Sefer Yirmiyahu chapter 8. "At that time, says Hashem, they shall bring out the bones of the kings of Yehudah, and the bones of its princes, and the bones of the kohanim, and the bones of the neviim, and the bones of the inhabitants of Yerushalayim, out of their graves. And they shall spread them before the sun, and the moon, and all the host of heaven, which they loved, and which they served, and after which they walked, and which they sought, and which they worshipped: they shall not be gathered, nor be buried; they shall be as dung upon the face of the earth." I read both pesukim, since the first pasuk has no meaning without the second. The Holy One, blessed be He, says: at that time they shall bring out the bones of the kings of Yehudah, and the bones of its princes, and the bones of the kohanim, and the bones of the neviim (meaning the false prophets), and the bones of the inhabitants of Yerushalayim (meaning the wicked ones who worshipped idols), they shall bring them out of the graves and they shall be as dung upon the face of the earth, as we will soon explain in the next pasuk. That is, this comes to show you the magnitude of the calamity: not only will the dead not be buried, and this actually concludes the following section, "and the carcasses of this people shall be food for the birds of the sky, and for the beasts of the earth, and none shall frighten them away." That is, the birds will eat the dead, and there will be no one to bury them. The navi says: beyond this, even those who were already buried will be brought out of their graves and given as dung upon the face of the earth.
The Radak says: we have pesukim describing the destruction of Yerushalayim. The Radak says that in those pesukim in Sefer Melachim we do not see that the Kasdim brought out the bones of the kings, princes, kohanim, and neviim; we do not see that they brought them out of their graves. So where in fact was this prophecy fulfilled? The Radak answers this: know that even though Scripture did not publicize it and did not recount it, know that since the navi prophesied about them that it would be so, this was the reality, this is truly how it was. That is, the navi did not write down all the events afterward when he described the destruction, but since you have an explicit prophecy that it would be so, know that this was the reality, and at that time they brought out the bones of the kings of Yehudah from their graves and they became as dung upon the surface of the field.
Scripture says: "and they shall spread them before the sun, and the moon, and all the host of heaven, which they loved, and which they served, and after which they walked, and which they sought," what is all this lengthy description? "and which they worshipped," what is the whole point of this? The Malbim says: they had different forms of avodah zarah. They had types of deities that they loved. These deities were their gods to whom they attributed abundance, good, love, and success; these deities they loved. On the other hand there were deities that they feared. Since to these deities they attributed evil, troubles, wars, plague, all poverty, all evil, they attributed these to these deities. Therefore there were deities that they feared. And so also to these deities they would offer human sacrifices, so that through this they would calm their wrath. That is, since this god is evil and it craves and demands, until it sees blood it is not appeased, so here, offer it human sacrifices, take this and be silent. This was essentially their way, according to their distorted conception, of quieting the fury of those deities. Therefore he says "which they loved," this refers to the first type of deities that they loved because they bestowed good.
The second type of god, which they feared, is what is written "and which they served." "Served" means they served them out of fear. There are deities through which they would obtain knowledge of the future. That is, one would use a god as a power through which he would know what would happen in the future. This is what is written "and which they sought," they went to inquire of those deities in order to know what would happen in the future. And there are those who walked after them. What does "walked after them" mean? They would attribute to them all kinds of natures and conducts and traits, and they would walk after them, meaning they adopted the conduct of those deities. And there are deities to whom they merely bowed down. This is what is written "and which they worshipped." It tells you about them: "they shall not be gathered, nor be buried; they shall be as dung upon the face of the earth." The meaning is: when it concerns important people, they would gather them into important places, into costly coffins, and not only will they not be gathered into important burial places, but even more, they will not be buried; even a plain grave to bury his body in the ground, even that will not be done for them.
The Malbim dwells here on the variation in this matter of "served them" and "worshipped them." The Malbim says: sometimes we see the expression comes as "served them and worshipped them," and sometimes we see the expression "worshipped them and served them." For example, "you shall not bow down to them nor serve them." And sometimes we see "served them and worshipped them." Why does the service sometimes come before the bowing, and sometimes the bowing before the service? The Malbim says: it depends on which type of avodah zarah is being discussed. If it was avodah zarah such as the sun, the moon, the stars, the heavenly host, there you will notice that the order is first bowing, then service. And what is the point? It is much easier to bow to them. Why? Because you recognize their loftiness. The sun is something lofty. The stars are lofty things. Since you recognize their loftiness, it is easy for you to bow to them. But to serve them and to please them is a harder thing. Therefore he says they not only bowed to them but even served them and strove to please them. In contrast, when speaking of earthly avodah zarah, where a person got up and carved himself some image or statue, here naturally it is much easier to serve it because its demands are not high, right? On the other hand, to bow to it is difficult because it is not something lofty and exalted; you do not bow to the sun where you say this is a supreme power, and this is an image, a piece of a log that you carved. So to bow here is harder. Since this is so, he always mentions the easier form of worship first. So when it concerns the sun and the moon, he says "worshipped them and served them." In contrast, when it concerns something more earthly, a supposedly more earthly power, he says "served them," it was easier to serve it, "and also worshipped them," they even bowed to them, which is a greater feat. The Malbim says: on the other hand, in the negative, when he speaks of the negative aspect, he says it in reverse. Here, when he speaks of the host of heaven, the Malbim says he goes from the more severe to the lesser. Therefore he says first "which they loved." Next, "which they served," for as we said, to serve is out of fear, which is less than love; love is a greater level. So he says: see how terrible, they loved them, and there are even those who feared them. "And which they sought," like one who inquires of a ghost or a familiar spirit, like inquiring of Baal Zevuv, that he goes to it in order to receive information about the future. And there are those who merely walked after them, and there are those who merely bowed to them, for bowing, as we said, is the easier part when it concerns what? Concerning the sun and the moon and the host of heaven, bowing is easier. Therefore here he says: understand why we first write the matter of service and only afterward the matter of bowing.
