Chapter 5 of Yechezkel continues the series of symbolic acts that the prophet is commanded to perform, following the brick upon which besieged Jerusalem was engraved. This time, the command is personal and piercing: the prophet takes a razor, shaves his head and his beard, weighs the hair, and divides it into three parts, with each part meeting a different fate - fire, the sword, and scattering to the wind. After the parable comes the explicit interpretation: Jerusalem, which was set in the midst of the nations to be a light to them, corrupted Hashem's judgments into more wickedness than them. We will go through the pesukim in order, with the commentaries of Rashi, Radak, and the Malbim.
וְאַתָּה בֶן־אָדָם קַח־לְךָ חֶרֶב חַדָּה תַּעַר הַגַּלָּבִים תִּקָּחֶנָּה לָּךְ וְהַעֲבַרְתָּ עַל־רֹאשְׁךָ וְעַל־זְקָנֶךָ וְלָקַחְתָּ לְךָ מֹאזְנֵי מִשְׁקָל וְחִלַּקְתָּם׃ - "And you, son of man, take for yourself a sharp sword; as a barber's razor you shall take it for yourself, and pass it over your head and over your beard; and take for yourself weighing scales and divide them."
Hashem commands Yechezkel to take a sharp sword, sharpen it, and make a razor out of it. What is "the barber's razor" (ta'ar hagallavim)? Rashi brings one explanation: that gallavim are leather-cutters - those who cut hides to make straps and sandals. However, Rashi also brings an alternative explanation, which is the interpretation of most commentators and what emerges from the plain meaning of the text: "gallavim" are barbers, those who shave the hair of the head and the beard, who possess a razor. Radak explains that it is extremely sharp and cuts swiftly. This word has no parallel in Scripture; that is, we do not find the term "gallavim" anywhere else in the Bible, but we do find in Targum Yerushalmi: "every beard cut off" (kol zakan gedu'ah) is translated as "megalivah" - that with this razor they would shear or cut off the hairs. Likewise, in Bereishit Rabbah: "The angel stands and shaves (megalev)." Thus, the meaning is a razor used to shave the head and beard.
Radak holds that this entire episode took place in a prophetic vision: taking the razor, passing it over the head and beard, burning the hair in fire - all of it in a vision. However, we have noted several times that there is a major dispute among the commentators concerning numerous passages as to whether they occurred solely in a prophetic vision or were performed in reality, and this is one such example. And if one asks: is there not a prohibition against passing a razor over the beard, so how could the prophet do so? The answer is that when Hashem commands it, it is permissible. An example of this is the prophet Hoshea, who was told to take a wife of harlotry and have children with her. There, at the beginning of Hoshea, this issue was discussed at length - did he truly marry her and father children with her, or was it entirely in a prophetic vision? That is the root of the major debate in understanding verses throughout Tanach: whether they are an allegory or an actual deed.
We also mentioned there the position of the Rambam, who takes this approach to a far-reaching extent, even regarding events widely agreed to have occurred in physical reality, such as the angels who came to visit Avraham: the Rambam maintains that the entire encounter occurred in a prophetic vision - Avraham speaks with Hashem in a vision, sees three guests, slaughters animals for them, and they deliver the tidings, all within prophecy. However, as noted, this view is not the prevailing approach in Torah commentary; rather, we understand the events according to their plain meaning. Although there are passages that can be explained as a prophetic vision, narratives such as Avraham's encounter, which the Rambam explains as prophecy alone, run counter to the view of the vast majority of commentators.
The Malbim explains why he was commanded to shave both. It was customary to shave the hair of the head. One who walked about with long hair on his head was described by the verse, "a hairy crown that walks in its guilt" (Tehillim 68:22), as teachers in cheder would often quote. Sometimes one would quote, "Your head upon you is like Carmel, and the hair of your head (dalat roshech)..." (Shir HaShirim 7:6) - if your head is bushy like Mount Carmel, it is a sign of dalat (poverty of) your head: when there is excessive outward volume, it reflects a lack of inward substance. In any event, their custom was to shave the hair of the head, whereas they would leave the beard intact. This is also proper according to the parameters of Halachah, which discourages growing long hair (belorit), and according to the Kabbalists: the hairs of the head represent strict judgments (dinim) and should therefore be cut, while the hairs of the beard represent loving-kindness (chasadim) and should therefore be grown.
