in emptiness." Your trust is an empty trust, a trust of vanity. So upon what do you trust?
And the second sect, "they conceive toil and give birth to iniquity." The second sect is the philosophizing sect. As the Malbim says, the philosophers. We do not recognize such things today, but whoever sees the words of the Rambam who composed the Moreh Nevuchim, whoever sees Rabbeinu Bachya who composed Shaar HaYichud, and sees how much they engage in confronting the philosophical outlook, will understand that this outlook in those years took root. We are speaking of a thousand years ago, of seven hundred years ago. The philosophical outlook took root. And it was necessary to contend with arguments against the men of philosophy. Those who come to prove all sorts of proofs that are based on premises, and these premises are corrupt, and through this they extract from them all sorts of inferences and all sorts of analogies of one matter to another and conclusions that are corrupt. For example: all matter is a creation or created from other matter. Formed from other matter. Now, I gave specifically an example from which one can see the corruption. The philosophical outlook works in this way: there are foundations, they are the foundations of philosophy, and from this, through logic, logical inference, reasoning, one can reach conclusions. So if I say that everything in creation is created from something else. There is nothing in creation, you will not find anything created from nothing. There is nothing. There is nothing created from emptiness, from something that did not exist beforehand. Today this is called the law of conservation of matter, the law of conservation of energy. Nothing perishes in creation. Always when something perishes, it turns into something else. Take wood, burn it, it turned into energy. It did not perish. There is no reality of annihilation in the world. If so, everything is created from another force. What can the philosophers claim? Well, if so, then we will immediately ask about the Master of the Universe: from what was He created? This is a question whose essence is heresy. But the very inference is mistaken. And why? Because from where do you learn it? From the world of matter. The Master of the Universe is beyond the world of matter, from the reality of the spirit. The reality of the spirit - how can you draw analogies from the world of matter? What is known to you in the reality of the world of matter has no bearing whatsoever on the reality of the spirit. Here is an example where a person comes with a premise and infers and derives from it some deduction, a logical conclusion, that is mistaken. Regarding this he says, "they conceive toil." They lay down mistaken premises and from them give birth to offspring, "give birth to iniquity." From this they give birth to corrupt offspring, they give birth to falsehood.
"They have hatched viper's eggs and weave spider's webs; whoever eats of their eggs dies, and that which is pressed bursts into a viper." "They have hatched viper's eggs." A tzif'oni is a kind of evil snake. Their deeds are so evil and ugly like the deeds of the vipers, like those of the evil snakes. "Spider's webs" (korei akavish) - why is this called korei akavish? First there is Menachem's explanation, which Rashi brings, who explains that korei derives from beams (korot). Where does the spider weave its threads? In the beams of the building. Therefore this is called korei akavish. So korei akavish are the threads that the spider weaves. "And that which is pressed" (v'hazoreh) - what is hazoreh? He writes, "and that which is pressed bursts into a viper." Zoreh, the Targum Yonatan explains, means "that which warms." Mashchanan is a term of warming. Sachnah, what is that? Chamin, right? He splits wood - one who chops wood warms himself by it. So "and it became a warmer to him," not a danger. What is sochenet? A warmer, right? Sochen in Arabic is hot. So thus the Targum explains, that this is masachnen, mashchanan, meaning that which warms. This is, by the way, also the source of the expression for the word shechin (boils). Why shechin? Because all his skin warms. So in essence this is from the same source. So hazoreh here is a term of warming. One who warms the eggs of the viper, one who presses, "bursts into a viper." You warm the egg, the shell bursts, and a snake comes out. How does zoreh connect with mashchanan, with heat? Rashi explains that zoreh is a term of pressing. "And he wrung out the fleece." Regarding whom is this said? Gidon, right? When he made a test. What did he actually do? He wrung out the fleece and extracted what was absorbed within it. In the action where you warm eggs, what happens? Something bursts out from within it. So this is an action similar to wringing. Only the fleece is wrung by pressing forcefully, and the egg is wrung by warming it, and then the chick comes out and emerges from it. This is "and he wrung out the fleece." This is a term of warming. Ef'eh - so this is a kind of snake as we explained. So if so, he says: your deeds are corrupt deeds that give birth to corruption.
