The Malbim notes the change in wording. "Do not remember the former things," which we explained refers to the redemption from Egypt, "and do not ponder the ancient things," this refers to the redemption from Bavel. The Malbim asks: what is the difference between "former" (rishonot) and "ancient" (kadmoniyot)? The Malbim says: the "first" is always the first. The "ancient" is the second relative to the first. That is, it does not have to be second. For example, I can say: he will be, and after him he, and after him he, and after him he. The third is prior to the fourth. The fourth is prior to the fifth. Now, "first" must always be first. But "ancient" does not have to be first. There can be something prior to it, only relatively, it does not have to be the first. And this is what he says, "do not remember the former things," this is the redemption from Egypt which was first of all. There was no redemption before it. "And do not ponder the ancient things," the intent is the earlier redemption, and we do not mean here a redemption earlier than the first, because there is nothing before the first. Rather it refers to earlier redemptions, meaning what happened in earlier years, and this too you are not willing to ponder, which as we said is the redemption from Bavel. The Malbim brings additional pesukim, "declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things that were not yet done," where he brings all sorts of examples in which we see that the expression "ancient" is always something one step earlier, whereas "first" speaks of the first of the former things. So "do not remember the former things," this is the redemption from Egypt that was first of all. "And the ancient things," those that were before you, that preceded you, these too you are unwilling to ponder. What does Hashem promise? "Behold, I do a new thing; now it shall spring forth; shall you not know it?" What does "shall you not know it" mean here? Knowledge, as we said, is distinct from pondering. For knowledge comes from the senses. And knowledge is always something clear. In contrast, pondering is something that requires understanding one thing from another, it draws conclusions. Here one must use the faculty of understanding (binah). The faculty of binah is meant for pondering, meaning that by understanding one thing from another, through this you draw conclusions. In contrast, knowledge is always something clear. I see the thing, the thing is recognizable to me, the thing is perceptible to the senses. And binah is through inference and the ways of logic. Things that are not attained by the senses, only by the intellect, are called "pondering." As it is written, "and those who erred in spirit shall come to understanding." Now, "they shall know understanding," the intent is that you will ponder a thing so much until you reach a state of knowing it. And the Malbim explains this at greater length in Sefer Mishlei, that binah is indeed grasping one thing from another, but one who delves deeply into it can reach the level of knowledge. The intent is, it is such a clear axiom and so simple, that it is like something grasped by the senses. Even if you were asked, "how did you reach this conclusion?" "No, it is a logical conclusion." But the logical conclusion is so simple that it is as if I saw it with my eyes. It is so tangible that it is as if I am touching it. This is the level of "those who erred in spirit shall come to understanding." After they have pondered so much and delved so deeply, it will already fall for them into the category of knowledge, so that this matter will be clear to all. It is like being asked, "at what temperature does water boil?" "100 degrees," right? When did you last check that? That is, notice, there is something that ostensibly, according to... we never did it ourselves. But nevertheless, this matter is so well known that it has become like an axiom, like something clear, like something absolute that each of us states. Yes, this is the level of "those who erred in spirit shall come to understanding." So he says here, the future redemption, "shall you not know it," will be with clear knowledge, with absolute knowledge, so that then there will be no need to use pondering and delving to reach conclusions, but rather everyone will be able to see this matter.
What is written, "behold, I do a new thing; now it shall spring forth," now it is capable of being even now. When are you coming, "when is the master coming?" This was said to Eliyahu, what did he answer? "Today." Afterward, the next day, he meets him, what, Heaven forbid, did you speak falsely? He said to him, no, "today, if you will hearken to His voice." That is, the redemption is at the level of "now," it is already ready, and everything depends only on our will. Or there is another explanation given by the Radak, what is "now"? As it were, when I want to tell you about something future that you are doubtful about, then you say, either it will happen or it will not happen, but if I show it to you, then it is clear that it will happen. He says, this matter of the future redemption is at the level of "now," as if I see it now before my eyes, "now," it is as if it is happening here now. Something future you are so doubtful about, but if it is something that is "now," as it were before the eyes, then in this my faith and confidence in the redemption are clear.
And this salvation He says to them, "shall you not know it." What is the knowledge he speaks of? The Radak explains, "shall you not know it" means, I already made it known to you in days of old, for in the Torah it is stated, "then Hashem your God will return your captivity and have compassion upon you, and He will return and gather you from all the nations." That is, there is a promise of redemption, "shall you not know it," I am not promising you here now something new, I already wrote about this in the Torah. And if you say, no, perhaps the redemption speaks of the redemption from Bavel, and we already went through that, then what is it you tell me "shall you not know it," I already spoke with you in the past, there was a redemption, the redemption from Bavel, so what do we do that since then we are again in exile and perhaps here we no longer have a promise of redemption? The Radak says, it cannot be, for in the Torah it is stated, "then Hashem your God will return your captivity and have compassion upon you, and He will return and gather you from all the nations." After all, in Bavel they were not scattered among all the nations, the exiles of Bavel, who were these who gathered here? The exiles of Bavel. The rest of the nations, the ten tribes had still not left exile, "and He will return and gather you from all the nations," so was it fulfilled in us or not? It was not yet fulfilled. So if so, no, do not say we have already passed this redemption, we have no promise about the future redemption.
