In this chapter, the prophet Yirmiyahu rebukes Israel for forsaking Hashem and for turning to idols and to alliances with foreign nations. In the passage before us, the prophet constructs a complete argument: he sends Israel to observe the nations of the world and learn from them the value of loyalty to one's god, and from there he proceeds to describe the sheer folly of exchanging a spring of living waters for broken cisterns, and the destruction that followed in its wake - a destruction that was entirely divine providence, not mere chance.
כִּי עִבְרוּ אִיֵּי כִתִּיִּים וּרְאוּ וְקֵדָר שִׁלְחוּ וְהִתְבּוֹנְנוּ מְאֹד וּרְאוּ הֵן הָיְתָה כָּזֹאת׃ - For cross over to the isles of Kittim and see, and send to Kedar and consider diligently, and see whether there was ever such a thing.
The Holy One, blessed be He, says to Israel: Go and see what happens among the nations. And why did he mention specifically these two nations, Kittim and Kedar? Chazal explain: the people of Kedar worship fire, and the Kittites worship water. The Kedarenes - perhaps potters, or the people of the "tents of Kedar," desert dwellers - worshiped fire. And even though fire-worshipers know that water extinguishes fire, meaning they see with their own eyes that their god is weak and limited, they nevertheless do not abandon it. Why? Because "this is my god, this is what I worship, and with this I remain." Now, if they, who see in physical reality that their god is limited, cling to it - why did you, who see that your God is infinite and unlimited, forsake the Holy One, blessed be He? This is the core of the argument.
At first glance, one might ask: the challenge is readily understood regarding the Kedarenes, the fire-worshipers, since water extinguishes fire. But regarding the Kittites, the water-worshipers, there seemingly is no challenge - they could say: we are the strong ones, water extinguishes fire. However, it appears that the matter works both ways. Which overcomes which, water or fire? It depends on which is greater in measure. If there is a massive fire and you pour water on it, it all evaporates; moreover, at first the fire may even flare up as it receives oxygen. It turns out that fire can overcome water, and water can overcome fire, all depending on the quantity. Thus, in both cases it is apparent that their god is limited: if your god is fire, a great deal of water will extinguish it; and if your god is water, a great deal of fire will evaporate it. Both have weaknesses, yet both remain loyal to their deities.
The Malbim is precise in analyzing the wording of the verse: Kittim was close to Eretz Yisrael, and therefore the verse says regarding them, "cross over to the isles of Kittim" - it is enough just to pass through there, as it is on the way. But regarding Kedar, it says, "send and consider diligently," because they are far away, desert dwellers, as it says, "Woe is me, that I sojourn in Meshech, that I dwell among the tents of Kedar." And what is the meaning of "consider diligently"? They were the nomads of those days, constantly moving from place to place: here today and there tomorrow, folding up a few poles and sheets of cloth and moving along. One might have thought that someone who continually changes places would also change his gods, since moving from place to place alters not only a person's geographic location but also his perspectives and beliefs. Yet while they change their location without hesitation, they never change their god - they remain devoted to it to the end. Therefore, "consider diligently," a deep examination: "and see whether there was ever such a thing" - has such a thing ever occurred, that they exchanged their god?
הַהֵימִיר גּוֹי אֱלֹהִים וְהֵמָּה לֹא אֱלֹהִים וְעַמִּי הֵמִיר כְּבוֹדוֹ בְּלוֹא יוֹעִיל׃ - Has a nation ever exchanged gods, which are no gods at all? Yet My people has exchanged its Glory for that which cannot profit.
First, a grammatical observation: it should have said, "Yet My people has exchanged My glory for that which cannot profit." Indeed, this is one of the eighteen tikkunei soferim (scribal emendations) in Scripture, where the text used euphemistic phrasing, declining to state "My glory" [as though God Himself were degraded], and therefore stated "its glory."
The Malbim explains this at length, noting several points. "Has a nation ever exchanged gods?" - Have you ever seen a people that exchanged, that is to say swapped, its god? And not merely an *am* (a distinguished nation), but a *goy*, a lower status. Even though they are idolaters on a lowly spiritual level, they do not exchange their gods. Moreover, notice: they have an obvious interest in exchanging it, since "they are no gods" - it amounts to nothing; you pray to it and it provides nothing, it is utterly unresponsive. Even so, the idolater remains loyal to it. In contrast: "yet My people" - not merely a nation, but My people, the chosen one, superior to any foreign nation - and yet they exchange their God.
