[silence]
Yeshayahu chapter 24. Behold, Hashem empties the land and lays it waste, and He distorts its surface and scatters its inhabitants. This prophecy: some say it is a future prophecy, but we will learn it according to the approach of the Malbim, that in this prophecy Yeshayahu prophesies about the exile of the ten tribes by Sancheriv. And so he informs them: know this, your land is destined to be desolate, destined to be abandoned by you when Sancheriv comes and exiles you.
Behold, Hashem empties the land. "Bokek" means empties out. Right? Like in Hoshea and in Nachum this expression "bokek" appears as well. The meaning is that Hashem empties the land, drains it out. At first, of what does He empty it? "The land" means the fruit of the land. At first there will be no fruit. "Uvolkah," the meaning is He makes it ownerless. The matter will be free for the taking by all. This too is found in Nachum, where the meaning is to pour out, to empty out the fruit of the land, to ruin it. He makes all the fruit of the land ownerless. After that, "and He distorts its surface." After that He will ruin and confound the land itself. The meaning is the ground. In the next stage, "and He scatters its inhabitants." The meaning is that Israel will go out into exile.
This is the explanation regarding the exile of the nation itself. But he says the land too will be ruined, the Malbim explains. To the point that a person will not be able to recognize his own inheritance. And that is what is written "and He distorts its surface." "Distorts its surface" means He will ruin the land itself, the boundaries, He will change the land until a person will come and say: I had a field here, I had ground here, where is it? Where does it begin, where does it end? He does not know. Why? Because the surface of the land was distorted. To such an extent will Sancheriv's destruction be great. "Ve'iva" is also from a term of madness and confusion. He will confound the surface of the land.
And it will be like the people so the kohen, like the servant so his master, like the maidservant so her mistress, like the buyer so the seller, like the lender so the borrower, like the creditor so the one from whom he demands. When the people go into exile, he says: know this, Sancheriv will show favor to no one. No one will have any importance, no one will have any rank or authority before him, he will take nothing into account. All of them he will humble and disgrace equally.
To such an extent, "and it will be like the people so the kohen." The people will be on one level with the kohen, because the kohen too will be humbled like him. "Like the servant so his master." The Malbim always says that when it is written with two comparative kafs, "like the people so the kohen," two comparative kafs. Twice the kaf of comparison. The Malbim says this indicates that they will be completely equal. When there are two comparative kafs it means completely equal. In contrast, if I say Reuven is like Shimon, then Reuven will not be on the same level as Shimon, but rather like Shimon, similar to Shimon, but not absolutely. But if I say "like Reuven so Shimon," it means the comparison between them will be absolute. When there are two kafs it means the comparison is absolute. But if not, then it means the comparison is not absolute. Here "and it will be like the people so the kohen," they will be on literally one level. He will not take rank into account at all. And not only that, but "like the servant so his master." Even the servant will be on the level of his master.
Note that with each additional example he grows more severe. Because it is always the rule that the Malbim taught us, and it is also the rule in the way people phrase things. Always, when I want to speak of a calamity, I begin from the light and go to the heavy. Because if I said the heavy first, then what point is there in mentioning the light? What could you add afterward about the lighter matters, that is no longer news, that is no longer interesting. You say this person received a fine of a million dollars, and on top of that they also gave him another 100 shekel for parking. What is this "on top of that"? What is that after a million dollars? Always one begins by saying he received a fine of 100 shekel, and after that another 100,000 shekel for this, and another half million for that, and in the end they gave him a fine of a million dollars. Fine, so you went in order. So too here he says at first "like the people so the kohen." The difference between the people and the kohen is not so essential, not so significant. But "like the servant so his master," that is already a much more significant difference, that the servant will be on one level with his master.
And not only that, "like the maidservant so her mistress." The maidservant will be on one level with her mistress. Because the Malbim says the maidservant is more subservient to her mistress than the servant is to his master. The servant still has some measure of importance, but the maidservant has the least importance, she is more subservient to the mistress. Where do you see this? "Like the eyes of servants toward their masters," right? "Like the eyes of a maidservant toward the hand of her mistress." What do you see? That it tells you the eyes of servants toward their masters, and more than that, "like the eyes of a maidservant toward the hand of her mistress." We see from here that a maidservant to her mistress is a greater lowliness than a servant to his master. That is to say, there will be no rank whatsoever.