Another matter, in the pasuk there it is stated, "when you return to Hashem your God with all your heart and all your soul." The Radak says, those who returned from the Babylonian exile did not return with all their heart and all their soul, for we saw that there were among them Shabbat desecrators, there were among them those who married foreign women. So if so, with certainty, "shall you not know it," that I am speaking to you about the future redemption, we speak of a redemption that I already wrote in the Torah, "then Hashem your God will return," and this is not the redemption we have already passed, this is a future redemption that will gather the people of Israel from all the exiles.
And then He says, I will do further things that you will not know from the Torah, "shall you not know it," that I promised the redemption, "even" adds also, and also things I did not write in the Torah. And what are they? "I will make a way in the wilderness, rivers in the desert." I will make a way in the wilderness in order to redeem the people of Israel, in the desert, in a place of desolation and drought there will be a river, as it is written, "a voice calls: in the wilderness clear the way," we learned this. The Holy One, blessed be He, says, thus I will in the future change nature so that the people of Israel will be redeemed from exile.
"The beast of the field shall honor Me, the jackals and the ostriches, because I have given water in the wilderness, rivers in the desert, to give drink to My people, My chosen." "The beast of the field shall honor Me, the jackals and the ostriches." The beast of the field, a place that is ruined, a place that is a lair for the beast of the field, for jackals and ostriches, they will honor Me, says the Holy One, blessed be He, following what I will in the future change there in nature. "I have given water in the wilderness, rivers in the desert," their ruined place suddenly they see has become an oasis in the desert, following the fact that the Holy One, blessed be He, promises, I will make a way in the wilderness, rivers in the desert.
The Malbim explains, "the beast of the field shall honor Me," the Malbim says even the beast of the field will honor Me through these miracles. The beasts of the field ostensibly are not obligated in this thanksgiving, says the Malbim. First, because they recognize no benefit from the way and the water, for the beast of the field is an animal content with a dry place. Let us ask this way: a Siberian polar bear, will you satisfy it if you bring it to Africa, saying to it, I saw that you are very cold, I brought you to a more pleasant place, it will die there, right? I am built for the cold, I am not built to live in a more pleasant state, right? The same too with the beasts of the field, animals accustomed to dry places, if you bring them to moist places, it is not good for them. The Malbim says about this, so too here, there will be no benefit for them from the way, the beast of the field is the opposite, know that any place a person has reached, the beasts of the field have vanished from it. The animals simply disappeared, they lost their places, they feel threatened, I am not even speaking of situations where people hunt them. So they do not need a way, it only pollutes their place for them, they also do not need water. And if so, on account of what will they honor? He says, "the beast of the field shall honor Me," even without the benefit of the way and even without the benefit of the water.
Another matter, the beasts of the field were not created to praise and honor Hashem, whereas man's purpose, as we will see further on, is to praise and honor Hashem. A third matter, even if there were benefit for them, these miracles were not done for their sake. These miracles were not done for the beast of the field. And nevertheless they will honor Hashem. So why? We said they do not need it, we said it was not done for their sake, we said they were not created for this purpose, so why will they honor? "To give drink to My people, My chosen." The beast of the field, as it were, will have joy at what miracles and wonders Hashem does, though it is not good for me, but what miracles and wonders Hashem does for His people. They will rejoice in these miracles and they will honor Hashem. Why? Because of the benefit that will grow for us. "The beast of the field shall honor Me, the jackals and the ostriches, because I have given water in the wilderness, rivers in the desert," for whose sake? "To give drink to My people, My chosen." This will be the reason they will honor Hashem.
And therefore the Malbim says, note, it is not written "the beast of the field shall praise Me," it is written "shall honor Me." The Malbim says, what is the difference between honoring and praising? Whom do we honor? One whose worth we recognize. Whom do we praise? One from whom we received a benefit. Him we praise. Did the beast of the field receive a benefit from the water and the way that came about there in the wilderness? We said no. And therefore it is not written "the beast of the field shall praise Me," says the Malbim, only "the beast of the field shall honor Me," from the aspect of the honor and worth due to Hashem for His deed, but not from the aspect of praise, for truly it has nothing to praise, since the beast of the field gains nothing from the water and from the way that came about there in the wilderness.
Hashem says, if the beast of the field will reach the conclusion that one must honor Hashem, "the people I formed for Myself shall declare My praise." If so, then with complete certainty, this people, the people of Israel, I formed for Myself, the Holy One, blessed be He, acted for the purpose that they would praise Hashem. The beast of the field, we said, this is not its function, whereas the people of Israel, says the Holy One, blessed be He, I formed so that they would praise My name. So all the more so should they praise Hashem, is it not? And all the more so that they should not only honor Me, but "declare My praise," for who benefits from the way in the wilderness and from the water in the wilderness? Who benefits from all this? Man. So man, ostensibly, not only should he honor Me, but all the more so he must also declare My praise for the benefit they have from this, and they must through this praise and recount the deeds of Hashem and His wonders for the kindness He did with them.