Furthermore: "has exchanged its Glory for that which cannot profit." Sometimes a person casts something aside for the sake of another benefit; a person may even discard his dignity for the sake of profit, and though it brings him embarrassment, he says: What can I do? I waive my dignity because I will now derive a benefit from this. As someone once said: When you want to milk a cow, you have to bend down. One who fixates on his dignity will remain thirsty, while one who does not dwell on his dignity but asks what is needed right now knows how to bend down when necessary. But here, "yet My people has exchanged its Glory for that which cannot profit" - Israel degraded their honor for what? In order to take a powerless god with no strength and no substance. What logic is there in this?
There is a wonderful parable here from the Dubno Maggid. A parable of a young yeshiva scholar who was supported at his father-in-law's table, a diligent student of Torah who had no clue or involvement whatsoever in matters of business and livelihood. His father-in-law, a prominent businessman, wanted to introduce him a bit to the world of business. He gave him a large sum of money and said to him: "Go make a good deal, buy quality merchandise, so that you can begin trading, establish yourself, and stand on your own two feet." The young man went, searched, and saw toothpicks offered at a bargain price. He bought an entire shipping container of toothpicks. He returned to his father-in-law's house. "What did you buy?" "Toothpicks." "Woe is me! Who needs so many toothpicks? What will anyone do with them? Where will you market them? How many forests are in that container?" This "successful deal" remained stuck in the warehouse. His father-in-law told him: "Go back to the Beit Midrash, sit and learn."
A year passed, two years passed, and the father-in-law thought: perhaps the man learned something, perhaps he gained some experience. He gave him a decent sum of money once again and said: "Go make a good deal, but my friend - no toothpicks. Bring good merchandise, something that can be sold at a profit, pay attention to what you are buying." This was in the month of Elul, just before Rosh Hashanah, and suddenly the young man saw an offer too good to refuse: a shipping container of shofars, top quality, truly extraordinary. He bought the entire container and came to his father-in-law: "This time I bought something people need." "What did you buy?" "Shofars." "How many?" "A container." "What are you talking about? A synagogue needs just one shofar! The quantity you bought will last until the shofar of Mashiach! Who needs so many shofars?" - "Go back to the beit midrash. That is it, a businessman you will never be."
Now he is stuck with a container of shofars and a container of toothpicks in his warehouse, with no idea what to do with them. One day he met a shrewd merchant, one of those who could sell ice to Eskimos. He said to him: "Do me a favor, I have an entire container of toothpicks stuck in my throat like a bone; trade it for whatever you can, as long as I never see it again." The man took it. He met another merchant, no less shrewd, and said to him: "I have a container of shofars, I cannot bear to look at it, trade it for whatever you can." He replied: "No problem, count on me." A month later, the first merchant calls: "You won't believe it, I made an unbelievable deal - I managed to trade your toothpicks!" "For what?" "For shofars." Six minutes later, the second one calls: "We closed a deal, I traded your shofars." "For what?" "For toothpicks." He received both containers right back, and even paid a commission and broker's fee to both parties, returning home crestfallen and ashamed. He kept quiet and said nothing, but the son-in-law heard about it through the grapevine. He said to him: "You gave me a hard time, you spoke against me, you mocked my business sense - yet look at your licensed, expert merchants: one brought you shofars and the other brought you toothpicks! Why do you complain about me?" The father-in-law said to him: "You of all people should keep quiet. You were given money, and with money you can buy anything. But that poor fellow was given toothpicks - what could he do with them? He could only trade them for shofars. And the other was given shofars - he could only trade them for toothpicks. What else could they do in such a situation? But you were given money, with which one can buy anything."
Says the Dubno Maggid: This is what the Holy One, blessed be He, is saying here. "Has a nation exchanged gods, which are not gods?" - if a gentile nation were to exchange its god, what would it exchange it for? Toothpicks for shofars. This is worthless and that is worthless, yet even so, they do not exchange: one clings to his toothpicks and the other is stuck with his shofars. But "My people" - you were given money, you were given the living God, and this you exchanged for "that which does not profit." Against you there is truly a grievance. They, even if they were to trade, are merely trading a cow for a donkey. But you, who held the living God in your hands - for what did you trade Him?