The Radak says that regarding Yehoyakim we saw it written about him: "he shall have none to sit upon the throne of David, and his carcass shall be cast out to the heat by day and to the frost by night." This is similar to what is written here, "they shall not be buried; they shall be as dung upon the face of the earth." This is truly how it was with Yehoyakim, and so it really was with his skull, which they were unable to bury; every time they buried it, it would be uncovered; it could never be buried, until it was burned, right? And there is yet another matter. So too the Radak says: it is written about the transgressors of Yisrael that they would be cast out in the streets of Yerushalayim. And Chazal say: because of the sins of the living, the dead are cut apart. Every time there is a disturbance of graves, we are again confronted with this statement of Chazal, that the dead have already died. Why are they cut apart? Chazal say: because of the sins of the living, the dead are cut apart. Because of our sins there is a disturbance of graves, not because of their sins but because of ours. Chazal say: what is the source for this? It is written "and the hand of Hashem shall be against you and against your fathers." How against your fathers? Your fathers are no longer among the living. So the hand of Hashem is against you and against your fathers: because of your sins the hand of Hashem will strike them and also their fathers. How their fathers? They will dig them up and bring them out of the grave.
The Gemara brings another pasuk, "they shall not be gathered, nor be buried." You see that there will also be such a reality that they will not be buried at all. And the Gemara raises a contradiction from the next pasuk, pasuk 3. Look at the next pasuk: "And death shall be chosen rather than life by all the remnant that remain of this evil family," and so on. That is, if you ask a person what he prefers, death or life? "Death shall be chosen rather than life." A person will prefer death over life. The Gemara asks: how is this possible? If you say that the dead are cut apart, how is it possible that a person would prefer death over life? Even in death you will have no rest, so you prefer death? What is the plain meaning of this? Now, if we were to say that the punishment of the dead, that they are cut apart, is an atonement for them, then I could still understand it, that he prefers death, and even if you tell him you will have a disturbance of your grave, they will dig up your bones from the grave, he says: fine, at least I will have atonement in this. But the Radak says: see that here it will not be an atonement for them, and yet "death shall be chosen." The meaning is that these people choose death over life even though the disturbance of the grave, that they will dig up their bones after their death, will not atone for them. So why do you prefer death? Death will not spare you the troubles; even into the grave they will pursue you and you will have a disturbance of the grave and it will not atone for you. So what do these people want, to choose death over life? Therefore the Gemara says: "death shall be chosen" means death is preferable for the wicked than that they live here in this world and sin and fall into Gehinnom. This is "death shall be chosen rather than life." Do you know to whom this is said? A person who acts wickedly, a person who commits sins here in this world, what would be better for him? That his afterbirth had been turned over, or that he had come into the world? Certainly it would be much better for him that his afterbirth had been turned over, since as long as you did not come into the world you did not act wickedly, you will not receive punishment. And not only that, even if he lives, it is better for him to die at a young age, because every day they shorten from him, they shorten his Gehinnom. Because every day that he lives he adds more wood to the fire up there. So if so, it turns out that truly for the wicked "death shall be chosen rather than life." It is good for the wicked to die rather than to live. And not only that, in heaven they will afterward ask: why did You give me such length of days? Every day that I lived I committed more sins and more wickedness, whereas if You had taken me earlier, at least You would have shortened my Gehinnom. The Gemara says: about them this is said, about the wicked it is said "death shall be chosen rather than life," since it truly would be better for them not to live in this world, so that through this they would not increase their sins up to the heavens and then have to suffer hundreds of years of Gehinnom for their sins.
And about this it says "they shall not be buried; they shall be as dung upon the face of the earth." "Dung" means fertilizer. And why? Since they will be upon the face of the earth, what will happen to them is that they will rot, and since they rot, we know that something that rots in the earth becomes fertilizer. Therefore he says they shall be as dung upon the face of the earth. "And death shall be chosen rather than life," yes, and the living are those who will remain, the Radak says, about them it is said that they will choose exile. That is, from the great sorrow they will have in exile, they will prefer death over life. The meaning is that the nation to which they are exiled will be a cruel nation, a terrible nation that will torment them with such harsh torments to the point that they will say: better is our death than our life. "Death shall be chosen rather than life." Whoever knows what a terrible thing, and in the days of the Holocaust not a few people reached such states that they would go to the fences, they had electrified fences, and they would go to the electric fences and press themselves against them, may Hashem save us and may the calamity not arise a second time, in order to end the nightmare. Because the terrible and harsh reality that they lived through there, which is truly beyond human comprehension, that reality they could no longer bear. And since this is so, "death shall be chosen rather than life," because the nation to which they are exiled will be such a vile nation that they will prefer death over life; it will be better for them to die than to live and continue to suffer.