Now, the Radak says, from here onward there is a turn here in the prophecy, and he begins to rebuke the generation. He rebukes that generation and says to them, all that good I will in the future bestow upon your children after you, upon your children who will be in exile, know that it is not in your merit. This good I will do for My own sake, but from the standpoint of your merits, your children will not be worthy of redemption. And this is what he continues and says, "but you did not call upon Me, O Yaakov; for you have been weary of Me, O Yisrael." You did not even call upon Me when you were in trouble, all the more so that you have not "labored" for Me, meaning you did not exert yourself to serve Me. What is "for you have been weary"? The Radak says, as it were, how do you come and say that you grow weary of Me when you did not even call upon Me? What is the meaning of the matter? Well and good, if you had served Me, says the Holy One, blessed be He, then you could still claim that you exerted yourself, but you did not even grow weary, you did not even exert yourself, so how do you say you did not even call, so how do you say you grew weary? You did not even call upon Me.
I once told you about a certain person whose son went off to a bad way of life, a certain rabbi whose son went off to a bad way of life, and after years he came and met with him. And he told him that the reason he went off to a bad way of life is because Judaism is not liberal enough, not progressing with the spirit of the times, and if they were more lenient and the rabbis were more considerate of the situation and adopted, as those distant from mitzvot love to say, the approach of Beit Hillel, yes, if they understood the spirit of the young people better and were less, if the Torah were more flexible, then he would surely have stayed and surely many others would not have left the path. His father said to him, tell me, how many of Hashem's mitzvot do you keep today? So he said to him, truthfully, nothing. His father said to him, look, this is very interesting, because you do not keep anything and the Torah greatly wearies you, greatly burdens you, its abundance is very hard for you, and I keep everything, he tells him, and nothing burdens me, for me it is not hard at all. He says, very interesting to see this, and what, what, what is more interesting here? If the abundance of mitzvot truly burdened you, if the difficulty of mitzvot burdened you, at least you should keep the easy ones. Say, these are hard things, fine, I hear, Master of the World, hard things I do not do. Fine, so at least do the easy ones. Rather, what is the conclusion I actually draw from the matter, says his father? That you in fact yourself do not want to keep anything. So why do you demand that there be leniencies? Because it bothers you that we keep them. And really you want us also not to do them, and the less we do, the less pang of conscience you will have for why you do not do. Now, when we do a lot and you do nothing, you have many pangs of conscience, but when we too do less, then you will have fewer pangs of conscience. As I once told you about someone who came to an electronics store, wanted to buy a refrigerator for 6,000 shekels, haggled and haggled and haggled, after an hour got it to 5,000 shekels. He wrote him five checks, took the refrigerator and left. The first check bounced, the fellow calls him, tells him, tell me what is going on, there are no funds and so on. He says to him, I will tell you the truth, I will not lie to you, the other four checks also have no funds. So he says to him, tell me, then why did you drive me crazy for an hour in the store getting the price down for me? He said to him, all in all I wanted to minimize your loss, a shame, it pained my heart for you to lose 6,000, at least you only lost five, do you understand? That is, actually whom are you worried about here? Us, you feel pain over us that we exert ourselves so much, so therefore you want to lower it, but you yourself, even if there were little, even if there were one mitzvah, that too you would not keep.
How many mitzvot was Adam HaRishon obligated in? One. Do not eat from the Tree of Knowledge, that is it. So what? What did he do with it? He did not accurately relay it orally, and so on. What did he do with it? That too he did not keep. That is, it is not a matter of much or little, for one who wants will keep even much, and one who does not want, even one will be a burden for him. This is what the Holy One, blessed be He, says, "but you did not call upon Me, O Yaakov; for you have been weary of Me, O Yisrael." The Radak says, how do you say you grew weary of Me, that My mitzvot weary you, when you did not even call upon Me, you did not keep even a single mitzvah. So how do you say it wearies you?
The difference between "wearying" and "work": work is the action a person must do. Weariness is the excess action, what a person exerts beyond what he must do, and that is already something that wearies him, something that tires him. There is another explanation, "but you did not call upon Me, O Yaakov; for you have been weary of Me, O Yisrael": not only did you not call upon Me, but you even wearied Me to serve idolatry. "You did not call upon Me, O Yaakov": not only did you not pray to Me, well, let us say you serve no one, fine, but that is not enough, rather you even went and served idolatry. That is, if a person says, I do not serve Hashem, why? It burdens me. What do you do? I do nothing. That is better than a person saying, I do not serve Hashem because it burdens me, what do you do? He goes and serves idolatry. The Holy One, blessed be He, says, the burden of idolatry you accepted with love, and My burden suddenly is heavy upon you. You, you are willing to accept effort, but why do you exert yourself for idolatry? If you are going to accept effort, accept the effort of Hashem. We once told here about Rav Shmelke of Nikolsburg who came, came to Vienna for medical treatment. And then the doctor examined him, said, there is nothing to be done with you, there is nothing to be done, there is no chance for this. They told him, there is here a certain quack, a healer with charms, incantations and... under no circumstances was he willing to go to him. They asked him, why, Rabbi? You already came here, try it, what is there to lose? So he said to them, look, why do I come to a doctor at all? Because in the Torah it is written, "he shall surely heal," from here that permission was granted to the physician to heal. But now you come to offer me a remedy not in a conventional way, some pseudo-spiritual remedy, no, not by ordinary means, all sorts of incantations and... spiritual I already have the Creator of the world, I go to the original address, I do not need substitutes. I go straight to the source. If you say natural, because Hashem said go be healed in a natural way, I go in a natural way. But something spiritual, why would I go to imitations when I can go to the source, and the original spiritual is the Master of the World? So that is according to the second explanation. According to the second explanation the meaning of the matter is, not only did you not call upon Me, but why? Because it tires you, you even went and tired yourself with idolatry. And this the Holy One, blessed be He, says, you "burdened" Me, as it were you loaded effort upon Me as it were, you tired Me by committing sins.