And the Radak explains further. The Radak says that he compares their thoughts and their deeds to viper's eggs. These eggs give birth to and produce viper snakes. Its meaning: your thoughts are evil and your deeds are evil. And behold, "they have hatched viper's eggs." The Radak explains that this does not refer back to the people, but to the vipers. And then, as it were, one should say the vipers hatched the eggs. What does this mean? Who breaks open the egg when the chick comes out? The chick, from within, right? Until it comes out. So too the eggs, "vipers hatched." The vipers are the ones who break open the egg in order to come out of it. As is known, the snake lays eggs, and the viper that emerges comes out from within the egg, from the snake's egg. So he says: the vipers break open the egg and come out of it. So too they murmur within themselves evil thoughts until they bring them into actualization, like the viper emerging from within the egg. "And weave spider's webs." The sheets that the spider weaves have no permanence. You tear them easily. So they weave spider's webs, something that has no standing, but he tells stories and builds plans, and all in falsehood. This has no permanence. It will not remain over time. It is like spider's webs. So too their deeds will not benefit them. It is important to emphasize that spider silk is considered the strongest thread in the world. They have not yet succeeded in inventing a thread stronger than spider silk. The fact that we tear it easily is only because it is very thin. But in practice spider silk is considered, in terms of material, the strongest thread in the world. So he says, in any case, since it is easy for a person to tear it, he compares their ideas to something woven of spider silk that tears easily. You build foundations and create things whose tearing, whose breaking, is easy, because everything is built on falsehood. "Whoever eats of their eggs dies." What is being spoken of here? Whoever eats the viper's eggs dies. Why? For the viper has venom within it. And we said the viper is the most dangerous snake there is. So whoever eats it, eats of its eggs, also eats its venom, and behold he dies. "And that which is pressed" - what does hazoreh mean? One who merely steps on the viper's eggs. Its meaning, like "and she forgot that a foot may tread (tezureha) upon them." Right? Zoreh is a term of scattering. When a person walks and kicks with his feet, he zoreh, he scatters. So thus whoever eats of the viper's eggs dies, and whoever does not eat but only treads with his foot and strikes the egg, the snake will come out, strike him, and kill him. "And that which is pressed" - by treading with his foot, walking, "bursts into a viper." The egg bursts and from it a viper comes out that will harm him. So too he says: these people who are men of falsehood, these people who do all their deeds with deceit, anyone who has a connection with them will be harmed, like a person who has a connection with a snake.
The Malbim explains, according to the line he explained earlier, that in essence here everything speaks of these people who are the men of philosophy, who corrupt the mind with their philosophy. And now he compares their offspring and says: the offspring of all the philosophical ideas whose source is in falsehood, their offspring are viper's eggs. The premises - that is, we said there is a premise, there is a foundation, and upon it he builds his corrupt theory. The premises they use in order to extract the offspring resemble one who weaves spider's webs. Its meaning: a person who brings reasoning close to reasoning and idea close to idea and in the end created something that is one complete corruption, that is built entirely on mistaken premises, so the results are spider's webs. It is not a lasting weave. It is something that once you start to touch it, you see how it falls apart. So too these people who draw analogies of one matter to another and bring one thing close to another and build foundation upon foundation, when the very beginning of the foundation is shaky, this is like one who weaves spider's webs. But these threads, he says, are spider's webs. What does spider's webs mean? Not only because of their weakness. From where does the spider produce its threads? From itself. From the mouth. From its mouth. That is, when I come to argue a claim and I build it on foundations, I can say: listen, this foundation you agree with, right? This is a clear foundation. And upon it I build a claim. But in contrast, if I built the foundation as well, how can one agree to what I said? For the things you say are what you claim. You reason so. If you begin with a foundation, for example, the foundation is that there is the force of gravity in creation. The force of gravity, that something you leave in the air will fall. So the foundation upon which I now want to build my theory is an established foundation, for no one can argue that the force of gravity exists. So at least the foundation exists. But if I now want to argue a claim, and for this purpose I lay down a foundation, and the laying of the foundation is unproven, this is seven times worse. That one at least, let us say, erred later on, but the foundation is clear. But you invented the foundation as well. So how do you want us to accept the matters? This is essentially what he claims. Viper's eggs are the