"And death shall be chosen rather than life by all the remnant that remain of this evil family." What is "of this evil family"? Those who served avodah zarah. And do not think only in Eretz Yisrael, but in all the remaining places "where I have driven them, says Hashem of hosts." Even though they will see the disgrace of the dead, nevertheless they will say death shall be chosen rather than life. So too Rashi explains, so too the Malbim explains, this in fact comes to resolve the question of the Gemara: how is it possible that they choose death over life? Do they not see what is done to the dead? This itself is what he comes to tell you. The suffering here in life will be so terrible that he will say: I prefer to suffer a disturbance of the grave after death than to suffer here in life. And this will be for all the remnant of this evil family, and in all the places outside the Land, in all these places they will have there such suffering that they will prefer death over life.
"And you shall say to them, thus says Hashem: shall they fall and not rise? shall one turn away and not return?" Here there are several explanations, and we will begin with Rashi's explanation. "Shall they fall and not rise?" that is, is it good for them to cast themselves into a state from which they have no recovery? "Shall one turn away and not return?" that is, here there is, as it were, a kind of prophecy toward them: even if you want to return from your evil, He will not return. The Holy One, blessed be He, will not return from His decree. The decree has already been decreed, as if sealed in blood. "Shall one turn away and not return?" That is, in the future, if you want to return, the Holy One, blessed be He, will no longer return from His decree. The Radak explains that the pasuk written here, "shall they fall and not rise," is connected to the next pasuk, "Why then is this people of Yerushalayim slid back by a perpetual backsliding?" and so on. That is, why do they hold so tightly, with such great devotion, to their evil deeds; they refuse to return? "Shall one turn away and not return?" The meaning is: did they ever fall in the punishment of their deeds and then not rise afterward? Was a decree ever decreed upon them after which there was no recovery? That is, how many times in the past did they fail and then improve their deeds, and behold, you saw that the Holy One, blessed be He, returned from His fierce anger. According to this, this is an interpretation opposite to what Rashi explained. For Rashi says: even if you return, Hashem will not return from His fierce anger. According to the Radak, it is in the form of a question: "shall one turn away and not return?" If you do teshuvah, will Hashem not return from His fierce anger? For in the past you saw several times that you returned from your evil deeds and the Holy One, blessed be He, relented from the evil, and the Holy One, blessed be He, did in the end redeem you. Therefore "Why then is this people of Yerushalayim slid back by a perpetual backsliding?" is the continuation, and therefore why do you continue in your corrupt way?
The Malbim explains that here this is, as it were, the word of Hashem, that the Holy One, blessed be He, as it were, complains toward them and says, and this is also the second explanation that appears in Rashi, that the Holy One, blessed be He, complains toward them and says: this people fell without recovery. And why? Because "shall one turn away and not return?" If he does teshuvah, will he not afterward return to his evil? For he does teshuvah and returns to corrupt his ways, and does teshuvah and returns to corrupt his ways, and does teshuvah, and so on repeatedly. This is what he says here, "shall they fall and not rise?" they would fall without recovery, and why? "Shall one turn away and not return?" If he does teshuvah, does he not afterward return to corrupt his ways a second time? So their teshuvah is external, their teshuvah is not genuine, their teshuvah is temporary. And if so, this causes their downfall to have no recovery, for it would be fine if you returned and repaired, then it is over. But if you returned and returned to corrupt, and again returned and again returned to corrupt, then the matter never ends. And if so, you see that there is no chance, as we said before, "shall they fall and not rise" is a fall after which there is no recovery. "They held fast to deceit, they refused to return." "They held fast to deceit," he tells you: do you know why this is truly the reality? Because they held fast to deceit. Their teshuvah, even at the time they returned, was not genuine. It was a teshuvah of deceit. A teshuvah of trickery. They say we are returning, but it is not really genuine teshuvah. It is a teshuvah of trickery and forgery, as he will soon explain what the trickery in this teshuvah was. That is, what was expressed in the falsehood in their very teshuvah. The Malbim says, according to the language of Lashon HaKodesh, that "meshuvah" (backsliding) is from the root of "teshuvah" (return), like "my people are bent on backsliding from Me," as we explained, that they return perpetually. And then it turns out that the people never stand on a good path for a long time.
