Sefer Yeshayahu chapter 30. "Woe to the rebellious children, says Hashem, who carry out a plan but not from Me, who make a covenant but not of My spirit, in order to add sin upon sin." Let me read another pasuk: "Who set out to go down to Egypt, and did not consult My mouth, to take refuge in the stronghold of Pharaoh and to shelter in the shadow of Egypt."
First of all, we already see that there is a rebuke here against the nation who went to seek refuge in Egypt, under Pharaoh's umbrella, to request his assistance. The Radak already raises a difficulty here. The Radak asks: after all, Yeshayahu prophesied in the days of Uziyahu, Yotam, Achaz and Chizkiyahu, correct? And we do not find that in those days they sought help from Egypt. That is to say, about which period is Yeshayahu speaking here? In his own time we do not find that they went to seek help from Egypt. And if we would say that he is prophesying about the generation of Tzidkiyahu, who came after him, for they indeed sent to Egypt to request help, he says that this is unlikely, because afterward he moves on to the salvation that occurred in the days of Chizkiyahu. That is to say, he is speaking here about the period of Chizkiyahu, not about the later period of Tzidkiyahu, which was already close to the churban. Therefore it is a bit difficult to explain that this is about a different period when afterward he returns to an earlier period.
Therefore the Radak inclines to explain that this is speaking about the days of Achaz. And even though we do not find it explicitly stated regarding Achaz in the pesukim, neither in Divrei Hayamim nor in Sefer Melachim, that Achaz went to seek help and assistance from Egypt, he says it is quite possible that here he is revealing this to us. That is one explanation. A second explanation: he says it is possible that this was in the days of Chizkiyahu himself, that then, before Chizkiyahu returned them to the proper path, they went to seek assistance from Egypt. This is how the Radak inclines to explain it.
Rashi explains that this is speaking about something more clearly stated and explicit, about the days of Hoshea ben Elah. It is written that Hoshea ben Elah sent messengers to So king of Egypt. Hoshea ben Elah was the last king of the kingdom of Israel, the kingdom of Shomron. He was their last king. Afterward they were exiled and the kingdom of Yehudah still continued. But he was their last king. He, incidentally, was the one who removed the guard posts and permitted them to go up for the pilgrimage. In his days there was already an opportunity to go up for the aliyah laregel, but the decree had already been sealed and in the end they were exiled. So according to Rashi we are speaking about the days of Hoshea ben Elah, and this is indeed stated explicitly in the pesukim.
The Radak explains: the navi says to them, "Woe to the rebellious children, says Hashem." Woe to those who were called children, you are children to Hashem your God, that is a lofty level, and following that, what do they become afterward? Rebellious. If it is a rebellious servant, you would say that from the outset he had no level, he had no distinction, he is a servant. But someone who is a son, after he is at the level of a son, they become rebellious, "sorerim" meaning turning away from the path. Not only do they not turn to Hashem to request His help, but they even go to seek help and assistance from those whom the Holy One, blessed be He, forbade turning to, from those whom the Holy One, blessed be He, forbade returning to their land.
And this is what he says: where are they going? To Egypt. "Who set out to go down to Egypt," and regarding Egypt the Malbim says: after all, concerning them it was said, "You shall not return that way again." So how do you go to find refuge, it is not enough that you abandoned Hashem, you even go to seek refuge with whom? With Egypt? After all, they should have asked the navi, they should have consulted the mouth of Hashem whether they should truly do such a thing. And they did not do this, but rather what? "To carry out a plan but not from Me." They go to carry out a plan but not from Me, they did not clarify whether this matter is from Me, whether I would thus advise them to do it. "And to make a covenant but not of My spirit." "Velinsoch masechah" means to make a plan in secret and concealment. "Masechah," the Radak explains, is from the language of covering. Yes? A masechah, like today they make a mask that covers the face, so they made a masechah, meaning a covering, they would do the matter covered up, in secret as it were, in order to take counsel to go and turn to Egypt.
"In order to add sin upon sin." It is not enough for them with their first sin, that they abandoned Hashem, but they still go to take for themselves and shelter under another master, under the king of Egypt, and as it were they conceal it, doing their deeds in darkness, as though their deeds would not be recognized by Hashem, may He be blessed.