The shaving serves to symbolize that the people were clinging to Hashem, and the Holy One, Blessed be He, as it were, shaves them and removes them from Himself, just as hair is removed from the human body: hair clings to the body, and a person shaves and removes it. So too, the Jewish people cling to Hashem, and you are to perform an act of shaving that symbolizes the severing of this attachment. And why both head and beard? The hair of the head, which is normally shaved and whose overgrowth is unsightly, symbolizes the casting off of the wicked. The hair of the beard, which is an ornament of glory, and whose shaving is a disgrace, symbolizes the casting off of the righteous. That is to say: Hashem will sweep away the righteous along with the wicked - both the hair of the head representing the wicked and the hair of the beard representing the righteous; all of them you shall shave.
שְׁלִשִׁית בָּאוּר תַּבְעִיר בְּתוֹךְ הָעִיר כִּמְלֹאת יְמֵי הַמָּצוֹר וְלָקַחְתָּ אֶת־הַשְּׁלִשִׁית תַּכֶּה בַחֶרֶב סְבִיבוֹתֶיהָ וְהַשְּׁלִשִׁית תִּזְרֶה לָרוּחַ וְחֶרֶב אָרִיק אַחֲרֵיהֶם׃ - "A third you shall burn in fire inside the city when the days of the siege are completed, and you shall take the third and strike it with the sword round about it, and the third you shall scatter to the wind, and I will unsheathe a sword after them."
"And take for yourself balancing scales and divide them" - take scales, weigh the hair, and divide it into three equal thirds. The first third, "burn in the fire in the midst of the city", meaning within the city engraved upon the brick, upon which he set the siege works and rampart. This comes to signify that this third will perish through the scorching heat of famine. And why is famine symbolized by fire? Rashi explains that the pangs of famine burn like a consuming fire, as it is said, "Our skin was hot like an oven because of the burning heat of famine" - "nichmaru" denotes heating and burning. The Malbim explains that this is an allegory for what occurred at the end of the siege, when a third of the people perished from famine and pestilence within the city.
"And you shall take a third and strike it with the sword around it" - this is the second third, signifying that the enemy will strike another third with the sword around the city. "And the third you shall scatter to the wind" - an allegory for those who fled before the enemy and were scattered to all directions. "And I will unsheathe a sword after them" - the sword will pursue and overtake them in the lands of their enemies. Rashi notes that this alludes to the exiles who went down to Egypt, Yochanan ben Kareach and his faction, regarding whom it is said, "I will unsheathe a sword after them": Nevuchadnezzar came and laid waste to Egypt, and those who had fled his sword here were captured and killed by him there. Meaning: I will draw and unsheathe the sword from its sheath to pursue them even into Egypt.
וְלָקַחְתָּ מִשָּׁם מְעַט בְּמִסְפָּר וְצַרְתָּ אוֹתָם בִּכְנָפֶיךָ׃ - "And you shall take from there a few in number, and bind them in your hems."
There are two interpretations here. Rashi explains that this hints to those few who would be exiled to Babylon and survive there. Binding them in the hem indicates that unlike all the preceding groups - who were consumed by fire, struck down by the sword, or scattered to the wind with the sword pursuing them - these will be preserved and will not face destruction, until they return to the Land, like an object wrapped and bound securely in the corner of a garment. And why "few in number"? Because they were relatively few, ten thousand exiles.
The Malbim, on the other hand, explains that this refers to the poorest of the land whom Nevuzaradan left behind as vinedressers and plowmen under the leadership of Gedalyahu ben Achikam. This explanation appears closer to the plain sense of the text: the verses describe the afflictions - those burned, those struck by the sword, those scattered - and in contrast to this, the verse speaks of those who are preserved. "Preserved," in its plain sense, implies that they are not exiled at all. They are bound in the hem, in their place. Had the text meant the Babylonian exiles, it should have used an allegory of protection in a distant location - that they are exiled yet protected - rather than binding them in a hem, which suggests they would not be exiled at all. This fits far better with the poor who remained in the Land.