שֹׁמּוּ שָׁמַיִם עַל זֹאת וְשַׂעֲרוּ חׇרְבוּ מְאֹד נְאֻם ה'׃ - "Be astounded, O heavens, at this, and storm with terror; be utterly desolate, says Hashem."
Rashi explains shomu as an expression of astonishment - let the heavens be astounded and marvel. Ve-sa’aru comes from the root of tempest (sa’ar). And over what should they storm, and what is the astonishment? "Be utterly desolate" [chorvu me'od] - as if you yourselves are destroyed; the Holy One, blessed be He, says: the Beit HaMikdash is destined to be destroyed, and over this the heavens must be astounded. The Malbim explains that the astonishment is over an extraordinary, baffling thing - over what is immediately stated next: "For My people have committed two evils." Over this, "be astounded, O heavens" - the heavens will marvel. And "storm" - the tempest and immense anguish will be over the magnitude of the destruction, that the People of Israel are "utterly desolate," as the prophet will immediately elaborate.
כִּי שְׁתַּיִם רָעוֹת עָשָׂה עַמִּי אֹתִי עָזְבוּ מְקוֹר מַיִם חַיִּים לַחְצֹב לָהֶם בֹּארוֹת בֹּארֹת נִשְׁבָּרִים אֲשֶׁר לֹא יָכִלוּ הַמָּיִם׃ - "For My people have committed two evils: they have forsaken Me, the source of living waters, to dig for themselves cisterns, broken cisterns that can hold no water."
Metzudat David explains that they went to worship the constellations and stars. Yet the constellations and stars have no intrinsic power of their own; rather, whatever they receive from the upper spiritual influx, from the holy sefirot, that is what they channel below. And why are they called "cisterns"? Because the constellations receive the influx upon themselves just as a cistern receives water into itself. However, they lack the power to retain this influx; they always channel it downward - the influx is neither within their control nor of their own power. Thus, you went to dig for yourself a cistern that lacks the power to retain the influx or bestow it upon whomever it pleases, "that can hold no water," and this is what you took for yourself as a god.
The Malbim explains that the folly here is twofold from two different angles: from the perspective of Whom they abandoned, and from the perspective of what they took in His place. From the perspective of Whom they abandoned, the evil is twofold: first, "they have forsaken Me," the very act of abandoning the Holy One, blessed be He, as was already stated: "Has a nation exchanged gods?" Second, they abandoned "the source of living waters" whose waters never fail; the Holy One, blessed be He, is a ceaselessly flowing stream, whereas the god to which you turn is a powerless deity that has no ability to benefit or do good.
And from the perspective of what they took, here too the evil is twofold. Had you exchanged one existing thing for another existing thing, an established entity for an established entity, the sin would only be the question of why you left this one, and what was so bad about switching to another - it could still be somewhat understood, since both exist. But when you exchange an existing reality for something nonexistent, that is double folly. For the cisterns they chose are not existing cisterns, but cisterns that must still be hewn, brought into existence. The Holy One, blessed be He, is a source of living water, bubbling and flowing; yet they went "to dig for themselves cisterns." A person has a flowing spring and blocks it up - why? In order to dig a cistern there from which to draw water! Had there already been a cistern full of water, one could perhaps fathom it: you blocked the spring because you already have a full cistern. But to block the spring just to dig a cistern that might yield water for you? Where is the logic? And in the end, it turns out that these cisterns are "broken cisterns that can hold no water."
The Malbim notes that bor (pit or cistern) spelled with a vav and bor spelled with an aleph are the same word, and Scripture alternates between them: "He went down and struck the lion inside the pit (ha-bo'ar)" in II Samuel, and likewise, "Who will give me water to drink from the pit (mi-bo'ar) of Beit Lechem?" - both spelled with an aleph. In our verse, it is written be'erot with an aleph. However, there is a fundamental difference between a bor (cistern) and a be'er (well): a cistern holds collected rainwater runoff, whereas a well contains flowing water from a spring, as it is written: "Drink water from your own cistern and running water from your own well" - for from a well, water flows and gushes forth. A well is a pit that contains water bubbling up from within it, whereas in a cistern, the water does not spring from within, but comes into it from elsewhere.