The Malbim explains "sorerim" to mean turning away from the straight path time after time. And therefore it says "sorerim" and not "sar." "Sar" is one time. "Sorer" is one who returns and turns away and returns and turns away again and again. One, they sinned by making a plan against the command of Hashem, as we will see in the next pasuk. Two, they sinned by "linsoch masechah." The Malbim does not explain like the Radak that "masechah" is from the language of concealment; the Malbim explains that the meaning is the language of appointment. Yes? That is, as it is written, "And I have appointed My king." "Nisachti" there is from the language of "nasich," prince. So "linsoch masechah" means they go to take for themselves a king, someone who will be as a prince over them, whom? The king of Egypt. And this is against Hashem, against His will.
"Who set out to go down to Egypt, and did not consult My mouth, to take refuge in the stronghold of Pharaoh and to shelter in the shadow of Egypt." Why does it say "to go down to Egypt"? The first explanation: Eretz Yisrael is higher than all the lands. Another explanation: if we explain that this refers to the inhabitants of Yerushalayim, then anyone who leaves Yerushalayim is considered to be going down. Therefore this is called going down. A third explanation: "laredet," the meaning here is in the sense that there was a descent for them in this matter. There was a descent for them here, meaning here we are speaking more about the essence than about the technical matter. Speaking from a spiritual standpoint, this is "to go down to Egypt," you have to reach a state of descent in order to arrive at such a state where you receive help and assistance from the king of Egypt, to whom you are forbidden to return. From him you go to receive help? Certainly this is a descent for you.
The Malbim says: they go to seek counsel from Pharaoh, and within this there were also some of them who went to settle in Egypt. "And did not consult My mouth." They did not consult the mouth of Hashem, for after all the Holy One, blessed be He, said not to return to Egypt again. They went to shelter in the shadow of Pharaoh, and this is what is written, "to take refuge in the stronghold of Pharaoh." The meaning is that he would be for them a stronghold and a refuge. They wanted to find help through Pharaoh, but this Pharaoh will not really help them. From this Pharaoh they will truly see no salvation. "And to shelter in the shadow of Egypt": they accepted Egypt as a master over themselves. They literally go to shelter in his shadow. So there is a difference between "la'oz" and "lachasot." "La'oz" means that this thing will, as it were, protect me. "Lachasot" means to accept his kingship absolutely, that he, I take shelter in his shadow, he is the one leading me, he is the one I accept over myself as a ruler, and this is what he said before, "linsoch masechah," to take him over you as a prince, as a king over you, that he is the one who will lead you. And the Malbim says: why is it written "who set out to go down"? He says: they go, but the goal is to go down. Like we say today, "yordim." What is "yordim"? A person who goes to settle there. So they go, but do not think that he only went there to meet them, to speak with Pharaoh so he would protect them. Their intention is to go down and settle in Egypt, something that the Holy One, blessed be He, absolutely forbade.
"And Pharaoh's stronghold shall be your shame, and the shelter in the shadow of Egypt your humiliation." The Malbim explains: there is a difference between "boshet" (shame) and "kelimah" (humiliation). "Boshet" is what a person is ashamed of within himself, a certain thing happened and he himself is ashamed that such a thing occurred. In contrast, "kelimah" is what others humiliate him with. He says to them: you think you have something to rely upon, Egypt, and "Pharaoh's stronghold shall be your shame." It will be a shame for you because you will see that it does not help you, this reliance of yours on his strength did not help you. "And the shelter in the shadow of Egypt," this sheltering in his shadow will cause you humiliation from others. For after all, in order to shelter in the shadow of Egypt you have to flatter them, you have to bring them tribute, you have to lower yourselves before them. And if this does not produce the hoped-for results, then what did you gain from it? Only humiliation. Because you lowered yourself and in the end you were humiliated by him, you gave him tribute, you lowered your honor and did not receive the results. So sheltering in the shadow of Egypt will bring you to a state of humiliation, you became for him a forced laborer for nothing.