"Why then is this people of Yerushalayim slid back by a perpetual backsliding? They held fast to deceit, they refused to return." Why is this people slid back by a perpetual backsliding? The Malbim continues according to his interpretation, that they return and go back and return to corrupt and return in teshuvah and return to corrupt. So he says: why does this people slide back, "this people is slid back by a perpetual backsliding." "Slid back" is from the language, as I said, of returning. And their backsliding is a perpetual backsliding. They repeatedly return; they return continually, this is the "perpetual" here. "Perpetual" means forever. He is constantly returning. It is not "return," it is a shuttling. It goes and returns. He commits sins and returns in teshuvah. And again commits and again returns in teshuvah. He commits and returns. This is what he says, they return all the time. He returns to Hashem and returns to sins. And returns to Hashem and returns to sins. So it turns out that they have a perpetual backsliding. They are constantly returning. A person who does teshuvah is a person who regrets his evil deeds. Notice: "everyone returns to his course, as a horse rushing into battle." How does this parable connect to what we just described? Notice how the Malbim explains it. The Malbim says: when a horse encounters an enemy in battle, sometimes it happens that the horse runs as if fleeing. It retreats. So tell me, is it fleeing home? No, rather they retreat, reorganize their forces again for another attack, right? So the very flight of it seems to you, we said, it is gone, that's it, we drove it off; he says no, its retreat is what is called preparation for an attack. So he says: if so, what you see, that these people return, Hashem says, "they do not speak aright." They do not speak the right words, for truly "no man repents of his wickedness, saying, what have I done?" And when "everyone returns to his course," you see that he returns, he says, this is like a horse that rushes into battle and retreats, but this is only in order to attack again. So they return in order to continue their evil deeds, so that they will not receive troubles, but not truly a genuine teshuvah with the intent not to return and do more corrupt deeds.
I said, what is "they do not speak aright"? It is written that Yaakov Avinu came to Lavan with a complaint: why, in the morning, behold, it was Leah, for I served you for Rachel your younger daughter? What does Lavan say to him? "It is not done so in our place, to give the younger before the firstborn." What did he essentially say to him? He said to him: look, among us when they say "no" they do not mean "no." When they say "yes" they mean "no." You have not yet learned the language of Lavan of Charan; you need to learn it. He says: among us "it is not done so in our place." And "so it is done, no." He says: you need to learn the language, that when they tell you "no" you need to understand "yes." When they say "yes" understand "no." "It is not done so in our place." And this is what is written here, "I hearkened and heard, they do not speak aright." When he says "no" he means "yes," when he says "yes" he means "no." So "they do not speak aright." To what extent the language of falsehood had become habitual among them.
"Even the stork in the sky knows her appointed times; and the turtledove and the swift and the crane observe the time of their coming; but My people know not the judgment of Hashem." As it were, the navi comes and says: come and see that Yisrael are worse than the animals. The migratory birds, the Malbim says, they know, they sense when winter arrives, when there is snow, and they know that in this reality, when everything is wrapped in snow, the bird has nothing to find for its food. It has no choice but to go to warmer lands so that there it will find its sustenance. And then when spring arrives they return back to their lands. So he says: come and see, "even the stork in the sky knows her appointed times; and the turtledove and the swift and the crane observe the time of their coming." They knew when to go and when to return. In contrast, Yisrael do not understand the evil that Hashem brings upon them, and do not understand that there is a time for it, and do not understand that there is a set season for it, and they do not return when the time and season come. The stork, the crane, know the time and season when to return. And Yisrael do not know the season and time when to return before Hashem.
Why in fact is there the doubling here? "The stork in the sky knows her appointed times; the turtledove and the swift and the crane observe the time of their coming." What is the difference between "knows her appointed times" and "observe the time of their coming"? For the idea is one; it would have been enough to write one example. The Malbim says, according to Lashon HaKodesh, we have already mentioned this matter several times, that there is a difference between "et" (time) and "moed" (appointed time). What is the difference? "Et" is the natural time, it is its time. "Its time has arrived" is the natural time. In contrast, "moed" is not a time that depends on nature but a time that depends on an agreement. We are appointed together, when? At the appointed time that we set. According to nature it should be now? No. Rather we appointed ourselves for a certain time. So it turns out that "et" is the time when the matter should naturally be, whereas "moed" is the time in which we set and appointed in order to decide upon this matter. He says: notice, the turtledove, the swift, the crane are migratory birds and they always return at the time when they need to return. And when is that? It will always be at Rosh Chodesh Nissan. I do not know if exactly on the day of Rosh Chodesh, but at Rosh Chodesh Nissan. That is, this is the time destined for cold, and therefore the meaning is that at this time the cold ceases and at this time they return. This is the season of spring, and at this season they always return. They never change it. Therefore he says the turtledove, the swift, and the crane observe the time of their coming. There is a time in which they arrive, and this time is, in terms of the seasons of the year, a fixed time. In contrast, the stork, the Malbim says, delays or advances the time according to what? According to the synoptic map. The stork knows how to diagnose exactly what the weather is, for not always at Rosh Chodesh Nissan is there always the same weather. Sometimes the winter days extend a bit into