The Malbim explains, "but you did not call upon Me, O Yaakov." The Malbim says, in the future you will recognize Hashem, in the future you will praise Me, but why now did you not call upon Me? Why now do you not, why do you not call upon Me? According to the Malbim this is the context. What is the connection of "but you did not call upon Me, O Yaakov" after "the people I formed for Myself shall declare My praise"? The Holy One, blessed be He, says, true, in the future this people will declare My praise, but I ask you now, why did you not call upon Me until now? When you see how great, high and exalted Hashem is, what signs and wonders He does, so why, why, why until now did you not call upon Me? Why until now did you not come? And more than that He says, you too, Yisrael, Yisrael, as is known, the Malbim always explains that there is a difference between Yaakov and Yisrael. What is the difference? Yaakov comes to hint at the low level of the people of Israel, the aspect of a heel (akev), the aspect of "heel." Whereas Yisrael comes to hint at the high level of the people of Israel, from the term "prince" (sar), a term of importance. So not only did you not call upon Me, O Yaakov, but even Yisrael, the great and important ones of the nation, not only did they not call upon Me like Yaakov, but they even grew weary of Me, My mitzvot tired you, My mitzvot were a burden upon you. And upon this comes the next pasuk, I will ask you, what is the burden in My mitzvot? With what did I weary you? With what did I tire you in the mitzvot that I told you to keep?
The Maggid of Dubno has here a wonderful parable, of which the early ones said that it is one of the three parables of the Maggid of Dubno that were spoken with divine inspiration. The Maggid of Dubno brings a parable, to what may the matter be compared? A parable of a person who was a most distinguished businessman who traveled abroad for the diamond trade. He had a small suitcase in which were found all the diamonds he brought with him, and he rented a room in a very, very luxurious hotel, that already when his feet trod in the terminal, a service boy from the hotel appears and tells him, you do not need to take anything, you go straight up to a taxi waiting for you here, I take all the suitcases and everything. And he also took the small suitcase. And then when he arrives there at the hotel, he had, to be more precise, only the small suitcase, they took care of everything for him there. He arrives at the hotel, waits now for them to bring him his things, and the boy arrives and he sees him panting, gasping, sweating. He asks him, what happened? What happened? So he says to him, your suitcase, may you be well, what did you put in there? So heavy, it wore me out. The fellow immediately becomes alarmed, says to him, woe is me, where is my suitcase? You lost my suitcase. He says to him, did you even see it, what are you telling me? He says to him, my suitcase is light, if you claimed it was heavy, you surely brought a different suitcase. Where is the suitcase of diamonds? Where is it, where did you leave it? He says, this is the reality here. The Holy One, blessed be He, says, "but you did not call upon Me, O Yaakov." The Holy One, blessed be He, says, when you pray, you do not pray to Me, when you serve, you do not serve Me. How does Hashem know? The Holy One, blessed be He, says, "for you have been weary of Me, O Yisrael." For the mitzvot, I see, weary you. The Holy One, blessed be He, says, My bundle is light, "the precepts of Hashem are upright, rejoicing the heart." One who serves Me as I am fit to be served is in joy all the time. And if you see a person who from every mitzvah falls into depression, what does that say? That you are not serving Me. Perhaps you serve others, but not Me, for My mitzvot bring joy. "But you did not call upon Me, O Yaakov," and from where do I know? "For you have been weary of Me, O Yisrael," since My mitzvot are a burden upon you.
"You have not brought Me the lamb of your burnt offerings, nor have you honored Me with your sacrifices; I have not burdened you with a meal offering, nor wearied you with frankincense." And He continues and says, what, do you claim that My mitzvot weary you? "You have not brought Me the lamb of your burnt offerings." The lamb of your burnt offerings you did not bring to Me, rather to whom did you offer them? To idols, to idolatry. And what will you say, that I burdened you? "I have not burdened you with a meal offering." I did not make you serve much labor with a meal offering. How much did I ask of you to bring from the meal offering? A fistful. The fistful of the meal offering, that is enough. "I have not burdened you with a meal offering, nor wearied you with frankincense." And this too, the frankincense, how much is it, what you place on the meal offering, so little. And this too is not obligatory but only in the category of a free-will offering, so what wearied you so much in My mitzvot?