"For his princes are in Tzoan, and his messengers reach Chanes." "For his princes are in Tzoan." Rashi explains that "his princes are in Tzoan" means the princes of the king of Israel, they went on a mission to Egypt. And the messengers of the king of Israel, for after all he is speaking about Hoshea ben Elah, "reach Chanes." Chanes is Tachpanches which appears in other places in Tanach. So according to Rashi this pasuk speaks about the emissaries of the king of Israel to there. Note that the Malbim explains the opposite. The Malbim explains that here we are speaking about the men of the king of Egypt. You expected that he would send you help, you expected that his important princes would come out toward you, that they would come to help since we paid. He says to you: "his princes are in Tzoan," they remained in Tzoan in the royal city, they did not even go out. Do not say they advanced toward us; he did not even intend to come help you. His princes, those of the king of Egypt, remained in Tzoan, they did not come to your aid. "And his messengers reach Chanes." But his messengers, those are the emissaries. What did the emissaries there come to take? They came to receive the tribute. The emissaries who came to receive the gift and the tribute that you sent, those did come. They came to receive the gift and the tribute, they came. To send men to uphold the agreement, to come to assist you? "His princes are in Tzoan." And this is what he says: "and his messengers reach Chanes." They reached Chanes, for to Tachpanches, to Chanes, the tribute was sent. So they came to take the tribute, but to supply the goods they did not supply, meaning there was no benefit to them from Egypt.
"They were all put to shame over a people that could not benefit them, neither for help nor for benefit, but for shame and even for disgrace." "They were all put to shame," they took upon themselves much shame on account of a people that could not benefit them. You lowered yourself, you disgraced yourself, you sent tribute, on behalf of whom? On behalf of a people that could not benefit them, a people that did not benefit you at all. "Neither for help nor for benefit." What is the difference between "help" and "benefit"? "Help," the Malbim says, is generally to rescue from distress. "And a help against his enemies shall he be." "Help" is when a person needs to be helped by someone else to rescue him from distress. "Benefit" can be all kinds of benefit. It could be that he will come here and help me pave roads. It could be that he will come here and give me benefit from an economic standpoint. There are many matters in which there is benefit. So he says "neither for help nor for benefit." Not only will the help to rescue you from the distress and this disaster of the enemies around not help you, but there is not even benefit; even if, let us say, some other benefit might have come to me from him, he says you did not get that either. What did benefit you? "But for shame and even for disgrace." What benefited you? The shame and the disgrace that you received from them, that benefited you. And "boshet" means that a person is ashamed of himself, and "cherpah" (disgrace) is like "kelimah," what others shame him with, disgrace him with, humiliate his face. So he says: you will have self-shame and also humiliation from others and also disgrace from others who will disgrace you, and this is a disgrace harder than the humiliation. In the beginning he says "the shadow of Egypt for humiliation," he says this will be more than that, this will be disgrace, for "cherpah" is from the language of reviling and blaspheming.
"The burden of the beasts of the Negev: through a land of trouble and anguish, of lioness and lion, viper and flying serpent among them, they carry their wealth on the backs of young donkeys and their treasures on the humps of camels, to a people that cannot benefit." "The burden of the beasts of the Negev," the burden that they carried to the Negev. Rashi explains, let me first explain the names written here. Rashi says the "efeh" is a type of evil serpent and there are only two in the world, a male and a female. And they give birth every seventy years. Do you hear? There are two such species, two such creatures in the world called "efeh," a male and a female, once in seventy years they give birth. "Viper and flying serpent." What is a "flying serpent"? It is a type of serpent, and this serpent, Rashi explains, it is not that this serpent actually has wings, but rather it leaps great distances. This is also known today in nature, yes, there is such a serpent that jumps long distances. And not only that, but it is called "saraf." Why is it called "saraf"? Because it casts a flame from its mouth. What does it mean, it casts a flame from its mouth? Simply, we are not speaking here about a dragon known to us from all kinds of mythologies, which means it emits fire, but rather it means it casts venom from its mouth. And it is known that there are serpents that spit venom. And if it spits the venom into the eyes of the victim, it usually blinds it. And then it aims this at its eyes, and through this it succeeds in subduing it. So it is called "saraf" because it casts venom from a distance that burns, and it also flies, it leaps and flies.