What does this remind us of? It reminds us of the terrible and dreadful Holocaust that took place in Europe. May calamity not arise twice. There too they did not care about the important one, the poor one, the one with authority or the one without authority, they took everyone. There could be a man who had been a minister beforehand, and on the contrary, they even tried to abuse such people more. And they specifically sought out the great ones, specifically the rabbis. Everyone was equal, there was no situation where one received some more distinguished bunk in the labor camp because he had held some lofty and elevated position beforehand. And sometimes, on the contrary, they specifically tried to abuse such people. This is what he says, "and it will be like the people so the kohen, like the servant so his master, like the maidservant so her mistress."
Like the buyer so the seller, like the lender so the borrower. Now he moves to another part. Not only will every rank and authority cease, will have no meaning, but he says: know this, even the merits of possessions, the value of wealth, which is some sort of advantage, this too will cease. The buyer will be like the seller. A seller, in general, when would a person sell his inheritance? When he becomes poor. When his economic situation deteriorates, he has no choice but to sell his inheritance. But normally a person does not sell his inheritance. He comes and says there will be a situation like this where the buyer, who on the contrary expresses wealth, "here I have money, I am buying," he says no, he will be regarded as poor and impoverished like the seller. Like the buyer so the seller.
And not only that. The buyer who bought lands, about whom you might say, well, it makes sense that the buyer will be like the seller, because the seller has no land, and the moment I, the buyer, am exiled from here, then what? I too have no land. So it is understandable that "like the buyer so the seller," because after all both of us now have no land. He says no, even one who dealt in monetary matters, not only in real estate, immovable property, where you would say clearly he really has nothing, but even one who dealt in trade in actual money, where seemingly he does have something. For example, a person who lends his fellow money. It says of this person, "like the lender so the borrower." He will be impoverished like the borrower. Just as the borrower has nothing to pay with and is impoverished, even a borrower who, let us say, has something to pay with but nevertheless needed a loan, what does that mean? His economic situation is bad. So too the lender's economic situation will be bad like the borrower's.
And more than that, "like the creditor so the one from whom he demands." What is a creditor? A person who demands from his fellow to repay his debt. This person from whom he demands has nothing. The man from whom he demands has nothing to pay. And then this is worse than the borrower. The borrower, when you speak of a borrower and a lender, then I as the lender come to demand from you, it is possible that you still have the money, but I tell you: look, your situation will be as bad as the borrower's. But when I come as a creditor to demand a debt from you and you have nothing to pay, then this is a much worse situation. Because in effect I turned to you and you have nothing to pay, meaning that the money which until now was mine and which until now I thought was yours, remains neither mine nor yours. It is gone entirely. So consequently what situation will the creditor be in? Like the one from whom he demands, like the person from whom debts are demanded and who has nothing to pay. Everyone will be equal in their bad economic situation, because in effect Sancheriv will come and empty them of all their possessions. So consequently nothing will remain for them.
The Malbim asks, what is the difference between a lender ("malveh") and a creditor ("nosheh")? Seemingly both refer to a person who gave his fellow a loan. What is the difference between them? Now, the Radak explained that a lender is a person who lent his fellow money, while a creditor is a person who lent his fellow food. It was their way, a person would lend him a sack of wheat and he would return to him a sack of wheat. But the Malbim says the Radak's explanation is somewhat difficult, for we find "if you lend money to My people," which is stated with the term "nosheh." Here you see "nosheh" is said even regarding money, not as the Radak said that "nosheh" is only regarding food.
Therefore the Malbim says the difference is different. The difference is as it is familiar to us in our spoken language. A "malveh" is a person who gave his fellow money or food, it does not matter, he lent it to him. At this stage I am called a lender. From the stage that I come to request it back, I am called a "nosheh." I am now demanding from you. That is, I say to you: pay me. From the moment one presses his fellow to repay him, and this really does not differ between food and money. At the time of the loan, say I lent for 30 days, I gave you the loan, for 30 days I am called a lender. From the stage that I approach you and say, may I get the money back, from that stage I am already called a creditor. As it is written, "who demand from them money and grain."
And therefore he says, note that "malveh" (lender) is always connected with "et." And "nosheh" (creditor) is connected with "be," with the letter bet. He lends his fellow ("malveh et"), whereas the creditor demands of his fellow ("nasha be"). Why? He says "et" indicates something that goes out from the doer to the recipient. I lend you money, from me to you. In contrast, "bet" indicates that this thing is already in him, it is in him. I demand of my fellow, the money is already with him. And then I demand of him, requesting the money back, requesting to extract what is already in him. And the same is true of the oppressor ("noges"). The oppressor always comes with "bet," because the money is with him and I press him, return the money to me. But the lender comes with "et," because it is something that passes from me to you. I lend you, from me to you the money passes.
