"Therefore thus said Hashem of hosts: Behold, I will refine them and test them, for how else can I act because of the daughter of My people?" The Holy One, blessed be He, says: Behold, I will refine them. I refine them through suffering. The Radak explains: I refine them through the troubles I will bring upon them, in order to see whether after this refining (for this is the smith's task, to separate out the dross) they will return to being choice silver, whether they will return to their proper level and standing as a result of the troubles I bring upon them. "For how else can I act because of the daughter of My people?" The Holy One, blessed be He, says, as it were: How else can I act if I do not refine them? For if I do not refine them, they will not remain the daughter of My people. And since I want them to remain the daughter of My people, therefore I must refine them, so that through this I can restore them to their proper level and standing. Now, if this were not the daughter of My people, then throw them away. But since they are the daughter of My people, they must remain the daughter of My people, and there is between us...
So too in the covenant, that even so, while they are in the land, "I will not reject them, nor will I abhor them so as to destroy them." The Holy One, blessed be He, will never utterly destroy the people of Israel. So Hashem says: What choice do I have? "For how else can I act because of the daughter of My people?" How can I act while they remain the daughter of My people? I have no choice but to refine them in order to remove the dross from them. The Malbim explains that refining is smelting in fire in order to remove the dross. In contrast, testing is the trial that precedes the refining, in order to see whether there is dross in it. So what does the smith actually do? He takes a piece of silver and tests it. After he has tested it and found dross in it, he refines it. This is generally the process. Now, there can be a situation where he finishes refining and then wants to verify that indeed no dross remains, so he tests it again. That would be a testing that follows the refining. Since he has already refined it once, but it may be that some dross still remains, then he refines them again, excuse me, tests them again to see whether they need further refining. According to this the Malbim says: The Holy One, blessed be He, says, Behold, I will refine them and test them. After I refine them in fire in order to remove the dross, here He is speaking now of the second testing, I will test them again. Have they been refined properly? Or does dross still remain in them after the first refining? The Holy One, blessed be He, says, "For how else can I act because of the daughter of My people?" I do not know what to do so that the daughter of My people will be clean of all dross, for even after the refining and even after the suffering and even after the fire, they are still full of dross and rust, says the Malbim. Therefore there is no choice but to return and refine and return and test again and again. This is like what is written in the pasuk, "Examine me, Hashem, and test me, refine my innermost thoughts." Here it speaks of the testing that precedes the refining. Or, "For You have tested us, O God, You have refined us as silver is refined," there too it speaks of the testing before the refining, testing whether there is dross in it. In our case He speaks of the testing that follows the refining, for He says: Their state is so difficult that even after I refine them there is still need for a testing to see whether dross still remains in them, for this alone will not guarantee that they will reach sufficient purity.
"Their tongue is a drawn arrow, it speaks deceit; with his mouth one speaks peace to his neighbor, but inwardly he sets his ambush." "A drawn arrow" (chetz shachut): notice that the written form is shochet and the read form is shachut. The Radak says that both of these expressions are correct. "Their tongue is a slaying arrow" (chetz shochet) means that their tongue is like an arrow that slays. Through evil speech he kills. He slays with evil speech; they are talebearers. And "a drawn arrow" (chetz shachut), shachut he explains in the holy tongue as meaning drawn. What is the drawing here? Drawn in the sense that when they wanted to sharpen a knife, they would draw it across the whetstone, forward and back, in order to sharpen it. This is "their tongue is a drawn arrow." Their arrow is well sharpened on the whetstone, drawn forward and back in order to sharpen it. The Targum Yonatan says: like an arrow that is polished, like a sharp knife, that their arrow is sharpened like a most sharp knife. And from what expression is this drawing derived? He says: Rabbi Yishmael says, the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught, "and he shall slaughter" (ushachat) means nothing other than "and he shall draw." And so it says, "beaten gold" (zahav shachut), "their tongue is a drawn arrow." The meaning of drawing here is like when you slaughter: it is written that there is a prohibition of pressing (derasah). It is forbidden to take the knife and bring it straight down forcefully upon the animal's neck. Rather one must slaughter (shachut). The Gemara derives: what is shachut? To draw. You draw right, left, forward, back, forward, back, until you slaughter the animal, even if it takes all day long. There is no limit in this. So according to this, shachut means drawn. He brings in the name of his father, that the Radak's father explained that shachut is an adjective. That is, just as you say a man who oppresses, then the man who is oppressed you call "oppressed" (ashuk). So he says the meaning here is "their tongue is a slaying arrow." Their tongue is an arrow that causes the one struck by it to be slaughtered. This is not in the sense of drawn but in the sense of slaughter.