Let us now explain what he is actually saying to them here. He says to them: "the burden of the beasts of the Negev." The Malbim explains: "the burden of the beasts of the Negev," "the burden, lioness and lion among them." "The burden of the beasts of the Negev" means, according to the Malbim's view, "behemot" is not "beasts." Rather "behemot" is from the language of "hemyah" (roaring), where the bet is the connecting bet, from the letters bet, chaf, lamed, mem. So the word itself is "hemot" and the bet is "behemot," yes, it is the connecting bet. That is, it means the burden that they carried, "hemot Negev." What is "Negev"? Negev is a desert. The desert, "and you have given me a land of the Negev," correct? Who said that? Achsah, correct. You gave me in a place that is dry ("menugav"). Dry of good. What did he give her for this? In such a place, what did he add for her? Springs of water, correct? We need to go back to Sefer Yehoshua. He gave her springs of water, upper springs and lower springs, he gave her wellsprings of water. So Negev is a dry place, it is a place that is without good, a parched place. So "the burden of the beasts of the Negev." The Malbim explains that here he is speaking about that period when they began to transport goods, they began actually to transport the tribute intended for the king of Egypt so that Egypt would supply the goods, for we wanted protection from them, and since this was so, they had to transport the tribute to them. And how does this tribute pass through and arrive in Egypt? It had to pass through the place called Negev, through the desert. In order to reach Egypt you have to pass through the desert. And this desert is called "the beasts of the Negev," there is there a roaring of the desert, the roaring of the desert, apparently he means the wind that roars there and is heard when it blows there in the desert. And this wind, "the burden of the beasts of the Negev, through a land of trouble and anguish," this is as if to say, in a place that is a land of trouble and anguish, a place where there are found in those regions dangerous creatures, beasts of prey. "The burden of the beasts of the Negev," through this place they sent the tribute to the king of Egypt.
And in that same place, "the burden, lioness and lion among them." Who carried some of them off? The lioness and the lion, which are types of lions, they carried some of them off. That is to say, they carried tribute in order to bring it to the king of Egypt, the lioness and the lion carried some of them, meaning they devoured them. That is, they arrived through dangerous places, from among those who were leading the tribute the lioness and the lion, and also the viper and the flaming serpent, devoured and destroyed some of those tribute-bearers. Do you think this caused them to change their minds? To return back to their place? To understand that this is not according to Hashem's will? They did not turn back from their way. He says: look, "they carry their wealth on the backs of young donkeys." "Ayarim" are young camels. The Malbim explains that "ayir" generally comes to express a young donkey. But we find in other places that the expression "ayir" is borrowed for any young animal. The Malbim says: see an example, it is written "a colt (ayir), the son of a she-donkey," you see that the she-donkey's offspring is called "ayir." Or for example it is written "a wild colt (ayir) of a man is born," you see that again it defines the man as "ayir." So here too "ayarim" means young camels. So they set out on the way with young camels to carry the burden, the tribute, to transport it to the king of Egypt, but because their journey stretched out for days and years, in the end what became of those young camels? "They carry their wealth on the backs of young donkeys and their treasures on the humps of camels." From young ones they had already become camels. That is, this comes to convey and say that they had already grown old from the great amount of time it took them to carry this burden and transport it to Pharaoh.
And not only that, but until this became "the hump of the camels." Why is the camel's hump called "dabeshet"? Because when you place a burden on its hump, the camel's back rubs and gets wounded. After all, it has a hump. What would they do to heal this? They would smear honey (dvash) on it. And since this is so, the Gemara also says, the Gemara in Masechet Shabbat says that honey is used to place on the camel's back. So the honey would heal the camel's hump from the burden they carried on it. And therefore, because they would place the honey on the hump, it is called "dabeshet." "Dabeshet" is from the language of "dvash," honey. So he says a situation arose where it became the camels' hump, their backs had already been rubbed from the many days that they carried this burden in order to take it there to Egypt.
And not only that, but he says: in the beginning when they sent, then the wealth that they sent was already used up, they had to begin sending their treasures. What are "their treasures"? "Their treasures" is what a person stores in his palaces. That is, when they saw that the animals and predators in the desert took what they sent, the tribute, they began to send their treasures, what was found in the treasure houses, what was found in their inner storehouses. And to whom did they send this? "To a people that cannot benefit." To a people from whom there would be no hope for them. As it were, the navi comes and says: see how foolish those people were, see how senseless they were, who went and exerted such great effort amid dangers, amid conditions of wandering for many long months, on behalf of whom? "To a people that cannot benefit." Someone from whom they had no benefit at all.