What is the difference then between an oppressor ("noges") and a creditor ("nosheh")? Seemingly in both I come to demand the debt. The Malbim says there is a difference. The oppressor forces him to give him something that he did not take from him. In contrast, the creditor comes to request something that he did take from him. For example, if I lent you 1,000 dollars and I come to request from you now 1,500 dollars, because I want you to pay me interest, I am called an oppressor toward you. "He shall not oppress his fellow," right? This is said regarding interest, for interest oppresses. I come to request something I did not give. In contrast, if I say I gave you 1,000 dollars, return to me the 1,000 dollars, then I am a creditor toward you. I request from you only what I gave. A creditor requests what he gave, but demands. In contrast, an oppressor requests even beyond what he gave, requests an addition as well. And both are in fact making demands.
The land will surely be emptied and surely plundered, for Hashem has spoken this thing. Now he will explain the reason, why the ranks were removed, why like the people so the kohen, why there will be no levels. Because the land will surely be emptied. The meaning is that the land will be emptied out, it will go into exile. So the moment one goes into exile there is no difference between servant and master. We are all now servants to Sancheriv. Consequently you understand that authority has no meaning. Corresponding to what he told us, "like the buyer so the seller," that the owners of possessions will no longer be regarded, the owners of wealth will no longer be regarded as people of authority, people of importance, he has money, money will have no meaning. What is the reason money will have no meaning? "And surely plundered." The meaning is that all the wealth will be plundered. Everyone will be poor and destitute. And why? Because Hashem has spoken this thing. And when Hashem speaks, not a word of His falls to the ground unfulfilled. When Hashem says something, that thing will come to pass. Hashem has spoken this thing.
The land mourns and withers, the world languishes and withers, the lofty of the people of the land languish. "The land mourns and withers." The Malbim says, now he will come and describe for us the destruction of the land stage by stage. "The land mourns and withers." At first the land was destroyed, that is, the places that are uninhabited. Like "mourns, without any passerby." Where do we find this? "The roads of Tzion mourn." What does "mourn" mean? Like a person who mourns for the dead, no one goes out and no one comes to him, he is now in mourning. So too "the roads of Tzion mourn," no one passes to and fro. Right? "Without those coming to the festival." And this is an external change. The land, no one passes over it.
But "withers," the Malbim says, is an internal diminishment. This already indicates the very thing itself that it has weakened. The fact that no one passes over it indicates an external deficiency. But if I want to say that the land in itself has weakened, not only that no one passes over it, but that it itself is devoid of strength, there is no longer fruit in it, no crops grow in it, thorns and thistles have sprung up in it, there is desolation in it, no one works it, about this he says "the land withers." When one wants to say of something that its strength is gone, one says "naval." Like "the strength of the flower is gone," one says "the blossom withers." "The strength of the man is gone, you will surely wither, both you and this people." Who said this to whom? Yitro to Moshe. When one wants to say of a deed that it is base, that it stems from lowliness of the soul, one says "he committed a nevalah in Israel." Always "livol," "nevelah," "naval," indicates something whose inner strength has diminished, its strength is gone. A soul whose strength is gone behaves basely, "he committed a nevalah in Israel." "A son degrades a father." "Carcasses (nivlat) of animals," the meaning being that their strength is gone.
"The world languishes and withers." After this he describes another stage. "The world languishes and withers." Even the places that are inhabited by people, "tevel," "tevel" meaning a place inhabited by people, they too languish. "The world languishes and withers." The Malbim asks, what is the difference between "languishes" ("umlelah") and "withers" ("navlah")? "Umlelah" is from the root "amal," like "mul." What is "mul"? To cut. From which usage did we see this? Where is it written? "For I cut them down" ("ki amilam"). What is "ki amilam"? "They surrounded me, they encircled me," right? "Ki amilam." What is "ki amilam"? I will cut them off. I will cut them off. What is "milah"? Cutting off. Right? When one circumcises the infant one in effect cuts off his foreskin. So "the world languishes and withers," the meaning is the world was cut off. The place where people dwelled, as distinct from the land, where that is not the inhabited place, here he speaks also of the inhabited place. There too will be an aspect of weakened strength.
Like "they languish (umlalim), for I languish (umlal)." "Be gracious to me, Hashem, for I languish." Here too the meaning is cut off, its strength is gone. A mighty man who has weakened is also called by the term "umlal." "She who had many children languishes." Why? Because fruit of the womb was withheld from her. And it is as though the fruit of the womb was cut off from her. So what is written "the world languishes," the meaning is its strength from above was cut off. There is no longer abundance descending upon it. And "the world withers," the meaning is regarding its inner strength that has weakened. So it has no external strength from above, it has no inner strength, and consequently thorns and thistles spring up.