"It speaks deceit" - each of them speaks words of deceit to his fellow. And what is the deceit? "With his mouth one speaks peace to his neighbor." With a peaceful mouth: good morning, how are you, how is everything, or, we haven't seen you in a long time, we were so looking forward to seeing you, with his mouth he speaks deceit. But inwardly, "inwardly he sets his ambush." Within, he thinks evil thoughts against him. The Gra explains, and so the Maggid of Dubna brings on Kohelet, he says: Why did he compare their tongue to an arrow? He says: When you want to shoot an arrow, what is the first thing you do? First of all you draw it toward you. You take the arrow, draw it with the bow and string toward you, as close to you as possible, and then release. Then through this it shoots far away. The more you draw it toward you, the farther it flies toward him. Do you hear? This is how the arrow works. He says: What does this matter actually come to teach us? The one who speaks evil speech wants the evil speech to strike. How does he ensure that the evil speech strikes? What does he do? He says a word of praise about that person. Now let us understand: he indeed wants to hurt him. He wants to hurt him, but in order to hurt him, what does he do? He draws the arrow toward himself. Drawing the arrow toward himself means exactly the opposite of striking. On the contrary, he brings him close to himself. This is a good person, and this person is proven, and this person is proven, he says words of praise about him, drawing him toward himself, toward himself, toward himself, toward himself, and then he releases. But I want to tell you, do you know what happened yesterday, you simply won't believe it. And now he tells you evil speech about him. This evil speech shoots just like an arrow that you drew toward yourself really well. Why? Because if I come to say so-and-so is such and such, leave him alone, you have something against him, leave him alone. No one will accept it from me. But if I first spoke words of praise about him and how much I appreciate him and how good a person he is and how... afterward, when I say, but listen, what happened yesterday, I was simply stunned and... ah, now it strikes much more. Because after you spoke praise, then your words act with much, much greater effect, for here you see, I am not seeking his harm, I told you good things about him. So it turns out that the arrow, that their tongue is a drawn arrow. What is shachut? Drawn. He draws the arrow toward himself, toward himself, toward himself, toward himself, as it were bringing the person close to himself, saying words of praise about him, and then when you shoot, the shot is as it should be. Then the shot strikes and causes tremendous damage. In order that they ultimately believe his disgrace, he draws the arrow toward himself.
The Malbim explains: the tongue has the power to speak or to refrain. According to this it is like a bow of a crossbow that shoots arrows, that a person can decide whether I will hold back my arrows or shoot the arrows. Says the Malbim: but with them, their habit of speaking deceit, their habit of speaking falsehood and evil speech, is so strong over them that their arrow, as it were, already flies of itself. He says: See that their arrow, "their tongue is a drawn arrow, it speaks deceit." "It speaks deceit," as it were in his normal way, he opens his mouth, what comes out of his mouth? It speaks deceit. This is his default. With him it is always "it speaks deceit." There is no situation where his mouth sometimes speaks truth and sometimes speaks falsehood, no. Rather, it speaks deceit. With one for whom what always comes out of his throat is always the deceit. Until in fact the deceit is like a crossbow that shoots arrows, and it is shachut, it is drawn, he cannot hold it back. He cannot prevent it, he cannot stop it. Rather, always the deceit is what speaks. Always the arrows shoot as if of themselves. And behold, see that he can no longer stop, until it has become for him that speaking deceit is like second nature, for he cannot accustom himself to speak truth. So even though "with his mouth one speaks peace to his neighbor," nevertheless "inwardly he sets his ambush." Within the speech is the ambusher; inside he has the falsehood and the deceit with which he lies in wait for his neighbor in order to harm him.