וּמֵהֶם עוֹד תִּקָּח וְהִשְׁלַכְתָּ אוֹתָם אֶל־תּוֹךְ הָאֵשׁ וְשָׂרַפְתָּ אֹתָם בָּאֵשׁ מִמֶּנּוּ תֵצֵא־אֵשׁ אֶל־כׇּל־בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל׃ - "And take of them again, and cast them into the midst of the fire, and burn them in the fire; from it a fire shall go forth into all the house of Israel."
Notice how each approach remains consistent. According to Rashi and the Radak, where those bound in the hem are the Babylonian exiles, "and take of them again" hints to Achav ben Kolayah and Tzidkiyahu ben Ma'aseyah, whom the king of Babylon roasted in the fire. Chazal recount that they approached the daughter of Nevuchadnezzar and demanded that she submit to them, claiming Hashem had commanded it. She informed her father, who questioned how that could be, since the prophet had told him such conduct was forbidden. They responded: that is true, but we too are prophets. He said to them: you must be tested before me just as Daniel, Chananyah, Mishael, and Azaryah were. They requested that Yehoshua the Kohen Gadol join them, serving as a kind of protective shield, and in the end the king roasted them in fire and they were burned, while only Yehoshua's garment was slightly singed at the hem, hinting to his descendants who would marry unsuitable women. According to this view, some of those in Babylon would be cast into the fire, and from these events retribution would go forth to all the house of Israel.
Yet this interpretation raises a difficulty: to apply the phrase "of them shall be burned in the fire" to two such wicked men, who were utterly marginal figures - would the prophet dedicate an allusion specifically to them? Therefore, here too, the Malbim's approach is more compelling: the verse refers to the tragedy brought about by Yishmael ben Netanyah, who came and assassinated Gedalyahu ben Achikam. From that spark a fire spread - for in its aftermath the survivors fled down to Egypt, and none of them remained. To be sure, Rashi's interpretation fits the literal word "fire" more closely, since Achav ben Kolayah and Tzidkiyahu ben Ma'aseyah were literally burned with fire. But according to the Malbim, it refers to a catastrophe that ignited from this point and ultimately left nothing behind: "from it a fire shall go forth into all the house of Israel" - all of the house of Israel who remained in the Land were ultimately wiped out, which became the reality when the surviving remnant went into exile.
כֹּה אָמַר אֲדֹנָי יֱהֹוִה זֹאת יְרוּשָׁלַ͏ִם בְּתוֹךְ הַגּוֹיִם שַׂמְתִּיהָ וּסְבִיבוֹתֶיהָ אֲרָצוֹת׃ - "Thus said the Lord Hashem: This is Jerusalem; I have set her in the midst of the nations, and countries are round about her."
What does "in the midst of the nations" mean? Rashi brings one explanation, that it means in the center of the world - Jerusalem is the navel of the world. Radak explains that "I have set it in the midst of the nations" because it was chosen above all lands, "beautiful in elevation, the joy of the whole earth," and it sits at the center of civilization. Consequently, its climate is ideal and more temperate than all other lands - that is, neither as cold as the frigid lands nor as hot as the torrid lands, but moderate.
People ask: Is Jerusalem really more beautiful than Switzerland? The Midrash already addresses this, asking: Why did Hashem not place rivers in Jerusalem? After all, rivers are always a hallmark of beauty, making a place wonderful and exceptional to live in. The Midrash answers: so people would not say that they go up to Jerusalem for its rivers, as if coming on vacation or for leisure. If they come - they come because the House of Hashem is there, "the joy of the whole earth."
And as for the matter itself: people look at Switzerland in summer photographs, but who knows what it is like to be in Switzerland during the winter? Summer there is short, and for more than half the year you are in a deep freeze, with several meters of snow where you cannot leave the house at all. It is true that it is pleasant there in the summer, everything is green - and how could it not be green, when two meters of snow melt and water the earth for months - but who can live there normally for half the year? That is an extraordinary limitation. Jerusalem, by contrast, has a climate that is fine and temperate, superior to all lands. In the summer you sweat less there than in the coastal plain, and in the winter, even if a little snow falls, it is just a light blanket, and you can live and travel freely in every season of the year, not only during a brief, limited window.