"The lofty of the people of the land languish." And after that "the lofty of the people of the land" as well, meaning the elevated place of the people of the land, that is the royal city, that is the royal house, the place of the ministers, that place too was cut off from above and consequently all the strength of the land ceased. The Malbim says, note that he brought here three situations. "The land mourns and withers, the world languishes and withers, the lofty of the people of the land languish." This comes to express three times that Sancheriv raised his hand against the ten tribes. At first against those beyond the Yarden. After that against the land of Zevulun and Naftali. And in the end he exiled them all. The first time the general destruction touched only the place that was not inhabited. At first they fled, they abandoned the land. So when they abandon the land and flee to other places in the land, what happens to those places we abandoned? Thorns and thistles spring up, no one works them properly. This was in the first stage. After that he reached "tevel," the inhabited place. Until finally "the lofty of the people of the land," meaning all the land entirely. Rashi explains what "tevel" is, "the world withers." Rashi says this is the Land of Israel. And why is the Land of Israel called "tevel"? Because it is well-seasoned ("metubelet") with many mitzvot. Do you hear why the Land of Israel is called "tevel"? Because outside the land it is not seasoned with mitzvot. The land is seasoned, it has many mitzvot, therefore the Land of Israel is called "tevel."
[silence]
And the land was defiled beneath its inhabitants, for they transgressed teachings, they changed the statute, they broke the eternal covenant. He now wants to explain to us for what and why this will happen to the land. After he described such a terrible situation, surely emptied, surely plundered, mourns, withers, languishes, the lofty of the people of the land languish. Why? For what and why? He says the land was defiled beneath its inhabitants. The meaning is the land, as it were, the curse will be upon it in place of its inhabitants. "Beneath its inhabitants" meaning it will be stricken in place of its inhabitants. As it is written in Parshat Nitzavim, "and all the curse written in this book will rest upon it." So there is a curse that is supposed to rest upon him. What is written there afterward? "And they will see the plagues of that land and its diseases with which Hashem afflicted it, sulfur and salt, all its land burned." That is to say, originally the one who was supposed to be stricken was the nation. But who was stricken in our place? The land was defiled beneath its inhabitants. Who was stricken in our place? It is the land that was stricken beneath its inhabitants. It became sulfur, salt, all its land burned. And there it is stated why this was: because they abandoned the covenant of the God of their fathers. And therefore he says, as it were, following their sin the land itself was ruined. And the land was defiled beneath its inhabitants.
Now the matter of the land being stricken beneath its inhabitants: it is written that when there is a sin of murder, then it is written that the land is stricken. This is what is stated, "for the blood defiles the land." The blood defiles the land, the mark of the murder is, as it were, recognizable in the land. It affects the land. The land itself, as it were, is harmed by the very fact that there is a reality of murder within it. "And the land was defiled with blood." This changes, as it were, the nature of the land when there is a reality of murder. And this is an interesting matter, we also see that there is a reality where a person committed suicide, may Hashem save us, things of this sort, then as long as his blood is absorbed in the ground, as it were his soul still wanders here. And there were cases, we once related at length what Rabbi Zelig Baltzer related, about a certain situation of a person who committed suicide in some town outside the land, and all sorts of strange things began to happen in the house. The plaster would suddenly fall by itself, doors opening and closing. And his friends fell into terrible fear. They began to take upon themselves, they began to wear tzitzit, they would come there to read Tehillim and nothing helped. They came to ask him what remedy needed to be done. So he told them, I am not a mekubal nor a baba. But he told them, look, we know that the blood defiles the land. You need to try to see, there where he committed suicide, he cut his veins, may Hashem save us, and his blood was absorbed there in the boards of the attic. It was on the second floor, the attic, there were boards there that served as the floor. He said clear out all the boards, take them for burial.