"Shall I not punish them for these things, says Hashem? Shall My soul not avenge itself on a nation such as this?" The Malbim says: Come and see, there are two things here. It is fitting that I punish them because of the deeds themselves; about this He says, "Shall I not punish them for these things?" On the other hand, vengeance is fitting, says the Malbim, for the trait of evil of the soul that does such things and the evil of its nature. People who do such a thing, this shows a very evil nature. People whose tongue is a drawn arrow, who speak deceit, who with their mouth speak peace to their neighbor while inwardly setting their ambush, this shows the evil of their nature. About this He says, "Shall My soul not avenge itself on a nation such as this," this being the evil of its nature? "For the mountains I will take up weeping and wailing, and for the pastures of the wilderness a lamentation. For they are laid waste so that no one passes through, and the sound of the flock is not heard; from the birds of the sky to the beasts, they have fled, they are gone." The Radak says: the mountains are the grazing place of the flocks and the goats. Another possibility: what is "for the mountains I will take up weeping and wailing"? That when they wanted to proclaim something far off, they would go up onto the mountain, since from the mountain it was possible to be heard. And "pastures of the wilderness" refers to the tents of the wilderness. Ne'ot is from the expression naveh, right? That is, the place where they dwelt in the wilderness. He says "wilderness" as well: there is a wilderness that is a grazing place, as in "and he led the flock beyond the wilderness." The meaning is a place where they grazed the flock. So the prophet says, when he sees the destruction of the land, about this, "for the mountains I will take up weeping and wailing." For these places that were places where they grazed the flock, and now I see them in their destruction, about this I will take up wailing, weeping and wailing. Over the pastures of the wilderness I will take up a lamentation. For I see that these places are laid waste so that no one passes through. The meaning is: these places where there were always people passing by, I see that they are laid waste so that no one passes through. The meaning of this is that these were places where people passed from place to place. And not only are there no tents pitched there, which would mean a permanent dwelling, but even one passing through incidentally, even that is not there. These places are laid waste. "Laid waste" (nitzetu) means destroyed. And perhaps let us anticipate the Malbim, that "kindling" generally speaks of destruction wrought by fire. But from this, says the Malbim, it was applied to every place that is destroyed. Every place that is destroyed is called nitzat, an expression of ruin, desolation and wasteland. So he says: See, these places are laid waste so that no one passes through. The meaning is that there are not even those who pass through, as we explained. And he adds to this and says that not only are there none who pass through, but also "the sound of the flock is not heard." Even the sounds of flocks are not there. And not only that, but "from the birds of the sky to the beasts, they have fled, they are gone." "The birds of the sky," says the Radak, means here in a manner of hyperbole, that as it were even the birds of the sky did not reach there. And in fact he says this is not mere hyperbole, since Chazal say: Rabbi Yehuda says, for fifty-two years no one passed through Yehuda. As it is stated, "For the mountains I will take up weeping and wailing, and for the pastures of the wilderness a lamentation, for they are laid waste so that no one passes through; from the birds of the sky to the beasts, they have fled, they are gone." Says the Gemara: they are gone, they have fled, they are gone, how much is "beast" (behemah)? What is behemah? It is 52. He says: Come and see that for 52 years there was not even a bird there. Rabbi Yosi says: for seven years it endured in sulfur, as it is stated, "sulfur and salt, a burning over all its land." So for 52 years no man passed there and no bird passed there over the Land of Israel, which comes to show the magnitude of the destruction. Rashi brings that from the exile of Tzidkiyahu until the decree of Koresh king of Persia there were 52 years. Behold, come and see that during this time the land was desolate and destroyed.
The Malbim explains: let us take note, it is written here, "For the mountains I will take up weeping and wailing, and for the pastures of the wilderness a lamentation." As it were, the Holy One, blessed be He, says: for the people who died and were harmed, for them I will not weep. And the reason for this is simple. For, indeed, the opposite of this we saw, "Shall I not punish them for these things? Shall My soul not avenge itself on these?" They are not worthy of weeping; they are worthy of vengeance for the terrible deeds they did. So the Holy One, blessed be He, says: For whom then should I weep? For the mountains. For, as it were, the mountains are not guilty. And why do they suffer? This is in fact what is said here. Over the pastures of the wilderness, these places are not guilty. Why do they suffer? Why must they now be in their destruction? Why must they now be in their desolation? They are not guilty. The one who is guilty here is mankind. So the Holy One, blessed be He, says: Do you know for whom I do have to weep? For the mountains, for the pastures of the wilderness, which, as it were, suffer through no fault of their own because of the sins of mankind. The Malbim says: and the statement here is parallel. We have already spoken several times in the past about the matter of the parallel clauses of a pasuk, that in fact one divides the pasuk into four, and its first part corresponds to the third, and the second corresponds to the fourth. So too here the Malbim says the clauses of the pasuk are parallel. "For the mountains I will take up weeping" - why? Because "they are laid waste so that no one passes through." The mountains, the Malbim explains, not as the Radak explained that it is a grazing place; he explains that it is a place where people generally would come to the mountains when they needed to cross and pass from place to place. So they would pass through the mountains. So he says, "For the mountains I will take up weeping, for they are laid waste," meaning destroyed so that no one passes through. There are not even people passing to travel. "And for the pastures of the wilderness," over them I will take up a lamentation. Why? Because "the sound of the flock is not heard." For the pastures of the wilderness are truly the places where they grazed the flock, and over them it is fitting to weep and lament that there is no longer any sound of the flock there.