Nissan. Sometimes the summer days come a bit earlier, spring has already come earlier, for much of this also depends on the heavenly seasons, since we have a calendar with a leap year. So the stork knows how to discern the precise time according to the temperature, according to the weather, and accordingly it arrives. Therefore notice, "the stork in the sky knows her appointed times." It knows the time when it needs to arrive; there is a special appointed time set specifically. It is not a fixed time, it is not an "et," it is a "moed." By what is the "moed" determined? The "moed" according to the data of the weather and the warming, and so on. So the stork is very dependent on the weather. In contrast, the swift, the turtledove, and the crane arrive at the fixed time without being dependent on the weather; whether it will be colder or warmer, it makes no difference, they will always arrive at the fixed time. That is, in simple words, the turtledove, swift, and crane are programmed according to a calendar. The stork in the sky is programmed according to a barometer, according to the weather. That is its programming. And when it feels that now the weather is suitable, it returns. And when not, then not. For them it works according to a different clock, according to a fixed date. So for them it is "et." For it, in contrast, it is "moed." "Moed" is the time in which we appoint according to the data. If so, what in fact is the analogy? "But My people know not the judgment of Hashem." The Malbim says: in the judgments of Hashem too there is an "et" and there is a "moed." The meaning is: there is a reality of "et," and the "et" is "in its time," as we know regarding the redemption there is the matter of "in its time." In contrast, there is the "moed." It is very possible that the Holy One, blessed be He, will advance the time, for if we speak of the redemption we have merits. Or that Hashem will advance the time of the retribution because their measure has been filled. So it turns out that there is a situation of "moed." The "moed" is variable, just as with the stork it is variable according to the situation, according to the weather. He says: if so, come and see that not only do they not know the "moed," they do not return and do not take heed even from the "et." For the "et" is, as it were, the fixed time, the limited fixed day for the evil, and even from this he does not take heed. And all the more so that he does not take heed from the "moed," that it may be that Hashem will advance the evil, for perhaps you added evil deeds, perhaps your measure was filled even before the time. It is certain that they do not take heed of this, but even the destined time that the navi appoints for them for the evil, even this "et," even from this they do not take heed. Even though the turtledove, swift, and crane observe the time of their coming, but My people know not the judgment of Hashem. They do not fear at all the judgment of Hashem, and do not do teshuvah.
"How can you say, we are wise, and the Torah of Hashem is with us? Behold, in vain the pen has worked, the pen of the scribes is for falsehood." "In vain the pen has worked, the pen of the scribes is for falsehood." "How can you say, we are wise?" How do you say, the Radak explains, we are wise in the external wisdoms. Furthermore, "the Torah of Hashem is with us," it is written among us. He says to them: "behold, in vain the pen has worked, the pen of the scribes is for falsehood." The meaning is: if the Torah of Hashem is with you, what does it help when you do not fulfill it? What is the value that it is merely written among you? Did Hashem make the pen of the scribes for falsehood? As it were, did the Holy One, blessed be He, make the pen of the scribes, "pen of scribes" meaning the quill with which He wrote the Torah, as it were, was this for falsehood? Was this for nothing? For if it is merely something that you have as a dead letter and not as something that is binding and obligating, then it turns out that He made it for nothing. "For falsehood" means for nothing. "For falsehood I have labored" means I have labored for nothing. It turns out, then, that Hashem wrote His Torah for nothing, in order for you to shelve it in an archive, in a bookcase, so "in vain the pen has worked, the pen of the scribes is for falsehood." The meaning is: if you fulfill it, then it is not written for falsehood and for nothing; it is written for benefit. And if not, then in fact it is written for falsehood and for nothing.
The Malbim explains: that generation used to say that the Torah and the mitzvah are something set within the human intellect, something that does not come through tradition and does not come through prophecy; these things are things that a person grasps through the intellect. The Torah and the mitzvah are not something that comes to a person from outside himself; it is not written in a book and in ink, it is found in his understanding, in his feeling. And there were all kinds of claims of this type, that you ask the Christian person: tell me, what are your proofs regarding the existence of that man and his being the son of the holy spirit, and other nonsense of this type. He does not really try to verify much, because truly they have nothing to verify, they have no real claim, no claim except some pasuk that they keep reciting all the time, which is truly irrelevant, it neither begins nor ends, and we spoke about it when we learned Sefer Yeshayahu, "behold, the young woman shall conceive and bear a son," we spoke about this pasuk. But you come and ask him, well, you see it is all nonsense; I feel him in my heart. I feel him in my heart, that man, I feel him. What nonsense and foolishness, you feel him; that crazy person who went and committed suicide feels the third Muhammad, feels the Buddha. What is "feels"? Who cares what you feel? For feelings can deceive you, trick you, confuse you. Since when is a feeling a sign of anything? When you want to prove something, do you speak about feeling? You speak about proofs, you speak about evidence, you speak about facts, and he speaks with you about feelings. The Malbim says: these people, this generation, would tell you: no, Torah is not something written, it is not a document received from the Divinity; no, it is found in the understanding, in the feeling of the heart. About this the navi says to them: "How can you say, we are wise?" You say this wisdom is found among us in our nature, in the intellect; "the Torah of Hashem is with us," in the nature of the soul, in the intellect