And so indeed it was. They dismantled all the boards where the blood of that suicide was absorbed. He says it was an astonishing sight. He says you see hundreds of people escorting boards to burial. And among them all his friends, these were not people who observed mitzvot. But they saw, they had been there, they used to come to play cards there, so to speak to dispel the fear in everyone's company, and suddenly they would hear here some noises, there boards moving, there plaster falling. Utterly dreadful. He says after they did this, they took all the boards for burial, from then on the land was quiet. That was it, the house returned to its quiet. And there were several more cases like this. When I taught in the kollel of Rav Falach, once a woman called him, we were sitting and learning, just then a woman called, she told him about a situation in which she and her daughter had moved apartments to some new apartment, she says at night she suddenly sees some figure, a figure in black standing beside her, next to the bed. She says she froze in fear. After two minutes she hears her daughter shrieking terrible screams. It turned out that this figure had also gone to visit her daughter's room. In short, she called in the morning in terrible fear to ask him what to do. What turned out? It turned out that the person had committed suicide there, in that very place, and he was in effect making nightly visits there. Yes, she asked, she asked what to do, is there some other remedy to do, there are all sorts of things. He recommended that she leave the place, flee from there, not remain there.
Now we see that when there is a situation of murder, of death, of bloodshed, this affects the land. As it were the place itself becomes cursed. The place itself is saturated with a reality of murder. So this is what he says, the land was defiled beneath its inhabitants. For after all the blood defiles the land. So following the fact that there were acts of murder, for after all we are speaking of the First Temple. Why was the First Temple destroyed? Bloodshed. One of the things was bloodshed, as you read in the book of Yosifon, utterly dreadful. He describes a reality in which people would walk around with small daggers, short daggers under their clothes, one would walk in the market, approach someone, stab him in the belly and continue walking. As if suddenly people see, oh, here is a person who fell. How? What? Some defect? Where did it come from? They cannot grasp it, do not know, do not understand. Utterly dreadful. A state of murder, bloodshed was in a terrible and dreadful state. And part of this was following the fact that Menasheh, it is written, filled Yerushalayim with blood from end to end. Part of this was that he created contempt for the entire reality of human life.
And through this people were able to murder one another without any accounting. He had some petty score with his fellow, he finishes him off and that is it. So the land was defiled beneath its inhabitants. For they transgressed teachings, they changed the statute, they broke the eternal covenant. There are three things here, says the Malbim. There is here "they transgressed teachings," there is here "they changed the statute," there is here "they broke the eternal covenant." What are these three things? The Malbim says, there are three systems of law. "Datot" meaning conducts. He does not mean in the sense of religion, as we say Christianity, Islam and so forth. Rather three "datot" means three types of conduct. He defines them, and I will explain shortly, natural, conventional, divine.
And let us explain. What is the natural law? The natural law is the natural conduct that most people, one can almost say all people, accept as axioms. Do not murder, do not steal, do not do wrong one to another, do not have a person strike his fellow. This is called the natural law. Why does he call it the natural law? Because it is a very interesting thing, that every person has this in his nature. You will not find even some bushman in the primeval forests of Africa who never saw electric lights in his life, who would tell you that among us murder is acceptable. That is to say, for every small thing a person murders his fellow. There is no place where that is acceptable. Everywhere in the world murder is a negative thing. Everywhere there are conditions, when yes, when no, in what situations. Once, you know, someone from America once brought a certain person who was a cannibal from the primeval forests of Africa, he brought him to America, told him, come see civilization, come see where you live, you are among beasts, animals. He says come see people of culture. Exactly when he arrived there was a war between the South and the North.
So he sees there fighting and people dying like flies. He asks him, what is this? He tells him, here there is now a war and they are fighting over some form of establishing the government and over territories and... He said to him, and what, what do you do with the corpses? He said to him, what do you mean what do you do? We bury them. He said to him, tell me, are you moral? Among us if we kill someone it is at least in order to eat. But you just murder him and take him to bury? What, where is your morality? That is to say, even if there is some, some reasons to kill someone, then it is according to certain rules. You can say in a certain place the hand is quicker on the trigger, in another place less so. But there is no place where you would say among us it is legitimate to murder for every little thing. This is one of the foundations that a person has in his nature. And the things written in the Ten Commandments regarding matters between man and his fellow are things that are legitimate and accepted throughout the world. Do not murder and do not steal. They will not tell you in some place among us it is legitimate to steal. You can say in a certain place it is customary to steal. They say Ceausescu went with a flashlight and passed from country to country to search for justice, and he arrived in Romania and began searching for the flashlight. Fine, there are places where it is customary to steal, but you cannot say this is in the law, this is accepted, meaning this is the method, this is how one must act. Such a thing does not exist.