"And I will make Yerushalayim heaps of ruins, a den of jackals, and the cities of Yehuda I will make a desolation, without inhabitant." That is to say, only over the mountains and over the pastures of the wilderness, as we explained, only over them does the Holy One, blessed be He, say I have to lament. Not over Yerushalayim. Yerushalayim itself will be destroyed. Says the Holy One, blessed be He: over her I will not weep. Not over Yehuda. For them I Myself, "And I will make Yerushalayim heaps of ruins, a den of jackals." I Myself will make them heaps of ruins. "Heaps" refers to the houses, when they are demolished, one becomes a heap. A heap of stones. So I will make Yerushalayim heaps of ruins, from the houses that will be demolished and the walls that will be broken, all this will be a heap, all of it will be one heap of rubble. And what happens in such a place when man abandons the place? Then immediately jackals come there. All kinds of animals come there that come to abandoned places, to places where there is no human habitation. Therefore these places will be a den of jackals. "And the cities of Yehuda I will make a desolation, without inhabitant." The cities of Yehuda I Myself will make a desolation, as we said, and this is like what is written, indeed, "Shall My soul not avenge itself on a nation such as this?" So over them the Holy One, blessed be He, says: I will not take up weeping, nor wailing, nor a lamentation, since they received the punishment that is due to them according to what is fitting for them. The Metzudat Tziyon explains that jackals (tanim) are a type of snake, so he explains. And in the simple understanding they are tanim, the jackal, that animal familiar to us.
"Who is the wise man who understands this, and to whom the mouth of Hashem has spoken, that he may declare it, for what reason has the land perished, is laid waste like the wilderness so that none passes through?" "Who is the wise man," the Malbim says, who knows the laws of wisdom, "who understands this," who has more than this, who also has discernment, for discernment means understanding one thing from another. "And to whom the mouth of Hashem has spoken, that he may declare it" - or, if he has neither this nor that, at least perhaps the mouth of Hashem has spoken to him. Perhaps he received prophecy from Hashem, and then "that he may declare it," that is, the prophet is sent to tell the people, to deliver a message. So perhaps he can answer for us the question. And what is the question? "For what reason has the land perished?" The meaning is: how is it that we see the land has such a calamity upon it as though it perished completely? So even though seemingly punishment is due to them, but why to such an extent? Why to such an extent that the land perished entirely so that it is no longer fit at all as a place of settlement? As we saw, for seven years there was sulfur and salt, a burning over all its land, in a state where it could not be settled at all. For 52 years neither man nor bird passed in the Land of Israel. This shows an absolute loss. So even though punishment is due to them, but who is the wise man who understands this, who perhaps received prophecy that he may declare, for what reason has the land perished? Why did the land perish in such a total manner? This shows that there is wrath upon them, this shows that there is anger upon them from Hashem, this shows that, as it were, there is no hope for their end. And this is like what is written in the pasuk, "And they will see the plagues of that land and its sicknesses, sulfur and salt, a burning over all its land." And this is precisely the question they will ask, as the Torah says: "For what reason has Hashem done thus to this land? What is this great fierce anger?" About this the prophet says, for what reason has the land perished? Why is there such great fierce anger? Laid waste like the wilderness, without inhabitant. That is, the destruction is so total that they were destroyed completely like the wilderness, without inhabitant.