And this is what he returns and mentions: "For Egypt helps in vain and emptiness, therefore I have called this one 'Rahav, they sit still.'" He says: Egypt, apart from the fact that they cannot help you now, after all "Egypt helps in vain and emptiness" from time immemorial. That is to say, if you want to see, you turn to someone, you say, let us examine his history. Did people turn to him in the past? Did they see hope from him? Was there benefit? He says "Egypt helps in vain and emptiness," for from time immemorial there was never any hope from the help of Egypt. "They help in vain and emptiness," they never helped any nation that trusted in them at all. The Malbim explains the difference between "hevel" (vanity) and "rik" (emptiness). The Malbim says "hevel" is a thing that has no substance. Like for example "the breath (hevel) of the mouth." A thing that has no substance. In contrast, "rik" has substance. What is the substance in it? The outer shell. For after all, if I say this is empty, then what does that say? That there is an outer shell, correct? If not, then what is empty? Whenever you say about something that it is empty, you say the house is empty, the box is empty, the cup is empty, that is to say there is a house, there is a box, there is a cup; if not, what are you talking about when you say empty? So the Malbim says: the "hevel" has no substance, the "rik" has a shell but inside, as we said, it is actually empty. Egypt, even if they wanted to help, their help is "hevel." What is "hevel"? It has no substance. Like the breath of the mouth. But even this weak help, of which you might say, well, maybe there is something in it, he says it is "rik." What is "rik"? It is an outer envelope. You examine inside, there is nothing. That is to say, even if he wanted to help you, he makes you promises that he does not intend to fulfill. Promises that when you open them up inside, you see they are empty. So even this "hevel" that only appears to you in the outer shell, know that inside it is empty. So first of all do not expect anything, for it is "hevel." And even this "hevel" that he promises you, what will you receive in the end? Only externality, inner substance you will not receive. That is to say, help you will not receive, only promises that he will truly come and help.
And therefore he says to them: this nation, "Rahav, they sit still." He says, this the Malbim explains, that here the phrases are parallel. That is, on the one hand I say to you they are "hevel," and Egypt is "hevel." And since they are "hevel," I say to you they are "Rahav" (arrogance). What is "hevel"? As we explained, it is like the breath of the mouth, there is no benefit in it. The breath of the mouth, so what are they doing, just talking? So that is "Rahav." What impression do they make? He says: be strong, it is all "Rahav," do not be impressed by it. "Rahav" is pride, he as it were takes pride that he has strength. But if I told you that it is "hevel," understand that all their talk about themselves is only "Rahav." And afterward he says, after all, "they help in emptiness," as we explained, after all this has no inner substance, it is only an outer envelope, he says this is "they sit still." What is "they sit still"? He says: when you open it up inside, you see nothing. What does this mean? He rests from work. He does not do anything, he does not move himself at all. You might say, perhaps this "hevel" will come and assist me in something? He says to you: no, even this "hevel" sits in its place and does not move. That is to say, you have no benefit from them at all.
"Now come, write it on a tablet with them, and inscribe it on a book, that it may be for a last day, as a witness forever." "Now come, write it on a tablet with them." That is, write the matters on a small tablet that will remain with them as a keepsake, that it will be a reminder for themselves. And apart from this, write the matters on "a book, an inscription." What is "a book, an inscription"? The meaning is a book in which they would write and engrave with an iron pen. And what is the difference? When you write a thing, it is possible that it will fade. When you engrave a thing, it remains for a long time or perhaps even forever. There are to this day all kinds of caves in which are found all sorts of things that were carved and engraved thousands of years ago. What is engraved in rock remains for a long time. So not only "write it on a tablet," which is writing on the tablet that can be erased, but this will be "with them." "With them" means all the days of their lives this will testify against them. Apart from this, write it on "a book, an inscription," which will remain also for future generations since it will be engraved. Why is this needed? "Write it on a tablet with them," he continues "that it may be for a last day." This will remain for them until their last day. And corresponding to what he said, "a book, an inscription," engrave it in a book, a book as we said, real engraving in stone with an iron stylus, "as a witness forever." This will remain with them eternally as a witness forever, that is to say, a thing that will never be forgotten.