within us. "Behold, in vain the pen has worked," that is, the pen with which Hashem, as it were, wrote the Torah, a Torah received from Hashem, indeed in vain, according to your position, Hashem made it for falsehood. "The pen of the scribes is for falsehood." All the neviim who wrote books according to Hashem through prophecy, you in fact deny everything. So you say there is no Torah from Heaven, there are no books of the neviim from Heaven, all this is falsehood, since I feel everything within my heart. And this is the most terrible of all, for if it is according to what you feel in your heart, then everyone serves Hashem according to his feelings. And we already spoke about this when we learned Sefer HaKuzari, that this was one of the claims of the Chaver toward the king of the Kuzars. That the philosopher claimed: serve the god however you understand, it does not really matter which god you choose for yourself, and each one according to his feeling. He said to him: you yourself saw that it is not so, since you strengthened yourself in the service of the avodah zarah to which you were attached, and despite all this the dreams kept recurring and intensifying, "your intention is desirable but your deeds are not desirable." That is, there is a desirable act, there is the required action; it does not depend on the heart, nor on how I understand, nor on what I sense, nor on how I feel. Woe and alas, for if so, you have placed the Torah of each person in his own hand, and each one will serve whomever he wants and however he wants, and the Holy One, blessed be He, as Einstein said, does not play dice. It is not fate, choose yourself something. The Holy One, blessed be He, created the world, He planned it, and when He planned it He made a precise plan of how a person can draw close to Hashem, what is the way to serve Him, in exactly what form, and we elaborated on this in Sefer HaKuzari, that here there is no room for estimations and no room for "it seems to me," but rather if the Holy One, blessed be He, gave a Torah, then He gave an orderly plan of service; it is not a matter of what I feel and what I think. And many times you hear such expressions from distant people and you are somewhat astonished at the lack of understanding. "No, I will tell you the truth, I feel that it cannot be that the Holy One, blessed be He, would command such a thing, and therefore I think": who cares what you think, who cares what you feel? Keep your feelings to yourself; the Holy One, blessed be He, wrote what He wants. He wrote it; if you have an argument about whether He wrote it, let us prove it. We can prove what He wrote, and that He wrote it, and that He stands behind His document. But who cares what you feel? The matter of your feelings is an individual matter, it is a personal matter of yours; keep your feelings aside. Even regarding the matter of believing in the Creator of the world. We once read a Rashi. Rashi in the chapter of Chelek in Masechet Sanhedrin. Who is among those who have no share in the World to Come? One who says there is no resurrection of the dead from the Torah. Wait, is there a resurrection of the dead or not? Tell me, what do you say? No, certainly there is a resurrection of the dead. Listen, but it is not written in the Torah. He has no share in the World to Come. Rashi says a terrible statement. Rashi says: but the person believes in the resurrection of the dead. Rashi says: what is his belief to us? Who cares about your beliefs? Who cares, what is his belief to us? If it is not written in the Torah, you might merely believe in nonsense. If it is written in the Torah, listen, this is a document, this is from the Creator of the world. But that a person says "it seems to me that there will be," what does it matter what seems to you? If it is written, if there are sources, it is true. If not, what seems to me is not relevant at all. So Rashi says: what is his belief to us? He believes in the resurrection of the dead, thank you very much, you believe because I think; what does it matter what you think? If it is written that there will be a resurrection of the dead, there will be. If it is not written, all your beliefs are not relevant. And this is in fact what he says here. So you say "in vain the pen has worked, the pen of the scribes is for falsehood." That is, everything that Hashem wrote as Torah, and what He transmitted through scribes and neviim, and what He gave us as the books of prophecy, all this is falsehood, because everything depends on the heart and on how I understand and how I think and what seems to me; and this is truly ridiculous, since if there are things written, why do you need what seems to you, what you think; do what Hashem says, and this is far more compelling than what seems to you or what you think.
"The wise men are put to shame, they are dismayed and taken; behold, they have rejected the word of Hashem, and what wisdom is in them?" "The wise men are put to shame," the Radak says, they acted falsely when they thought that the wisdom of the Torah would not benefit them; then necessarily they will have shame of face, and they will see that if I had engaged in Torah it would have saved me, and since I abandoned the Torah, and as the Radak explained, they thought it was written for nothing, if so they will see that all this brought upon them all the troubles. They did not want the word of Hashem, did not want to learn Torah, "and what wisdom is in them," as it were, what benefit did the wisdom give them? What benefit is it to them that they have wisdom but do not have Torah? So the Radak, according to his approach that he explained, that they in fact received the Torah, as it were, but as some study material for a matriculation exam. Not as something binding. Does the geometry teacher need to demonstrate a triangle? So does one who teaches Tanach also need to observe it? No, I am teaching you, it is like teaching you philosophy. So this is "what wisdom is in them," he says: what did this wisdom give if this wisdom is in fact not a Torah of life, it is not something upon which you base your life but rather you learn it as a wisdom; then "the wise men are put to shame, they are dismayed and taken," they were broken and taken, for they were confronted with seeing, my master, this is not just some wisdom, this is something one must live by. "They have rejected the word of Hashem, and what wisdom is in them": what wisdom is in them when it is only something that is supposed to be theoretical, intellectual, and not something practical?