It is said in the name of the Satmar Rebbe, that he said in a witty manner: for what reason has the land perished? He would once say: people always spoke of Eretz Yisrael, the Holy Land, aliyah to the land. And behold, he says, in recent years we have seen that the land perished. Suddenly they do not speak of Eretz Yisrael, they speak of the State of Israel. He says: for what reason has the land (aretz) perished? Where did the expression "land" perish? The answer is in the next pasuk, "Because they forsook My Torah." He says: the moment they forsook the Torah, then it became some state, an entity, but they no longer speak of the virtue of Eretz Yisrael and settling the land as a place of mitzvah, but rather what? Self-determination, that is what they speak of. We have a place where... so it could be here, it could also be in Uganda, as there were those who already advised. So we have seen that the land perished. The expression of "land" as a place that is a holy place, for what reason has the land perished? Because they forsook My Torah. "And Hashem said: Because they forsook My Torah which I set before them, and they did not obey My voice, nor did they walk in it." Let us take note, it is written here "they forsook My Torah," it is written "which I set before them," which is also an addition that requires explanation, "and they did not obey My voice," this is already included in "they forsook My Torah," "nor did they walk in it," this is already included in "they forsook My Torah and did not obey My voice." So the pasuk here is seemingly a pasuk that repeats, changes, and triples the same thing. So first the Radak explains: what is "My Torah which I set before them"? "It is not in heaven, nor is it beyond the sea," rather I set it before them. That is to say, one might have thought that perhaps the Torah is difficult, perhaps the Torah is complex, perhaps it is complicated. The Holy One, blessed be He, says: "My people, in what have I wearied you?" With what did I tire you? What did I tell you to bring? Even when He told us to bring a sacrifice, He did not tell us to bring from the animals that are found in the wilderness, in the forests. He did not tell you: bring Me a lion as a sacrifice. Where would I now bring a lion from? No, bring from your flock, from what you have in your pen. And so on in this manner. The Holy One, blessed be He, says: In what have I wearied you? I did not tire you with any mitzvah. So "My Torah which I set before them," I gave you a Torah that is easy to fulfill. Not a Torah that is complicated; I did not ask you to offer your son as a sacrifice before Me. So why is it that what I did not ask of you, you go and do voluntarily for Molech? How can such a thing be understood? The Holy One, blessed be He, says: My Torah I set before them.
The Malbim explains: "And Hashem said, because they forsook My Torah." The answer from Hashem is that, as we saw, there is no answer. The wise man does not know, the discerning man does not understand, and the prophet does not declare. If so, what is the answer from Hashem? The Torah says: Know this, "And Hashem said, because they forsook My Torah." The Malbim says: they have three levels in keeping the Torah. First, one who clings to the Torah with love, with enthusiasm, with desire, performing all of Hashem's mitzvot truly out of joy and out of a desire to cling to His mitzvot. About this He says, "And Hashem said, because they forsook My Torah which I set before them." I gave them My Torah before them for delight, for love of the soul, My Torah which is the most precious thing to Me, the sweetest, the most special. It would have been fitting for them to cling to My Torah with attachment and desire at the highest level. This they forsook. There is a lower level, that even if it is not out of desire, but Hashem commanded. And since Hashem commanded, therefore I do it. This is more from the aspect of awe than from the aspect of love. About this He continues and says that they forsook My Torah, and not only that but also they did not obey My voice. To obey My voice is a command. At least even if you do not do it with desire and enthusiasm, My Torah, but at least obey My voice. I commanded, out of awe of Hashem you should have fulfilled His mitzvot. He says: this too they did not do, not even as one who obeys the command of the master who commands. And the third level is a person who does it out of habit. This is a person who performs mitzvot as a routine learned by rote. This is how he grew up, how he was raised, so he continues. How did Rabbi Uri Zohar once put it? Like a captured infant among the observers of mitzvot. A captured infant, what does he do? He was born there, so every morning he knows that with his hand you make such circular motions, and this is called laying tefillin, so he makes such circular motions. That is how he knows, it is automatic for him. That is how he was born, that is how it is, he grew up with it, mitzvot performed by rote learning. Well, at least that is something. About this He says, "nor did they walk in it." "Nor did they walk in it" means, from the aspect of walking and habit, perhaps this too would be something. He says: this too they did not do. Come and see that they completely forsook the Torah, and even at its lowest level they did not keep it.