Why does Scripture delve into matters of weather and climate? Radak explains: this was a reason for them to walk on the straight path and fulfill My good ordinances. You were granted such a special and superior land; therefore, it was incumbent upon you to walk uprightly and observe My good laws. But come and see: quite the opposite occurred. Instead of being better than all the nations because they received the most superior place, they altered My laws into wickedness more than all the surrounding nations, as it is written: "And Menashe led them astray to do evil, more than the nations whom Hashem destroyed before the Children of Israel." And those surrounding nations, Radak notes, did not exchange their laws, whereas "My people have exchanged their Glory for that which does not profit" - and therefore the grievance against you is far greater than against the nations.
And having mentioned Jerusalem, let us also mention Eretz Yisrael: there is hardly another place in the world so small that encompasses every type of climate. If one desires dry air, it is there; humid air, it is there; cold, it is there; heat, it is there. Where else could you find a place where, if you want summer in the middle of winter, you can travel to Eilat, and if you want snow, you go to Mount Hermon? A country spanning just a few hundred kilometers - what would be a single neighborhood in the United States, and less than a village in China - yet within this compact, bounded territory, you have every variety of climate. Wherever you wish to go, you can find it, so long as you come to dwell in the Holy Land.
Malbim explains that here begins the nimshal, the interpretation of the parable. The chapter opened with the mashal - the hair he was commanded to shave and burn - and now it is explained: "I have set it in the midst of the nations," meaning that many nations from the seven peoples dwelt in the Land, and outside the Land of Israel lay the realms of other monarchs, and in the midst of them all, Jerusalem was placed.
וַתֶּמֶר אֶת־מִשְׁפָּטַי לְרִשְׁעָה מִן־הַגּוֹיִם וְאֶת־חֻקּוֹתַי מִן־הָאֲרָצוֹת אֲשֶׁר סְבִיבוֹתֶיהָ כִּי בְמִשְׁפָּטַי מָאָסוּ וְחֻקּוֹתַי לֹא־הָלְכוּ בָהֶם׃ - And she has rebelled against My ordinances into wickedness more than the nations, and against My statutes more than the countries that surround her; for they have rejected My ordinances, and as for My statutes, they have not walked in them.
"And she rebelled [vatemer]" - they substituted and changed My ordinances into wickedness, more than the nations. Rashi cites what is written regarding Menashe: "And Menashe led Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem astray, to do evil, more than the nations whom Hashem destroyed before the Children of Israel." Incidentally, in our printed texts of Rashi, a typographical error crept in - reading "for so it is written in the Mishnah" - whereas it should read "for so it is written regarding Menashe," as there is no such verse in the Mishnah. Rashi on Nevi'im was far less thoroughly proofread than Rashi on the Torah. The meaning is: I placed her in the midst of the nations with countries surrounding her, yet she went and corrupted her ways far more than the nations and the lands around her.
And some explain, as cited by Rashi, that the nations never received the Torah of Hashem, whereas Israel received it and transgressed it; therefore, their fault is far more severe. What does a gentile understand or know? He has no Torah. But you received the Torah, so how could you corrupt your ways? The claim against you is infinitely greater. Similarly, Radak explains regarding "for they have rejected My ordinances" - whereas the nations did not reject their own laws.
Malbim explains: mishpatim are rational mitzvos, and chukim are suprarational mitzvos received by tradition. The divine intention was that Israel would serve as a light unto the nations in both realms: in mishpatim, which govern interpersonal relations - "And these are the ordinances [mishpatim] which you shall set before them," dealing with monetary matters and the like; and in chukim, which define the service between man and the Omnipresent. I placed her in the midst of the nations so that the nations would learn from them proper conduct between man and fellow man, and between man and God. Yet come and see: instead of serving as a model for them, they became far more corrupt than they.
The Malbim explains: Gentiles also possess civil laws, and a non-Jew is commanded concerning this - one of the Seven Noahide Laws is to establish courts of justice. However, they did not receive statutes directly from Hashem; their judges are expected to rule according to rational laws: logical principles acceptable to human intellect - not to murder, not to steal, not to harm one's fellow - rational laws instituted by the wise among the nations. And the Malbim notes that while human conventions are not sufficient - which is our great advantage in having received Divine laws, a Torah from Hashem - human conventions do not necessarily contradict uprightness, and often align with it.