offspring. What are the foundations? They are spider's webs. It crumbles like spider's webs; you joined reasoning to reasoning, claim to claim, and created spider's webs, a connection with no substance. And the fearsome thing is that you created these threads yourself. These shaky foundations, you invented them. These are the philosophers who come to argue vain claims, invent foundations, build stories upon them, and on the basis of this come to market to you finished goods, that behold, their words have truth in them. And the foundations themselves are only from his imagination. Now the verse continues and says: against what we said, "they have hatched viper's eggs," it tells you "whoever eats of their eggs dies." The intent is whoever takes - we explained that the viper's eggs are already the conclusions. Whoever takes their conclusions dies. Since their conclusions are heresy and against faith in Hashem and against the existence of the Creator, and that the world is primordial, and all sorts of other claims of this kind, whoever eats of this, meaning goes and believes in these things, brings death upon himself. This is "whoever eats of their eggs," which are the offspring and conclusions. But "that which is pressed bursts into a viper." One who does not eat of the eggs, but places them under a bird to warm them, so that from this chicks will come out - what does he mean to say? He does not conduct himself according to the offspring, but he takes the premises as we explained. The premises, the beginning of the matter, this he takes. That is, the foundations upon which they built the conclusions, the foundations he does use. He tells you: know that "it bursts into a viper." From this in the end will burst and come out conclusions of a viper, of a snake that has death in it. What does he mean to say? You do not use the offspring, the conclusions of the heretics. You only want to use the foundations that they used. He tells you: foundations of heresy will lead to offspring of heresy. You cannot say: no, I do not go according to their methods. No, you begin with their premises, you can also reach their conclusions. Rather, what you need is to leave them alone and not use and not engage at all with the thought of heresy. Go out and see what was written about the Rambam, that the Rambam denied the existence of demons and the reality of raising up by the ov and inquiring of the dead. The Rambam wrote that all these are vanities, they have no substance. And only people believed in this, and it is not so, there are no such things in reality. What does the Gra write about this? "And the accursed philosophy misled him with the abundance of its enticement." So writes the Gra. Very sharp words. Very sharp, this is how he wrote about the Rambam. The accursed philosophy misled him with the abundance of its enticement. That is, philosophy has an allure, it draws, and this is the harlot woman written about in Sefer Mishlei about whom Shlomo speaks at length. This is the philosophical opinions, this is what he means, the wisdom that draws a person with its sayings. And the Rambam, as it were, was drawn after foundations that the men of heresy and philosophy laid down, Aristotle, of whom the Rambam was a great admirer, and wrote that he was one level below prophecy. So he writes about him that the accursed philosophy, as it were, drew him, for although he did not follow their conclusions, God forbid, but the foundations, in certain matters the Rambam accepted the foundations. And as a result he did not believe at all in the existence of demons. And the Gra writes: we have explicit Gemaras and Midrashim and endless material in Chazal about matters of demons and about laws connected to this, and matters of inquiring of the dead and descriptions in the Prophet of inquiring by raising up the ov, and so forth. So how can the Rambam say that these things do not exist in reality? And Rav Ratzabi already writes that although the Yemenites conducted themselves in their halachot like the Rambam, but Rav Ratzabi writes: and in no way did we accept the Rambam's opinions in matters of outlook. So writes Rav Ratzabi in the clearest manner. As opposed to all sorts of these modernizers who came in this generation and became Rambamists. Everything, he tells you the Rambam, and the Rambam, and the Rambam. You tell him there is a halacha, there is this - no, the Rambam. For him it is only the Rambam. And this is a great corruption, since in halacha we do not rule in many matters like the Rambam, and also the Yemenites, Rav Ratzabi brings, do not rule like the Rambam but only conduct themselves in many matters like the Rambam, and in matters of outlook he writes: we did not accept the Rambam's opinions. So in practice, we have an example - God forbid we would be capable of saying such a thing about the Rambam, but we have an example from things the Gra wrote - how the premises of those people distant from Judaism, those premises can cause corruption, even though he did not use the conclusions but only used the premises. And this is what he writes here. This is what he says, "that which is pressed bursts into a viper." That which is pressed means one who merely touches this, takes this egg and wants to warm it, he will not use the conclusions but only warm it, use the premises - already through this a viper will burst forth, and he can come to heresy.