Gemara Tractate Bava Metzia page 85. A Gemara familiar to all. Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: What is the meaning of what is written, "Who is the wise man who understands this, and to whom the mouth of Hashem has spoken, that he may declare it, for what reason has the land perished?" This thing the sages said and did not explain it. The prophets said it and did not explain it. Until the Holy One, blessed be He, explained it Himself. As it is stated, "And Hashem said, because they forsook My Torah which I set before them." Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: because they did not recite the blessing over the Torah first. Gemara Tractate Bava Metzia is very well known; it is discussed a great deal before Tisha B'Av, in those days of the Three Weeks. Whoever wishes can also hear on our disc about Tisha B'Av, where we also dealt with this sugya from several aspects. The Ran says in Nedarim 81 that they did not recite the blessing over the Torah first, at the beginning of their engagement each day, that is, to engage in words of Torah, and "and please make sweet" and "who chose us." What is "they did not recite the blessing over the Torah first"? Do not think it means they did not recite the blessing when they went up to read from the Torah. No. Rather, when they rise in the morning and begin to engage in Torah, they recite the blessings over the Torah. It is forbidden to learn without reciting the blessings over the Torah. So at the beginning of their engagement each day they would not recite the blessings over the Torah. This matter was asked of the sages and they did not explain it, says the Ran. Since it is written, "And Hashem said, because they forsook My Torah," it follows that there was none who knew the reason for it in his generation except the Holy One, blessed be He, alone. He says: from the fact that it is stated, "Who is the wise man who understands this, and to whom the mouth of Hashem has spoken, that he may declare it, for what reason has the land perished?" we are waiting to hear the answer of the wise man and the answer of the one who understands this, and they have no answer. And what do we see immediately in the next pasuk, "And Hashem said." What do you understand from this? That none of the rest had an answer. This is in fact what the Gemara says: this thing the sages and prophets said and did not explain it. They did not know how to give an explanation for what reason the land perished. And if so, the only one who can give an explanation is only the Holy One, blessed be He. And I found in the Megillat Setarim of Rabbeinu Yonah that the verse is precise thus, that because they did not recite the blessing over the Torah first the land perished. For if it were "because they forsook My Torah" according to its plain meaning, if you explain it as that they forsook the Torah, and what is the plain understanding? They did not fulfill it. As the Malbim explains. And the Malbim explains the plain meaning. And indeed according to the plain meaning this is correct. They did not fulfill it, not out of love, not out of awe, and also not out of habit. This is correct according to the plain meaning. But he says: it would still be difficult, for seemingly why was it asked of the sages and prophets and they did not explain it? If you are speaking of people who do not fulfill Torah, for what reason has the land perished? Go outside and look, are there people who observe mitzvot? Everyone behaves like gentiles. So why do you ask for what reason the land perished? That is to say, it cannot be that the answer is so simple if we see that neither the sages nor the prophets nor the discerning ones, none of them has this answer. What, do they live on another planet? Do they not dwell among their people? Do they not know reality? So how can it be that to such a question the sages, the discerning ones, and the prophets would not have an answer, and only the Holy One, blessed be He, has to reveal to them that they forsook the Torah. What, what is the plain meaning of this? Rather certainly, what is the conclusion? That they were always engaged in Torah. Therefore you understand the wonder: for what reason has the land perished? For they engaged in Torah. And if they engaged in Torah, the Torah protects, the Torah saves. Why? Why indeed were they not protected as a result of the Torah? Until the Holy One, blessed be He, explained it Himself, for He knows the depths of the heart. Do you hear? This is the Megillat Setarim of Rabbeinu Yonah. He knows the depths of the heart, that they did not recite the blessing over the Torah first. What is the meaning of this? So what if they did not recite the blessing? This is not a deficiency of the blessing. For even a person who laid tefillin and did not recite the blessing, he did lay tefillin. Even a person who took the lulav and did not recite the blessing, he did take the lulav. No one will say, no, you did not fulfill your obligation. Blessings do not hold back the fulfillment. So what happened here that suddenly the blessing holds it back? Take note, Rabbeinu Yonah says: until the Holy One, blessed be He, explained it Himself, for He knows the depths of the heart, that they did not recite the blessing over the Torah first. That is, what is the meaning, so what if they did not recite the blessing? That the Torah was not important enough in their eyes that it would be fitting to recite a blessing over it. That they did not engage in it for its own sake. And