The Malbim explains at length, there is in this, we repeated it countless times in Sefer Mishlei, whoever wishes can hear it there on the discs. The Malbim explains: he has a line that he follows throughout, what is the matter of wisdom, why did Shlomo HaMelech constantly speak against the fool, against the simpleton; what is the difference between them, between a fool and a simpleton, and is there not a kind of arrogance in this, that Shlomo HaMelech constantly speaks about the deficiency of the fools, about their foolishness, about their lack of knowledge? Fine, so you are a great wise man, and Hashem gave wisdom to Shlomo, and there was no man as wise as Shlomo; so because of this do you need to disparage all the people who are fools? And there we explained at length that "fool" is not in our sense of a person with a low IQ, a level of intelligence approaching zero; that is not what is being discussed. When one speaks of a fool it can be a doctor, it can be a professor, it can be a dean at a university, but he is a complete fool. What is the definition of a fool? A fool is a person who does not apply in his life the wisdom that he knows. He is a fool. He can be very clever, but he is a fool. Since only a fool is a person who is diabetic and now eats a large cream cake even though he knows that in a few minutes he will hear the sirens of an ambulance that will evacuate him to the hospital. This is a complete fool. You know that you are now harming yourself. No, you know, how intelligent, who cares about his intelligence? See that the person lives on the intellectual level of a child, for only a child now does something with the knowledge that I will soon receive a hard blow for it, and nevertheless he does it. This is the definition of a fool. And in Sefer Mishlei the expression "wisdom" appears often. And the Malbim there explains that wisdom is the knowledge and discernment between good and evil in the realm of morality. And notice, in matters of conduct and character traits we have no proof, what is called in the language of the Malbim "proofs of the mind." "Proofs of the mind" means rational proof as to what is the correct way in which to behave. The meaning is: in matters of morality there can be very, very difficult arguments, and if you look, for example, at the argument between the right and the left. Should the Palestinians be dealt with to their utter core, or should we only open the checkpoints for them and enable them and ease things for them, or should these be killed while they are still small. What is the correct conduct? See that this argument crosses not only among us but throughout the entire world, between the right-wing conception and the left-wing conception. That is, in matters of morality, the Malbim says, there is no proof of the mind. There is no one who can bring a proof that in the moral part this is the correct way. I will give a bit of an example, an argument I once had with some secular young fellow in Beer Sheva, when I gave some parlor meeting on behalf of Arachim, and afterward he became interested and said to me: listen, honored Rav, I will tell you the truth, I keep the Ten Commandments, the Ten Commandments. I said to him: do you know that in the Ten Commandments it is written not to desecrate Shabbat? This was a surprise for him. I do not know how he counted ten, but apparently in a secular school one does not necessarily know this either, but this was a surprise for him; no, the truth is that apparently he mainly meant "you shall not murder." Fine, but he says to me: listen, I am a moral person, and I am humane, and other such lofty and beautiful words, and so on. I said to him: may I present to you a moral problem? He says to me: yes, please. I said to him: look, you are a moral person, you are, here he is a man of morality. I said to him: imagine to yourself a completely hypothetical story, I am not talking about you, but just tell me what you would do. Your girlfriend, age 17, comes and tells you that she is pregnant. What, tell me, what do you do? He thought and thought again and thought again and was intelligent enough to say to me: you have stumped me. I have no answer. Because any answer he would have given me, I would have knocked him on the head with it. If he had said to me, I tell her to have an abortion. An abortion, what, are you a murderer? A child who does not suit you, you murder him? And if he were 17 and did not suit you, would you also put a bullet in his head? An abortion? Does it seem to you this is the solution, that someone who does not suit us, we murder him? No, God forbid, so let her become pregnant and give birth. Do you know what you are doing to her? A 17-year-old girl, you are destroying her life. You are destroying her life. Do you know what it is, a 17-year-old girl with a child? You are destroying her life. So what do you do? Do you murder the child or murder the mother? What do you do? He has no answer. He has no answer. Why does he have no answer? Because there is no proof of the mind in morality. There is no rational proof of what is right to do. There is none. There is none. So what does one do? What does one do? One opens a Shulchan Aruch. What did Hashem say? What Hashem said is what one does. That's it. That is what one does. This is called wisdom. Wisdom is not what you understand. Wisdom is what Hashem said. That is wisdom. That is wisdom. Therefore he says "the wise men are put to shame, they are dismayed and taken; behold, they have rejected the word of Hashem, and what wisdom is in them?" If you reject the word of Hashem, then what wisdom do you have? For your wisdom is not wisdom. Your wisdom is human wisdom. Human wisdom is limited. Human wisdom cannot encompass everything. Human wisdom cannot provide solutions for everything. So if they have rejected the word of Hashem, then what wisdom is in them? What wisdom do they have? They have no wisdom at all. Their wisdom is a nullified wisdom. It is a wisdom that has no substance in it. Therefore "the wise men are put to shame, they are dismayed and taken."