This can readily be seen in reality: many of the laws enacted by nations on their own, independent of the Torah, conform to basic justice. As noted earlier, most of the Ten Commandments are universally accepted by all humanity, and there is no civilized society in the world - that is, an orderly state and a well-regulated place - that has enacted laws against them. There is no place where the law instructs people to steal or murder. There is a baseline of human morality recognized worldwide. The Malbim explains that their laws do not always contradict justice; rather, they deviate from Divine justice. For example, society might claim that abortion is merely a woman's right over her body, whereas according to Halachah it constitutes outright murder, for which a non-Jew is even held capitally liable - under Noahide law it is treated even more strictly than for a Jew, as one who performs an abortion is judged as a murderer. In other words, their laws deviate from the Divine justice we were privileged to receive, yet not all of their laws are contrary to uprightness.
Likewise regarding the statutes, the Malbim notes, both interpersonal and between man and God, they acted in direct opposition to the Divine laws. The nations did not overturn Divine laws, for they did not know them; when a non-Jew acts as he pleases, it is not "the opposite of Divine judgments," because he is unaware of them. But you, who know the Divine law and do the opposite - this is seven times more severe. And even though the laws of the nations are flawed, they were not formulated deliberately against Hashem's will, but out of ignorance, not out of malice and contempt.
The Malbim further distinguishes between "nations" and "lands." The nations that did not have an organized kingdom of their own possessed inferior laws borrowed from the lands, for the great lands maintained an orderly system with a king and judges, as it is written, "A king by justice establishes a land." Thus, a "nation" refers to an entity without a centralized king, whose governance is less orderly, copying its laws from the established lands governed by kings and fixed codes. We therefore find a descending order: the lands, below them the nations, and below them - Israel. The great lands were far from the Land of Israel, while the neighboring nations had distorted laws, yet we were worse even than them, for we acted in direct opposition to the laws of the Torah.
לָכֵן כֹּה־אָמַר אֲדֹנָי יֱהֹוִה יַעַן הֲמׇנְכֶם מִן־הַגּוֹיִם אֲשֶׁר סְבִיבוֹתֵיכֶם בְּחֻקּוֹתַי לֹא הֲלַכְתֶּם וְאֶת־מִשְׁפָּטַי לֹא עֲשִׂיתֶם וּכְמִשְׁפְּטֵי הַגּוֹיִם אֲשֶׁר סְבִיבוֹתֵיכֶם לֹא עֲשִׂיתֶם׃ - Therefore, thus said the Lord God: Because you have been more turbulent than the nations that are around you, and have not walked in My statutes, nor kept My judgments, neither have you done according to the judgments of the nations that are around you.
What is the meaning of hamonchem? Rashi explains that it is related to hazminchem - you designated yourselves to be more lawless than the nations, from the language of "and the king appointed (vayeiman) for them," meaning he designated. Rashi also cites an alternative explanation in the name of Menachem, that hamonchem derives from hamon (a multitude) and hemiyah (clamor or uproar), as in "the nations raged (hamu goyim)" - and as explained earlier, a multitude is called a hamon because wherever crowds gather there is commotion and clamor. According to this, it means: you are turbulent and clamorous like the nations around you.
"Neither have you done according to the judgments of the nations that are around you" - as noted, the nations have their beliefs and their laws, and they did not exchange their faith and laws for others, whereas you exchanged My glory for that which is worthless. Our Sages also explain: you did not act like the upright among them, but rather like the corrupt among them. If you chose to exchange your conduct and live like a gentile, at least emulate the decent among them; but instead you mimicked the most degenerate of the nations, adopting the corruptions of each people, clinging to them, and bringing them here into the Land.
As has been explained more than once, we have nothing to take from the nations - nothing at all. Many claim: "We can also learn from the gentiles; they have good practices." This is a complete and absolute misconception, and whoever says this lacks faith. The reason is simple: the Holy One, blessed be He, gave us a Torah of life to live by. Is it conceivable that there is a single good thing that Hashem did not include in the Torah? Anyone who thinks so denies a fundamental truth, for the Holy One, blessed be He, is the perfection of all goodness, and the Torah is a Torah of life - "statutes by which a person shall live." Either way: if something is written in the Torah, one does not need the gentile to learn it from him; and if it is not written in the Torah, Hashem has instructed us not to do it and not to learn from him.