The Radak explains that here we speak of the days of Achaz. What is written here, "you have not brought Me the lamb of your burnt offerings," in the era of Achaz he abolished the service in the Beit HaMikdash, as it is written, "and he shut the doors of the House of Hashem, and made himself altars in every corner of Yerushalayim, and in every city he built a high place to burn incense to other gods." So about this era, indeed "you have not brought Me the lamb of your burnt offerings, nor have you honored Me with your sacrifices; I have not burdened you with a meal offering," and so on. About that era of Achaz the verse speaks. And about this Chizkiyahu indeed confessed and said explicitly, "our fathers have trespassed, and turned their faces from the dwelling of Hashem, and turned their backs; they also shut the doors of the porch, and put out the lamps, and did not burn incense nor offer burnt offerings in the sanctuary to the God of Israel." So about this era the prophet laments here.
"I have not burdened you," the Radak says, if you had served and grown weary for My sake, then I am the one who wearies you. But since you did not grow weary and did not serve, then "I have not burdened you nor wearied you," since in any case you did not come, since in any case you did not offer, then on what basis do you claim that the mitzvot tire you? For I see that you did not tire from anything, you did not offer and did not burn anything.
The Malbim explains, "you have not brought Me the lamb of your burnt offerings." The Malbim says, the burnt offering that you brought, you did not bring it to Me. What is the meaning of the matter? After all, when you offer a sacrifice, what is done with the sacrifice? Let us give the example of a burnt offering, which is the sacrifice with the greatest loss. Why? Because in fact neither the kohen nor the owner has anything. This burnt offering is entirely consumed. The Holy One, blessed be He, says, did you bring it to Me? Did you place it into My flocks, into My herds? "You have not brought Me the lamb of your burnt offerings," rather My sacrifice, My bread as a fire offering, you raised it up upon the fire, the burnt offering entirely consumed. And the sacrifices, what is the difference between the burnt offering and the sacrifices? "Nor have you honored Me with your sacrifices." The sacrifices are the peace offerings. What of them was taken down, what of them was given and offered upon the altar? The fat. The Holy One, blessed be He, says, the fat, it seems to you as if you brought this to Me, how much did you bring? Only the fat, which is the very least. What will you say, that this was a burden for you? "I have not burdened you with a meal offering." After all, a meal offering, which is also something you are not obligated to give, only voluntarily, a free-will meal offering, how much did you bring? A handful of fine flour. "Nor wearied you with frankincense." Why, note, did He say regarding the meal offering "burdened you" and regarding the frankincense "wearied you"? So in the parable, a person who was told to do a certain job, that is work. We said, what one is told beyond what he needed to do is called "wearying," that already tires him. The extra hours, what he is obligated in beyond what was demanded of him initially. So he says, since "I have not burdened you with a meal offering," then the frankincense that comes after it, which is in the category of an addition, which is the wearying part, certainly there is no reason for you to grow weary, for if the meal offering is not in the category of work, then the frankincense is not in the category of wearying, for wearying is always after the work. So if I did not weary, if I did not burden you with a meal offering, there was no work here, then certainly I did not weary you with frankincense, so certainly the addition here does not weary.
The Malbim says that whenever it is written "you have not brought Me," whenever the bringing is connected with the letter lamed, the intent is bringing for My needs, to become My acquisition. And this is the intent of "you have not brought Me the lamb of your burnt offerings," therefore he explains, the intent is I did not acquire the sacrifice you brought Me, I gained nothing from it. And in fact it turns out that when a person offers a sacrifice, whom did he benefit? Himself. After all, what does this sacrifice come to atone for you, a burnt offering atones for a sinful thought of the heart. The Holy One, blessed be He, says, did I get anything out of it? Do not have sinful thoughts and do not bring a burnt offering. Right? For it is written exactly so, the Holy One, blessed be He, says, "withdraw your foot from your neighbor's house." About what is this said? About a person who constantly brings sacrifices. Ah, wonderful, all day in the Beit HaMikdash. No, why do you bring sacrifices? No, here I stumbled here, and here it came out like this, and here it did not work out, and here... The Holy One, blessed be He, says, "withdraw your foot from your neighbor's house." "Your neighbor" refers to the Holy One, blessed be He, "your neighbor and your father's neighbor." The Holy One, blessed be He, says, do not visit Me a lot, do not stumble and do not visit Me a lot. Yes, better. So when you come and say, Master of the World, did You see, I brought You a sacrifice? Did you bring it to Me, says the Holy One, blessed be He? Do I need this? I ask of you, do not commit transgressions and do not bring sacrifices. So it turns out then that all the sacrifices are for your needs, they are for your atonement. So the Holy One, blessed be He, says, "you have not brought Me the lamb of your burnt offerings," "Me," as we explained, meaning for My needs, for My acquisition, you did not bring, and if so, all that you brought you did only for yourself.