Do you know what you are doing to him? A 17-year-old girl gives birth, do you know what residue she will carry all her life? Her child, you will stick him in some place, the child will grow up miserable and in some orphanage, I do not know whose, and she will always remember that his mother threw him away, and she will live all her life with feelings of guilt that I have some child stuck somewhere and... give me a secular moral answer. Secular, give me a moral answer. What is moral here? Which way is the moral way?
So for us it is clear, because we have Torah. The Malbim says: there are things in the realm of morality that without a Torah received from Heaven have no resolution. And we can show many more moral dilemmas. Whoever knows about the convoy of the 35, who all died, whoever knows how it was? There was an Arab shepherd who saw the convoy; an argument began among them whether to kill him or not. One said he is not a fighter, why on earth kill him? And this bleeding heart got them all killed. Because this Arab went and informed his village, they set up an ambush for them, killed them all, not one remained. After years Rav Aryeh Levin, with the lottery of the Gra in the synagogue there in Yerushalayim, by candlelight, succeeded in identifying all the slain, years afterward. Years afterward.
So can you solve moral problems on your own? It is impossible to solve on your own. That is, in the moral matter, the Malbim says, wisdom is required. Wisdom means a way that comes from Hashem, through transmission, through prophecy, from Him, blessed be He, directly. All, the Malbim says, the laws of wisdom, were all given by Hashem through a navi and were written in the book of the Torah. So the Malbim says: if so, those who rejected the word of Hashem lack the foundations of wisdom upon which wisdom rests. The foundation of wisdom is according to Torah, it is not in your intellect.
So those who say we do not need Torah, Torah is inside, it is in the heart, show me how you decide on moral questions. And you decide this way and he decides the opposite. So where here is a correct decision? Do you know that Hitler too claimed that he was moral? Hitler claimed that nature proves that the strong overcomes the weak, and this is what develops nature according to the distorted theory of Darwin. And he says: there is one nation, only one nation that is so brazen that it insists on going against nature. It is weak, and for years it insists on surviving. There is no such thing, the weak always fall. The first gazelle that will be caught by a lion is the weakest gazelle in the herd. And this in fact causes the herd to strengthen, and only the strong continue and produce offspring, and so on. And there is one nation, and this nation is a weak nation, and in a state where all the defects and deficiencies, and it is so brazen that it insists on going against nature. There is no choice, and if they do not understand, then what nature does not do, the Nazi will do. And they will solve the problems so that this nation will cease, and thus we will only praise the Aryan race, and so on and so on and so on. He was certain that he was moral, that he had moral foundations upon which to base himself.
And this is what he says, "the wise men are put to shame," the Malbim says, after they rejected the word of Hashem, what wisdom is in them? From where do they obtain the laws of wisdom? Who informs them of the laws of wisdom, if it is something you cannot arrive at from within, if it is something for which you must have a Divine message in order to arrive at the correct laws?
"Therefore I will give their wives to others, their fields to those who will inherit them; for from the least even to the greatest, everyone is greedy for gain; from the navi even to the kohen, everyone deals falsely. And they have healed the breach of the daughter of My people lightly, saying, peace, peace; when there is no peace. Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? No, they were not at all ashamed, neither did they know how to blush; therefore they shall fall among those who fall; at the time of their punishment they shall stumble, says Hashem."
Therefore the Malbim says "I will give their wives to others," after he describes to us the terrible things that the people did, and "no man repents of his wickedness, saying, what have I done? Everyone returns to his course, as a horse rushing into battle. The stork in the sky knows her appointed times, but My people Yisrael know not the judgments of Hashem. In vain the pen has worked, the pen of the scribes is for falsehood." Harsh descriptions of the state of Yisrael. Now comes the punishment. "Therefore I will give their wives to others." The meaning, the Malbim says: one who has not fallen into the net of heresy, even if he has sins that stem from desire, one can rebuke him, one can give him mussar, the mussar of the neviim, the reproof of the Torah can change him. But here, since we are speaking of those who are heretics, and also deny prophecy, how can one repair them? So indeed, even if you tell me that their sin is a sin of desire, but I need a way to open their eyes. By what way? By the way of Torah? He does not believe in the Torah. Through the neviim? He does not believe in the neviim. He does not understand; there is nothing to open his eyes to see that he is sick with an illness of the soul, the Malbim says. And then it seems to him that he is perfectly healthy, and therefore "they have healed the breach of My people lightly." That is, it seems to him that there is no problem, what breach? Not at all. "Lightly" he heals it, easily. He does not understand the magnitude of the trouble in which he finds himself. And if they want to be healed through the mussar of the neviim, that they be ashamed of their evil deeds, about this he continues "were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? No, they were not at all ashamed, neither did they know how to blush." The meaning: if you want them to be ashamed of their abominable deeds, he says this too will not help. "They were not at all ashamed, they did not know how to blush." They do not understand; what is "they did not know"? They do not understand that one needs to be ashamed. For in order to understand that one needs to be ashamed, you need to understand that there is a correct way and I am not walking in it. But if from your standpoint there is no correct way, how will you understand that one needs to be ashamed?