Do not misunderstand: this is not to say that no non-Jews behave properly. There certainly may be some who do. The question is whether we should learn from them, and to that the answer is clear: we learn from the Torah, not from them. If a practice does not appear in the Torah, do not adopt it, for Hashem instructed us not to conduct ourselves that way; and if it is written in the Torah, all the more so we should embrace it without any need for the gentile.
And this is precisely what Chazal said: "If a person tells you there is wisdom among the nations, believe it; if they tell you there is Torah among the nations, do not believe it." If someone tells you there is wisdom among the nations - believe it and accept it. They have invented things, discovered understanding in the celestial bodies, and there are things that the Sages of Israel heard from the sages of the nations, and the Gemara explicitly states that the Sages of Israel conceded to the sages of the nations. Wisdom one may accept, and if you need it - for instance, a professor who is a genius in his field from whom there is something to learn - go and learn. But Torah, which is guidance and conduct - do not believe it, for if the conduct is correct, it is already written in our Torah, and there is no need to learn it from their teachings and practices. Whatever is needed to straighten a person's conduct and character traits is written in the Torah, and whatever is not written in the Torah is not needed.
"And Yeshurun grew fat and kicked" - the very silver and gold that I multiplied for them, they went and made for the Baal. "Nor have you acted according to the ordinances of the nations around you," for they did not exchange their gods, yet you exchanged Me for what is of no avail. The Malbim explains that Israel's sin here is twofold. First: that they learned from the nations not to follow Hashem's statutes and ordinances. The nations do not know the statutes of Hashem, and when you imitate them, you drift away from Hashem's statutes and ordinances even without malicious intent - and this was always the danger of closeness to the nations. It is enough to send your child to a secular school, which is essentially like a non-Jewish school, and he will naturally grow up immersed in everything they do and will not observe any mitzvos. This is "Because of your multitude (hamonchem) from among the nations, you did not walk in My statutes." The Malbim notes that the word "hamon" (multitude/tumult) usually denotes reproach, as in "a vast multitude," indicating that this people is tumultuous and disordered, and you became baser and more vulgar than the nations - and from where did this come? "Hamonchem min hagoyim" - you learned it from them.
And second: "Nor have you acted according to the ordinances of the nations around you" - you did not even observe the good civil laws of the nations. Had you adopted their proper conduct as a package deal, it would be one thing; but you took from the gentile specifically what was corrupt, while the things he conducts with integrity and according to the general spirit of the Torah - those you did not learn from him. It turns out that you behaved in ways practiced neither by a believer in the faith of Israel nor by those who follow the customs of the nations. In short, you were left empty of both. Had you at least adopted the customs of the nations completely, you might have acquired their manners and civil order; but you abandoned the Jewish religion, while the civil laws of the nations, their manners, and their proper codes of conduct you failed to adopt - leaving you destitute of everything.
The chapter opens with the parable of the razor: the shaving of the hair of the head and the beard symbolizes the severance of Israel's attachment to Hashem, the wicked and the righteous alike, and the division of the hair by weight into three parts symbolizes the three calamities - famine within the city, the sword around it, and scattering to the wind with a sword drawn in pursuit. The few bound in the hem of the garment are, according to the Malbim, the poorest of the land who remained under Gedaliah, and even from them fire went forth - the murder of Gedaliah by Yishmael ben Nesanyah, which led to the destruction of the remnant. Then comes the meaning: Jerusalem was placed at the navel of the earth, in the finest and most temperate of lands, to be a light unto the nations in civil laws between man and his fellow and in divine statutes between man and the Omnipresent - yet she exchanged the laws for wickedness more than the nations, deliberately doing the exact opposite of divine justice, which is the farthest extreme from the good. Worst of all: they did not act like the righteous among the nations, but acted like the corrupt among them, leaving themselves empty of both Torah and basic human integrity. From here emerges the eternal message: we have nothing to learn from the nations regarding conduct and character traits - if they tell you there is wisdom among the nations, believe it; if they tell you there is Torah among the nations, do not believe it, for all goodness has already been given to us in the Torah of life.