"You have bought Me no sweet cane with money, nor filled Me with the fat of your sacrifices; but you have burdened Me with your sins, you have wearied Me with your iniquities." There are here two contradicting explanations and I will bring both. Rashi explains, "you have bought Me no sweet cane with money," this speaks of the cane designated for the incense. And Rashi says, you did not need to buy it with money, for it was found in the Land of Israel in abundant quantity. Rabbi Abba said, cinnamon used to grow in the Land of Israel and goats and gazelles used to eat it. There was an abundance of cinnamon, and the cinnamon, according to Rashi, is the cane, and there was such abundance that the animals already used to eat it. So if so, "you have bought Me no sweet cane with money," even the cinnamon I told you to bring as incense, that too you did not buy for Me, I brought it to you, I told you to take it from things readily available. The Radak, in contrast, says the opposite. The Radak says that "cane" is fragrant cane. And he says, "you did not buy the cane," as it were He demands of them, why did you not buy sweet cane with money? After all, you did not bring the lamb of your burnt offerings, this speaks, according to the Radak, of an era when the people of Israel did not serve Hashem, in the era of Achaz. And then in that era you did not bring the burnt offerings, you did not bring the meal offering nor the frankincense, and you also did not buy sweet cane with money, the Radak says, why is this called "buy"? Because the cane was not in the Land of Israel, but only through purchase from a distant land. The cane had to be imported. And then for this purpose one had to spend money, as it is written, "and the good cane from a far country," the good cane they used to bring from a far country. And simply, what must be said is that we speak here of two eras. That there was an era when the cane was available in the Land of Israel, and there was an era when the cane was not available in the Land of Israel, and in fact upon this depends the dispute between the Radak and how Rashi explains.
And what is written here, "but you have burdened Me with your sins." What is this "you have burdened Me with your sins"? The Holy One, blessed be He, says, you caused Me to be a servant to idolaters. See what an astonishing explanation. Rashi says, Yechezkel saw, "and behold, a stormy wind came from the north." Who is this stormy wind coming from the north? This is the Shechinah that is departing, where is it going? To Bavel. Why? In order to conquer the whole world under the hand of Nevuchadnetzar. So the Holy One, blessed be He, says, you turned Me into the aspect of a servant to idolaters. I became the arms-bearer of Nevuchadnetzar, going and helping him, Nevuchadnetzar. Why must one help Nevuchadnetzar? The Holy One, blessed be He, says, this too is out of the attribute of kindness toward you. For I could have delivered you into the hand of the lowly nations found here nearby, and then it would have been a disgrace for you. The Holy One, blessed be He, says, I did not want to, I had pity on you, and I went to specifically bring an important nation from afar so that you would be under it, so that they would not say that He delivered them into the hand of a lowly nation. So what did you turn Me into? An arms-bearer of an idolatrous nation. So if so, "you have burdened Me with your sins, you have wearied Me with your iniquities," you made Me serve through your sins to go and exert Myself to bring such a nation from afar.
The Radak says, "you have not filled Me, but you have burdened Me with your sins." That is, I did not burden you, as He said before, "I have not burdened you with a meal offering," but in contrast you did burden Me. This is opposite that. I did not tire you, I did not weary you, but you did burden Me and did weary Me, as it is written, "you have wearied Hashem with your words."
"I, even I, am He who blots out your transgressions for My own sake, and your sins I will not remember." What is "I, even I," what is the doubling? Rashi says, I who blotted them out from long ago and I blot them out also now. I erased this from long ago, the Radak explains, what is "from long ago"? To the generation of the wilderness. And I, even I, blot out your transgressions also now. In the merit of what? The Holy One, blessed be He, says, "for My own sake." "For My own sake" means it is not in your merit, not in the righteousness of your fathers, but so that My name will not be desecrated. If I destroy you, then the name of Hashem will be desecrated among the nations. The Holy One, blessed be He, says, therefore I do not destroy you so that My name will not be desecrated, but for you, from your own standpoint, there is no special merit that I should blot out your transgressions.
The Malbim here notes an interesting distinction. "I, even I, am He who blots out your transgressions for My own sake, and your sins I will not remember." Regarding blotting out he wrote "your transgressions," regarding "your sins" he said "I will not remember them." What is the difference? The Malbim says, when a person sinned and he brings a sacrifice, what do we call this sacrifice? A sin offering (chatat). This chatat, what does it atone for? For inadvertent sins or for intentional ones? A chatat atones only for inadvertent sins. A sin offering does not atone for intentional ones. For the transgressions, for the intentional sin, the Holy One, blessed be He, says about this, I do not accept a sacrifice. So it turns out that the main thing I now need to blot out for you is your great transgressions, the intentional ones, for the smaller transgressions, the sins, for these a sacrifice does help. The Holy One, blessed be He, says, "I, even I, am He who blots out your transgressions for My own sake." What is the meaning of "for My own sake"? When you offer a sacrifice, the Holy One, blessed be He, accepted the sacrifice and blotted it out for you. For what did He blot it out, we said? For the inadvertent sins. You came away with the feeling that you too did something. True, Hashem blotted it out, but I brought a sacrifice, I brought. I did something. So I, I and the Master of the World together blotted out the sin. Because I brought the sacrifice and the Holy One, blessed be He, blotted out, so I am a partner. In contrast, when it concerns your transgressions, the Holy One, blessed be He, says, what did you do? Nothing. For to blot out the transgression, a sacrifice does not help. So if so, who is it that blots out the transgression? The Master of the World alone. And therefore this is what is written, "I, even I," only I, and it is I alone who blot out your transgressions. I am the one who blotted out the transgression without help from you and also not for your sake. The Holy One, blessed be He, says, why? Because I desire kindness. It is not for your sake but because I, from My attributes and from My nature, desire kindness, and therefore I forgave you. But the sacrifices you brought only help for the inadvertent sins. The Holy One, blessed be He, says, and you perhaps feel good, here, for the inadvertent sins at least I did bring a sacrifice. The Holy One, blessed be He, says to him, "and your sins I will not remember." The sins, says the Holy One, blessed be He, as it were, those I did not even take into account. Your transgressions, the majority, were the main thing in My eyes, for which I need to forgive. But your sins, as it were, they did not even enter My reckoning, those I did not even remember. And if so, what remains? It is only the transgressions. And the transgressions, says the Holy One, blessed be He, it is I who blot out, and this too, as we said, for My own deed, "for My own sake" meaning as a free gift, free kindness, so that My name will be sanctified, or because of the attribute of My good kindness, and not for your sake.