And so on, do not commit adultery. You will not find that anyone would tell you in some place among them this is acceptable. There is no such thing. You can say the people of this place are licentious, but that this thing is legitimate? No. This is what is called the natural law. Why is this natural law? Every person is born with this in his nature. By nature he is born not to steal, not to murder. There is the conventional law. What is the conventional law? These are laws that we among ourselves agreed upon in order to have proper life here. Laws, for example, regarding tax payments, keeping cleanliness, I do not know, not to destroy forests without limit in order not to destroy the green lungs and so forth. These are things that are called the conventional law. Not things that every person has in his nature, but we agreed, we took them upon ourselves in order, in the language of the Malbim, to distance the repugnant and bring near the pleasant. And these are things that everyone agrees should be so, and one who does not act this way, then it is something that is not right.
For example, the traffic laws. The traffic laws are part of the conventional law. We all understand that when one reaches an intersection there are those who need to stop so that there will be those who can drive. Because if not there will be chaos and may Hashem have mercy. And so on, in any case examples like these, this is called conventional law. The third law is called the divine law. The divine law is in fact the word of the Creator of the world, when we fulfill the mitzvot, we are called observers of the divine law. The word of Hashem was transmitted to us through a prophet, in order to bring people, in the language of the Malbim, to the true success and the happiness of the soul. Now come and see how he characterizes the state of that generation, and he says that they nullified all three of these laws. For they transgressed teachings, they changed the statute, they broke the eternal covenant. First, they transgressed teachings. Teachings, we have one, that is the Written Torah, the Oral Torah. "They transgressed teachings," this is the divine Torah, transmitted through a prophet, they transgressed what is written in the Torah. More than that, "they changed the statute."
"They changed the statute" means also the conventional law, which reason obligates, which we took upon ourselves as proper conduct as a society of people, as enlightened people, people who want only good, this too they changed. And what do you think? That the natural law, do not murder, do not steal, this they did observe? "They broke the eternal covenant." They broke the natural law too. The natural law is what preserves the world from being destroyed, from collapsing. If a man swallows his fellow alive, then the world will collapse. So there is murder and there is theft and there is bloodshed and there is plunder and there is... this is the destruction of the world. This too they broke, they broke the eternal covenant. Now let us note, the Malbim says, it is written "they transgressed teachings, they changed the statute." The conventional law is called "chok" (statute). Where do we find this? He says we saw this with Yosef, "and Yosef set it as a statute." What was there? That the priests do not need to be partners in the taxes. Rather they are priests of the faith, their role is to bring the people the word of Hashem, they do not need to be partners in the taxes. This is called a statute. Or "and it became a statute in Israel." Regarding whom is this said?
Yiftach, right. The daughter of Yiftach. There it is brought regarding the daughter of Yiftach that they would go up to lament, they would go up once a year, "and it became a statute in Israel." Therefore he says, what are those who determine the conducts of the state called? Legislators ("mechokekim"). What is the reason for this? Because they determine statutes that are accepted by all in terms of logic and reason, and they are called legislators. Now there is a difference here, let us note, he says "they transgressed teachings, they changed the statute." What is the difference between "transgressed" ("avru") and "changed" ("chalfu")? Regarding the teachings he says "transgressed," regarding the statute he says "changed." What is the difference? The Malbim says, "avar" is something that passes permanently. "Chalaf" is even in a temporary manner. And now he will explain. He says the conventional statute, this is what we explained that people take upon themselves as conduct, what the legislator determines, he says this they changed. What does "changed" mean? For after all even a thief, even a band of thieves, has an internal code, you know? Not only do they have an internal code, but you should know that they also have a court. If someone transgresses their codes, then there is a court and they judge him and punish him and there are fines and there are...
Crime families and there are... In short, crime is organized as it should be, it is organized. So that is to say, the statute they did not transgress, but rather they changed. "Changed" means, the Malbim says, they exchanged it for another statute. The government's law, the state's law, does not find favor in his eyes, he has other statutes, in the underworld there are other statutes. Therefore this is called "they changed the statute," he did not completely remove the statute, but rather exchanged it for another statute. But in contrast the Torah, they transgressed completely. Permanently, perpetually, he removed it completely, it is not something he exchanged only temporarily. Therefore a curse consumed the land, and its inhabitants are held guilty. Therefore the inhabitants of the land are scorched, and few people remain. And therefore, since they transgressed the Torah, the curse, this is the curse written in Parshat Nitzavim, consumed and burned the land. For after all the curse that is written in Parshat Nitzavim, "and all the curse written in this book will rest upon it, and they will see the plagues of the land, sulfur and salt, all its land burned." What caused sulfur and salt, all its land burned, as we explained? Through the fact that they transgressed, "and all the curse written in this book will rest upon it," they transgressed the words of Hashem.