What does he want to be written? "For it is a rebellious people, lying children, children who would not listen to the Torah of Hashem." The Malbim says there are several levels. There is one who hears the Torah of Hashem and he also believes in Hashem, but nevertheless he exchanges the words of the Holy One, blessed be He, for other things. Why? Because he feels like it. He has cravings. That is to say, he does not object to the very fact that these are the words of Hashem, he does not try to say that the matters are untrue, but on the other hand he in practice acts against those matters. Why? Because of the cravings of his heart. There is one who says, no, the Holy One, blessed be He, did not command this at all. It is not that he only follows the cravings of his heart, he objects to the matters themselves. And there is one even worse than this, that when you come to tell him what the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded, he does not even want to listen. He is even worse, for the previous one listened, at least he expresses an opinion. But that one is worse, he does not even want to listen. And this is what he says here. Here he goes in order. "For it is a rebellious people." This is a person who truly believes in Hashem and says the Torah is true, only he exchanges ("memir"), he switches, like "lo yamir." He exchanges the words of Hashem for the cravings of his heart. True, Hashem said, true, this is how it should be, but I feel like doing otherwise. That is "a rebellious people." More than that, "lying children." Who deny and are heretics, saying Hashem did not command this, this is not what Hashem said, this is not what Hashem wants. That is "lying children." And more than that, "children who would not listen to the Torah of Hashem." This is the third group, who are not even willing to listen. If you would listen, you would still argue, we would still enter into some discussion, some dialogue, it would still be possible to persuade. But whom is it hardest to try to persuade? The one who does not want to listen at all. The one who does not want to listen is impenetrable. You have no crack through which to enter. But when a person wants to listen, even if he argues, know that in the seminars, those who argue the hardest return to teshuvah the fastest. Why? Because it truly pains him, he cares, he seeks the truth. Who is the worst? That one who sits observing from the side and says, yes, nice, what the rav said is nice, what he said is nice, everything passes right by him. He does not... fine, everything is fine, nice, it was nice. He returns home with his "nice" and that is it, he continues on "nice" until the end of his life. That is the worst. But when a person comes expressing an opinion, he cares, he has something to say, with that there is something to talk about, there is feedback, there is someone who truly cares about the matters. But the worst is "who would not listen to the Torah of Hashem." The worst is the one who does not come to the seminar at all. He says no, no, leave me alone now, what, I do not want to listen, so how can you still persuade me? Leave it, it is dangerous, leave it, I am fine this way, that is it, leave me. That is "who would not listen to the Torah of Hashem."
"Who say to the seers, 'You shall not see,' and to the visionaries, 'You shall not envision for us true things; speak to us smooth words, envision illusions.'" "Who say to the seers." The seers are the neviim. The neviim would rebuke them for transgressions between man and his fellow. Would they say to them, "You shall not see." The meaning is: do not look at such things. Do not observe to see what people are doing, and then consequently you will not need to rebuke them. Yes? "You shall not see." Once I entered a certain place, there was a Jew there with a kippah, a grocery store, and there he sold all kinds of magazines, may Hashem have mercy. So I turned it over. I said to him: tell me, why do you cause people to stumble? He turned it back over and said: so, you have no problem, do not look. That is it. That is what the navi says. "Who say to the seers, 'You shall not see.'" What, why are you looking? You have a problem, do not look. Do not look. Are there evils? Are there things that are not good? They say to the neviim: if you do not see the evils that people do, you will not need to rebuke them, there will be no problems. If you do not look, the ostrich method, bury your head in the sand, there will be no problems. They say to the seers, "You shall not see," do not gaze upon such matters in order to rebuke concerning them. "And to the visionaries," the visionaries would rebuke them concerning matters between man and God. And this is called "chozim" (visionaries) because the Malbim explains that the visionary is essentially, as it were, contemplating the divine matters. The matter of "lachazot" (to envision) always refers to the inner realm. "Lir'ot" (to see) applies also to external sight. But "lachazot," for example, "and I too shall gaze (echezeh), I shall set my heart," inner contemplation is called "lachazot." That is, a person who envisions matters, as they say "stargazers." What is "stargazers"? Here too this is sight more inner than external sight. So they essentially turned to the visionaries, those who would see what happens in the Heavenly court, those who would envision and see what happens with Hashem, may He be blessed, what the relationship of the Jewish people is, how much wrath there is over the deeds of the Jewish people, to them they would say "You shall not envision." And those who would rebuke them for what they saw here in earthly matters, how this one oppresses that one and how this one deceives that one and how the matters of injustice were there in a disgraceful manner and matters of murder and immorality, may Hashem have mercy, all these matters, they were the seers. The navi was supposed to rebuke concerning this. They would say to them, do not see. If you do not see, you will not need to rebuke either.