"Remind Me, let us plead together; state your case, that you may be justified." "Remind Me," Rashi says, tell me what debt you have toward Me, what debt I owe you, that you say as it were that something is due to you from Me. "Let us plead together," let us come to judgment. The Radak explains, if you would say that I forgot your righteous deeds, as we said, "and your sins I will not remember," just as your sins I do not remember, so perhaps you think your righteous deeds too I do not remember. Immediately comes "remind Me, let us plead together." Do you think that some charitable deed you did, some good deed you did, that perhaps I forgot it? And why would you think this? Because I already said, "your sins I will not remember," so you might perhaps infer from this, if Hashem does not remember my sins, perhaps, Heaven forbid, there is forgetfulness before His throne of glory, and behold perhaps my righteous deeds too He did not remember, as in pasuk 25. About this the Holy One, blessed be He, says, no, your righteous deeds I remember all of them. And if you think there is some charitable deed you did, some good deed you did, that I do not remember, remind Me. "Let us plead together," like a person who, as it were, comes with him to judgment with his fellow and says to him, if I did something improper against you, tell me, let us go, as it were, to judgment and see who is right. And the Holy One, blessed be He, says, "state your case, that you may be justified." What is the meaning of "state your case, that you may be justified"? There is a pasuk that says, "the first to plead his case seems right." And we already explained in the past that when two come to judgment, there is a prohibition on the judge to hear one of them not in the presence of his fellow. As it is stated, "hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously." When you hear, you need both of them to be here. Why? Because a person is captured by the first impression. And if a person comes and told me of wrongs someone did to him, and he comes alone, I identify with him very much. Afterward when the second comes, it will be very hard for me to remove the first impression I received following the first one's words, it will be very hard for me to change my opinion. And we already spoke about this several times in the past, that therefore there are many people among baalei teshuvah for whom often it is very, very hard to change the previous habits or the previous lines of thought. Sometimes you argue with a person distant from mitzvot, and after you reached a certain stage, he suddenly returns to the earlier points. Wait, but we already finished that, we already explained this topic and... yes, no, he still, why? He has been hearing it for 40 years in the media, he suddenly received an answer, he has not yet digested it. He still always returns to the earlier points. A person has a first impression and the first impression is hard to uproot. And this is what we said, "the first to plead his case seems right." When two come and the judge hears only one, and the second has not yet arrived, then he is right in his case. The Holy One, blessed be He, says, I am willing to give you, as the children say, this handicap, this head start. "State your case, that you may be justified." State your case, as it were, you alone. Begin, you alone, and state it, as it were this will give you a head start that you state it while your opponent is still not present here, as it were, rather you first will state it so that you may be justified in your case. Even if you are the first to state it and you state the truth, you will not be justified. And even if you do not state all your sins and do not state all My righteous deeds that I did with you, in the end, says the Holy One, blessed be He, the righteous deeds I did with you were far, far, far more than what is actually due to you, and your sins I did not exact from you as befits you.
The Malbim explains, also, also according to the Malbim, this pasuk is a continuation of the previous pasuk. "And your sins I will not remember," after He said, your sins I will not remember, but if you have some merit and claim against Me that is to your benefit, remind Me and let us plead. Let us argue, let us see if there is substance to your words. Another matter, the Holy One, blessed be He, says, "state your case, that you may be justified." Even if I will not argue with you, only you will state everything you want so that you may be justified, the meaning of the matter, says the Holy One, blessed be He, is, I will be willing to remain silent. State some merit that you have, and even if I have what to refute your claims with, I will not refute. I will hear your claims and accept them. Why? Because I desire to justify you. I desire to find merit for you. The Holy One, blessed be He, says, you know what, so now I will remain silent, you state some merits that you have, even if I know that these are merits not to be considered, I will remain silent, I will not say anything, I only want to hear, perhaps you will state some merit. But unfortunately, as we said, this too is absent, there is not even any claim of merit at all.