"And its inhabitants are held guilty," all of "its inhabitants are held guilty." That is, upon whom is the guilt? Upon its inhabitants. Who caused the land to be stricken? Its inhabitants. The land has no sins. Who caused the land to be defiled beneath its inhabitants, in place of its inhabitants? Who caused this? It is its inhabitants. They committed the sins and the land, as it were, pays the price. And therefore, therefore the inhabitants of the land are scorched. And therefore what happens is that following the fact that the land is burned, what happens to those who dwell in it? They are scorched, they are singed. The inhabitants of the land are singed, for if the land burns then even the one who is in the land, the fire reaches him too. Right? "Charah" is from a term of fire, right? Like "charon af" (burning anger). What is "charon af"? Heating up, "a fire kindled in my nostril." So they too dried up from the fire and through this few people remain. What happens to a tree, a thick log, when you place it in fire? What happens to it first? It contracts. The liquids come out of it and it begins to contract until it is burned, and from this whole enormous log you see something small remains. This is what he says, since they were scorched, there was a state of the inhabitants of the land being scorched, they dried up from what? From the fire, by way of parable, the fire burned, they dried up, and the moment they dry up what happens?
They diminish. And few people remain. Consequently only few, "mizar" meaning only a small quantity of people, they are the ones who remained, only the poorest of the land. And "mizar" here expresses two things, both quantity and quality. Both in terms of quantity few remained, and also in terms of quality, all the important ones of the land were exiled, and as we said, after all the exiler took no account of the important and the lowly, but the important ones they always exiled first. Those who remained were the poorest of the land. The new wine mourns, the vine languishes, all the merry of heart sigh. Now he will describe in figurative language how the land, as it were, loses all the merit it had before, and how all the crops of the land are harmed by the very reality in which the nation is exiled. "The new wine mourns, the vine languishes." The new wine is, as it were, the son of the vine. What is the new wine? What is produced from the vine. The wine. "New wine makes maidens flourish." The wine produced from the vine is called the new wine. And it, as it were, mourns, "the new wine mourns," for who is the mother of the new wine?
It is the vine. After all, from it it is born, right? It brings forth the new wine. "The new wine mourns," over what does it mourn? Because "the vine languishes." Since its mother, which is the vine, languishes, meaning in the sense of dying, and through this it is like a son mourning the death of his father. And as we spoke several times, the prophet expresses himself in figurative language. "All the merry of heart sigh." And since the new wine mourns, after all who makes people merry? "And wine gladdens the heart of man." So if the new wine mourns, the vine languishes, all those who were merry from the wine, what happened to them? They sigh. Those who were accustomed to being merry with the wine, they sigh, there is nothing to be merry with. The joy of the drums has ceased, the tumult of the jubilant has ended, the joy of the harp has ceased. Now he will describe how all the inner joy of all the inhabitants of the land was taken from them.
Through the fact that the wine ceased, through this too there is no dancing and joy. They were accustomed to holding parties, drums, dances. The drum was generally intended for the dance. Because the drum gives the rhythm. And when there is a dance, then a person, after all, treads with his feet according to a certain rhythm. Through the fact that there is a drum, there is a rhythm for the treading of the feet. So consequently the tumult of the jubilant has ceased. The tumult, what is tumult? Noise. The noise that the jubilant would make, those who would dance while the drums were beating, this too has ceased. And not only that, but the joy of the harp has ceased. The harp is not intended for dancing, it is only to awaken the joy of the soul. The harp is more pleasant, something a person hears, not something with which he generally rises and dances. So they would play the harp in order to relax, in order to hear music, like classical music, it is generally not so that they would dance with it but rather more to enjoy the melody. So they would play the harp also at times other than the dance. And then he says not only did the joy of the drums cease, which consequently caused the tumult of the jubilant and dancers to end, but also the joy of the harp. Ordinary people who would sit and play the harp for their enjoyment, this too ceased due to the many troubles that came upon the land.
The Malbim explains what is called "jubilant" ("alizim"). "Alizim," the Malbim says, is something that comes, brings one to a motion of dancing due to laughter and joy. This is a jubilant person. That is to say, it is not enough that he hears and is glad, but he also begins to activate his body, he begins to dance. From joy, this is called jubilation. "They will not drink wine with song, strong drink will be bitter to those who drink it." Not only did all the melodies of song cease, he says also with song, there were people singing with their mouths.