through this they belittled its blessing. And this is "nor did they walk in it." This is the plain meaning of what is written, "nor did they walk in it." That is, with its proper intent and for its own sake. They did not walk in it in the way that it is fitting to walk when one learns Torah. He learned Torah just as he learned the sciences. He learned Torah just as he learned algebra. Yes, this is very important, there is much knowledge in it, it broadens horizons, it truly, it gives much knowledge and... this is how one learns when one learns the other branches of wisdom. This is how one learns when one learns secular education. But when one learns Torah, Torah is a Torah of life. When you learn Torah you connect with the Holy One, blessed be He. And through this they belittled its blessing, and this is "nor did they walk in it." What, before I learned algebra did I recite a blessing? "Who sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us to engage in matters of algebra"? Did I recite a blessing? So why should we recite a blessing over words of Torah? This is wisdom and this is wisdom. This is how they related to the Torah. He says: consequently understand, they did not walk in it with its proper intent for its own sake, so this Torah is not important in your eyes, it cannot protect you. What is written concerning King David? "And they covered him with garments, but he could not get warm." Chazal say: since he belittled the garments, the garments did not protect him. What is written concerning the people of Israel? They offered sacrifices in the Beit HaMikdash and they did not protect them. And why? Since they despised the service of the Beit HaMikdash, then the sacrifices no longer protect them. Here too, since the Torah, they related to it as just another branch of wisdom, then such a Torah has no power to protect you, has no power to guard you. And then consequently this too is the reason they reached deterioration, this is the reason they did not change their deeds for the better, this is the reason the words of the prophets did not have effect, this is the reason they descended to the lowest level. It all began with the fact that they belittled the Torah. But the Holy One, blessed be He, says: If only they had forsaken Me and kept My Torah, for the light within it would bring them back to good. But how? Not their Torah, My Torah. As I commanded to learn it. In that manner, with intent for its own sake, learning in which you truly feel that in it there is a connection to the Holy One, blessed be He, this is truly learning that changes you. These are the words of the Ran and the pious one, says the Ran, and they are fitting and worthy of the one who said them. When Rabbeinu Yonah spoke, he spoke at his own levels indeed, worthy of the one who said them.
"And they walked after the stubbornness of their heart, and after the Baalim which their fathers taught them." "And they walked after the stubbornness of their heart" (sherirut libam): sherirut has two meanings. One meaning is sight, like shuru, right? Like "he will look down upon men." And so on in this manner, there are several more... well, there are those who want to say "that every man should rule (shorer)," some want to say shorer from the expression to gaze, from the expression to see. But this is not the plain meaning there; therefore we read sorer and not from the expression of dominion nor from the expression of sight. But there are several places: a wall is called shur for this reason, since through the wall they would see far off, therefore it is called shur. "Daughters march upon the wall (shur)," upon the wall from which they would look out far. "I see it but not now, I behold it (ashurenu) but not near." We see that shur is an expression of gazing. There is another explanation, that sherirut libam is an expression of shrir, from the expression of hard, firm, established and existing. The meaning is firm. From the aspect of the strength, the strength of firmness of their heart. They have no softness in their heart, they walk after the strength of their heart. This is also like the expression familiar to us, stiff-necked. That one goes along and his neck is petrified, he is unable to move his head right and left, and he is what is called in the folk expression today "head against the wall." This is the same idea. He has a stiff neck, they call him, he does not turn his head. He continues in his own way. So too sherirut libam, an expression of the hardness of their heart. The Malbim says: here he speaks against this matter that they forsook the Torah, for we saw three aspects. The first aspect is corresponding to the love of Hashem, attachment to the Torah, learning out of desire. He says: See, they walked after the evil stubbornness of their heart, they served idolatry out of the desire of their heart. Corresponding to custom and habit, that even out of this they did not serve Hashem, he says, "and they walked after the Baalim which their fathers taught them." He went and clung to the Baalim, to idolatry, out of what their fathers taught them. So you expect that they would walk in it out of the habit of people accustomed by rote? He says: what they were accustomed to was to serve idolatry, for their father served idolatry, so they continue in that same way. So it turns out that both their intellect and the habit of their deeds, says the Malbim, all of it turned them away from the Torah of Hashem to idolatry. So it turns out that they no longer have any remedy.