"Your first father sinned, and your intercessors transgressed against Me. Therefore I profaned the princes of the sanctuary, and gave Yaakov to the ban, and Yisrael to reviling." "Your first father sinned," there are here several explanations of who this "your first father" is who sinned. The Radak begins, "your first father" is Adam HaRishon. Adam HaRishon is imprinted with sin, for the inclination of man's heart is evil from his youth. Rashi explains, and then according to this the Metzudot explains, and if so, all the more so you, who were born of man and woman. If Adam HaRishon, the handiwork of the Holy One, blessed be He, nevertheless sinned, who is the crown of creation, then you who were born of man and woman who are themselves full of iniquity, all the more so that you sinned in sin. Rashi explains, "your first father sinned," this is Avraham who said, "how shall I know that I will inherit it." "And your intercessors transgressed against Me," who are your intercessors? Those on whose merit you rely, there will not be someone you can rely upon in whom I did not find a transgression. Yitzchak, Yitzchak loved My enemy, Esav. And so on in this manner, the Holy One, blessed be He, says, upon each and every one I can find sin, transgression and iniquity, and in fact upon whom do you have to rely, whom can you bring as an advocate for you. "And your intercessors transgressed against Me," who are these intercessors who transgressed against Me? The Radak explains that the intent is their princes and great ones. And why specifically them? Because they were fit to rebuke the people, they were fit to return the people in repentance, the princes, the important ones, and they too transgressed against Me. So they too will not be able to teach advocacy on your behalf. Another explanation the Radak says, who is this "your first father sinned"? This is your king. As it is written, "and the hand of Hashem will be against you and against your fathers." What is "against you and against your fathers"? The intent is "and against your king," the intent there being Yeravam. And there is one who explains here, who is "your father," about which king? This is Shaul, that Shaul was the first king in Israel, "your first father sinned" in the matter of Amalek and in several other matters in which he was caught.
The Malbim explains, "your first father sinned." After I said, "remind Me, let us plead together," the Holy One, blessed be He, says, but what can you actually state? What merit can you mention that I exiled you unjustly? For He speaks here of the generation that is in fact now going into the exile of the First Temple. What merit can you state that your first fathers had? For your first fathers sinned with idolatry, forbidden relations, bloodshed. Because of these three iniquities the people of Israel were exiled from their land. And if so, those upon whom you could rely, you do not have them, for "your first father sinned." What will you say, but I had holy and righteous ones, I had kohanim, I had prophets? Also "your intercessors transgressed against Me." The Malbim explains, what is "your intercessors"? "Your intercessors" is the person who stands between two in order to convey messages from one to the other. For the interpreter was between them. This was between Yosef and the brothers, the interpreter is the one who stands between the two in order to convey the messages between them. So who are these who stand between us and Hashem? These are the kohanim, these are the prophets, they stand between us and Hashem and as it were bring down and convey the word of Hashem to the people. So if you would rely upon them, says the Holy One, blessed be He, "your intercessors transgressed against Me." Why did they transgress against Me? Because they did not rebuke the people. Now notice, about our fathers who sinned in the era of the Temple, what is the expression? "Sinned." In contrast, about the kohanim and the prophets who are "your intercessors," how does he define them? "Transgressed against Me." What is the difference? The Malbim says, because what is considered among the common people as inadvertent sins, among the important ones, among the prophets, among the kohanim, is considered as transgressions. The righteous one is held accountable for his inadvertent sins as a transgression. Whereas the opposite, the ignorant one who knows nothing, his transgressions are considered as inadvertent sins, for he anyway does not know anything. So therefore what your first father did, your fathers, they are in the category of "sinned." But the intercessors, those who did not rebuke the people properly, who are the kohanim and the prophets, intentional sins are considered for them as inadvertent sins. And therefore, "therefore I profaned the princes of the sanctuary, and gave Yaakov to the ban, and Yisrael to reviling." And therefore the exile came. And now the Malbim says, notice, the halves of the verse are parallel. The meaning of the matter is that the verse is in fact built in order. The first part of pasuk 27 corresponds to the first part of pasuk 28. The second part of pasuk 27 corresponds to the second part of pasuk 28. Through "your intercessors transgressed against Me," Hashem says, "I profaned the princes of the sanctuary." Here it is reversed, by the way, that is, the second part of the first pasuk corresponds to the first part of the second pasuk. This is usually not the way. Who are these "your intercessors" who transgressed against Me, what did we say? These are the important ones, these are the kohanim, these are the prophets who did not fulfill their role properly. Following this I profaned the princes of the sanctuary. Who are these princes of the sanctuary? They themselves. They are the intercessors, they are the kohanim and prophets, they are the princes of the sanctuary, they were appointed over the sanctuary. Following this I profaned their honor. And through your first fathers who sinned, as we said, this refers to the common people, "and gave Yaakov to the ban." For as you recall, whenever they express it with the term Yaakov, about whom do they speak? About the lower portion of the people, about the part on the lower level, the level of a heel, the more lowly part of the people. As distinct from Yisrael, which always speaks in a term of authority, those who are more of worth. So following the fact that "your first father sinned," "and gave Yaakov to the ban." Following this Yaakov was given to the ban, the intent is the people were given to the ban, the enemy came and consigned them to the ban and to desolation. And "Yisrael," the intent is the holiness of Yisrael, who are these? Their holy ones, their great ones, those of worth, "to reviling." They reviled and blasphemed them, their Torah, their learning, their worth. All this following what? Following "your first father sinned," and following "your intercessors transgressed against Me."