Song, to sing with their mouths, "they will not drink wine with song," when they would drink wine they would begin to sing. They would drink and begin to sing. He tells you "they will not drink wine with song," even when they are accustomed at the time of drinking wine to sing and to make melody, they will no longer have joy in this. And why? Because strong drink is finished for those who drink it. "Yemar," that is, the strong drink will have an aspect of bitterness for those who drink it. It is written "give strong drink to those bitter of soul." That is, the strong drink became some kind of vessel for bitter people, for suffering people. So in such a situation where a person desired to sing, he has a desire to play, the city of chaos is broken, every house is shut from entering. Now he will describe the magnitude of the exile. He says the nation, when they were already prepared, preparing to go out to the land of the enemy, the fortified city, what is a "kiryah"? We explained in the past that there is a difference between a city ("ir") and a fortified city ("kiryah"). "Ir" is a city, "kiryah" is a place that also has a wall. "Kiryah" is a term of roofing, a term of walls. So the place that is called "kiryah" is a place that is generally protected, it is a place that is generally not easy for an enemy to conquer. He tells you the city of chaos is broken. This fortified city that was supposed to be strong, is broken. And it became an aspect of chaos, a desolate place, a destroyed place. Every house is shut from entering. And after they began to exile them, then they wanted them not to return to their houses. What did the enemy do? He hammered in nails, closed all the entrances so that the houses could not be inhabited again. "Every house is shut from entering," they closed all the houses so that they could not return there.
There is an outcry over the wine in the streets, all joy has darkened, the gladness of the land is exiled. The nation would stand in the streets and cry out, the Malbim says out of bitterness, when they still have cups of wine in their hands. See how it was not easy for them to detach from all their base habits. Just as they were accustomed to sing over the wine, so here now they would lament and would weep and cry out while the wine was still in their hands. What did they cry out? What did they say? All joy has darkened, the gladness of the land is exiled. "Simchah" (joy), the Malbim says, is the inner joy, the joy of the heart. A person who has external joy but has no inner joy, that is not enough. The inner joy is the light, that which illuminates the person's soul, gives him a desire to live, gives him a taste for his life, this is the inner joy. Through the inner joy he reaches "masos." What is "masos"? "Masos" is the dances, the dancing, when a person is glad. He rejoices, rejoices and exults. He is not only glad within, but he also brings it out. And through this what he says, the nation weep and say all joy has darkened, the joy that is the inner joy has darkened, passed, gone away. And consequently the gladness of the land is exiled. Through the fact that there is no inner joy, then consequently the gladness of the land, rejoicing and joy which is when people begin to rise and dance from the joy they have, the gladness of the land is exiled. All those who were rejoicing and glad here, what happened to them? They were already exiled. So as it were he says the rejoicing was exiled with them. There is no longer rejoicing, there is no longer joy.
The Malbim explains more deeply, he says that "simchah" is the inner joy of the heart, and "masos" is the external things that are done in practice as a sign of feasting and festivity. What is "masos"? When a person wears festive garments, when a person plays music, a person holds a feast. One who is glad makes "masos." What is the "masos"? The external characterization of joy, for joy in itself, as we said, is inner joy.
Left in the city is desolation, and the gate is battered to ruin. "Left in the city is desolation," what remained in the city? Only desolation. "Shamah" is a term of desolation. And in the gate, at the gate the majority of the people would always gather, the gate was the place of judgment, at the gate the elders would sit, "the elders have ceased from the gate," "those who sit at the gate talk of me." So now "and the gate is battered to ruin," that is, this place there will have an aspect of desolation, solitude, "the gate is battered to ruin," no one is found there. Chazal explain what is "the gate is battered to ruin" ("she'iyah yukat sha'ar")? A Gemara in Tractate Bava Kama, the Gemara says that it is better for a person that his house be inhabited. Even though he is now flying abroad for three years, it is better to settle someone in the house. And why? Because you think the house will be preserved when you are away, this is not true. Rather "she'iyah yukat sha'ar." There is a demon called She'iyah, and this demon, when the person is not in his house, when the house is closed, this demon destroys and damages the house. "She'iyah yukat sha'ar," it strikes and batters the gate, the house, when you are not inside it. Therefore sometimes a person comes to a house after it was closed for several years, and he suddenly sees that the house is ruined and he does not understand how this is, cracks and the plaster peeled off here and there this happened and here... he does not understand, no one used it here, why is this? It should have been preserved as it was when they closed it. Rather "she'iyah yukat sha'ar." This is how Chazal expound. Through the fact that the houses here, for after all he describes a situation of the exile of the ten tribes, so what happened to the houses? They were closed houses, as he said before, "every house is shut from entering." Through the fact that every house is shut from entering, left in the city is desolation, everything was an aspect of desolation, and consequently "and the gate is battered to ruin," that demon, those harmful spirits strike and batter the gate.