"Their webs shall not become a garment, and they shall not cover themselves with their works; their works are works of iniquity, and the deed of violence is in their palms." "Their webs shall not become a garment." The webs are so weak that one cannot weave from them anything substantial, to make a garment from them. And also in the end, when they want to cover themselves with the deeds they did, he says their deeds are falsehood, and consequently they will not be able to cover themselves with their works. In simple words: all the claims you argue will not protect you on the day of evil. When the evil comes, your deeds will not protect you.
Until now he spoke about heresy against God. The end of the verse speaks about the sins between man and his fellow. "Their works are works of iniquity, and the deed of violence is in their palms." Do not say that in any case perhaps in heresy they are heretics, but in matters between man and his fellow, oh, what good people they are, what nice people they are. Just yesterday a Jew who works with him told me about some Argentinian at the school, a security guard. And he says to him: I want to return to Argentina. He asks him why? He says to him: look, there people are so humane. He says there in Argentina there is no such thing that they pass by you without saying to you hello, good morning, how are you. He says here I turn for a moment in the school, someone comes and passes by him: tell me, where is the third grade classroom here? He tells him: over there, and he runs. He says: did you see, no hello, no thank you. He says: did you see the behavior of the Jews, he says here it really really did not please me, I want to return to Argentina.
The Jew who spoke with him was an observant Jew, and he said to him: tell me, now if some terrorist arrives here, there is an attack here, may Hashem save us, something happens. He says: what happens with everyone? Everyone flees, you cannot see them from a mile away. Everyone thinks only of himself. He says: but all these here of whom you say perhaps their attitude toward you is a bit vulgar, perhaps they are not gentle enough - he says he will die for you, he will give up his soul for you, he will enter into danger in order to save you, you are a Jew, he will run for you. He says: but a gentile, may you die. What does he care about you? Endlessly we hear cases. There was someone once, there was a most horrifying and shocking image, a story that passed throughout the whole world. How a person fell in the subway, fell down below, for the train is sunken, he fell down below. They hear the train and everything is filmed. They hear the train arriving from afar, and the person screams, he tries to climb and he slips, tries to climb and he slips, and he screams for them to save him. And in the cameras one sees 15 people standing, and no one moves himself, everyone watches. And some even take out their iPhones and film. And the person screams. And the end was a very unpleasant end. A very... what a problem. Abroad. He says: so nice, nice, everything is fine and good. Let us see something happen to you, whether someone will come to help you.
So this is what the Malbim says: you will tell me, listen, perhaps in philosophy they arrived at falsehood, but in matters between man and his fellow, you see what humanitarian types, they care so much, they feel so much the pain of their Palestinian brothers, you see in character traits, in character traits they have something. He says: no, their works are works of iniquity, the deed of violence is in their palms. Each man swallows his fellow alive. And if he does not do it, that is only because he has manners. Manners are external. The Germans, how polite they were. Thank you, excuse me, please, how polite they were. And we all know, and also what sensitivity they had for dogs, it was simply moving. You understand, who is Goebbels, I believe he had a dog, he would call it "Mensch." That was its name. You understand what a mensch is? A man, a human being. Mensch. That was the name of his dog. These are people who sent people to gas chambers like flies. So what are you talking about? It is not only heresy that is here. Their works are works of iniquity, and the deed of violence is in their palms. What they engage in in practice, what they bring into actualization, is a deed of violence. So you want to claim that perhaps these people are only heretics and in matters between man and his fellow they are decent people? Not this and not part of it.