"Turn aside from the way, deviate from the path, cause the Holy One of Israel to cease from before us." To the seers, as we explained, the neviim, the seers who would rebuke concerning matters between man and his fellow, they would say to them, "Turn aside from the way." The meaning is: begin, you too, to act like us. And through this, cause others to deviate from the path. Let me explain. There is a distinction that the Malbim repeats several times, there is "derech" (way), "orach" (path), "nativ" (trail). The Malbim repeats this in many places in Tanach. "Derech" is the main road. What is called today a highway. The road that leads between city and city is called "derech." There is "orach." From the main road, in order to enter the city you pass through an "orach." The meaning is, this is a road that leads to the place itself, to the city itself, and it is already a smaller road, it is not the main road, it is the road leading to the city. This is a road of fewer people than the main road. There is "nativ." A "nativ" is a person who has a private estate, so he has an access road of a private individual. This is called "nativ." A "nativ" is something of one person. Here he does not speak about "nativ," so therefore we will deal only with "derech" and "orach." They say to the neviim themselves, "Turn aside from the way." The meaning is: you too behave like us. Do not walk in the main road of uprightness and justice, but rather oppress, rob, you too like us. And through this, "deviate from the path." You will cause them to deviate, you will bring it about, you will cause it, we are actually interested in this, that the rest of the public too deviate from the path. What does this mean? If the one in charge, let us say the judge, the dayan, deviates from the way, he changes the foundations of justice, it is permitted to steal, it is permitted to rob, what does he thereby cause? That through this the nation, they already choose for themselves crooked paths. In all kinds of matters between a man and his fellow, on their own private path, they already change the law and pervert justice. Why? If the dayan is permitted, if the judge is permitted, if the navi determined that theft is not theft and oppression is not oppression, then they too, the private individuals, already stray from the path. So "turn aside, you, from the way," and through this "deviate" the nation from the path, that also in private matters they will do all kinds of things that do not follow the correct way, the correct path.
"Cause the Holy One of Israel to cease from before us." Here they turn to the visionaries. The visionaries, as we said, are those who rebuke them in matters between man and God. And to them they say "cause the Holy One of Israel to cease from before us." All the mitzvot between man and God are founded on the foundation that the Holy One, blessed be He, is the Holy One of Israel. The Holy One, blessed be He, is holy and exalted, and Hashem wants that we too be a holy nation to Hashem our God. "And you shall be holy, for I am holy." The Holy One, blessed be He, says: I want you to conduct yourselves with holiness...
00:00 Just as Hashem is holy, as the Ramchal brings in Derech Hashem, that all the mitzvot are meant to sanctify the person. And through the person becoming sanctified, through this, after his passing, through this his soul will cling to the Holy One, blessed be He, for "I am holy." But one who is not holy, what actually results? That after his passing, when his soul needs to reach its supreme happiness, to cling to Him, may He be blessed, it will not be able to cling since He is distant. It is impossible for something that is not holy to cling to the Holy One. The mitzvot are meant to sanctify us, to elevate us, to refine us, so that when the time comes we will be able to cling to the Infinite One, blessed be He. Certainly the holy ones who are in the land, they still cling here in this world to Hashem, may He be blessed. And here they are already cleaving to Hashem, may He be blessed, "He fulfills the will of those who fear Him." But even if we do not feel this, then when the person casts off his body, then he will see what his measure of cleaving to Hashem, may He be blessed, is. How much he can cling to Him. On what does the matter depend? The more he was sanctified, he can cling to "I am holy." But the less he was sanctified, then he is more distant from "I am holy." And therefore they come and say: do not mention the Holy One of Israel. Why? Since there is, as it were, no benefit to Hashem, may He be blessed, in this holiness and this connection with us, and therefore "cause to cease from before us" the concept of the Holy One of Israel. This is against whom? This they said to the visionaries, that the visionaries rebuke them concerning matters between man and God. They said to them: no, we have no interest in connecting with the Holy One of Israel, we have no interest in sanctifying ourselves in matters between man and God, so do not remind us of these matters since we have no benefit in this.