Notice, therefore: regarding a well, Scripture always uses the language of digging or excavating (chafirah or keriyah), whereas regarding a cistern that holds water, it uses the language of hewing (chatzivah). What is the difference? A cistern, whose waters are collected, is typically hewn out of hard rock or stone so that the water does not seep through and get absorbed into the ground. Not so with spring water, for which one digs in soft soil; there is no need for hard rock, because the water springs up on its own. That is why our verse uses the expression "to hew" (lachatzov), because water does not spring from it on its own: whatever you put into it is all that will be there, and if any water is absorbed, the water is lost.
And what is the difference between a "source of living water" and a cistern? A source of living water is a spring, a self-sustaining flow bubbling up from beneath the earth. A cistern, by contrast, is a cavity dug into the ground to store water; it has no independent flow or bubbling spring, but only receives water from the outside. People typically stored water in cisterns, or rainwater drained into them. But if the cistern leaks, even the water that is in it today will be gone tomorrow. A "broken cistern" means that the plaster coating its walls has cracked, and the water seeps through and vanishes. Thus, you went and hewed not merely cisterns, but "broken cisterns that cannot hold water" - what did you exchange for what?
And the lesson, says the Malbim, is this: Hashem's salvation is like a self-sustaining spring. There is no need to hew it out; it exists and flows perpetually on its own. Moreover, the more you draw from it, the more it springs forth: "And you shall draw water with joy from the springs of salvation." The Holy One, blessed be He, is an unceasing, flowing stream, and the more you take, the more He brings forth; for when you draw more, it means you place your trust in Hashem and look to Him, and the Holy One, blessed be He, says: You believe in Me and hope for Me, so I will bestow even more abundance upon you. This is a river that never runs dry on its own, and actually increases its flow according to demand. This is "a spring whose waters never fail" - it never disappoints and never runs dry.
In contrast, turning to other nations for help and support is like a cistern that requires extensive quarrying in the rock, because they wanted the cistern to hold the water and prevent it from being absorbed into the dirt, which is grueling labor. So it was with you: when you went to form alliances, relying on Egypt, Assyria, and the other nations to defend and save you, it was grueling work, for you had to pay them tribute and money just so they would provide some protective canopy. Second, its water is not self-replenishing; it must constantly be refilled. So it is with the nations: after toiling to forge these alliances, you must continually recharge them with more taxes, more bribes, more concessions. And third: ultimately, when you come to drink, they turn out to be "broken cisterns that cannot hold water." After all the alliances and efforts, it became clear that this was an unsustainable bond; you forged useless ties, for "Egypt helps in vain and to no purpose." As the prophet says, it is like a staff a person leans on, only for its splinters to pierce his hand - Egypt is a "splintered reed of a staff." We relied on them, we leaned on them, and suddenly discovered that all we had left were thorns in our hand, while leaning on them was out of the question. Those very cisterns you hewed with such toil and filled with water, in the moment of need, when you came to draw the water and benefit from it, suddenly proved to be ones "that cannot hold water."
הַעֶבֶד יִשְׂרָאֵל אִם יְלִיד בַּיִת הוּא מַדּוּעַ הָיָה לָבַז׃ - Is Israel a servant? Is he a home-born slave? Why has he become prey?
The verse is phrased as a cry of astonishment. After saying, "Be horribly afraid, be utterly desolate," the prophet now portrays the magnitude of the destruction and asks: Why has Israel become prey? His intent is to prove that this punishment came through Divine Providence and not by mere chance. First, from the standpoint of the nations' claim: "Is Israel a servant?"; next, from the standpoint of the power of the conquering nations: "Lions roar over him"; and then, "Even the children of Nof and Tachpanches will crush your skull." From all this it emerges that all these misfortunes were caused because we abandoned Hashem.
The Malbim explains: the subjugation of one person by another occurs in one of two ways. One possibility is purchase, a servant acquired with money (kinyan kaspo): a person buys a slave, pays for him, and the slave belongs to him and he has dominion over him. Likewise, when nations conquered in war, they would enslave the defeated people; this is acquisition, whether through money or conquest. The second possibility is that one is a slave not because I conquered him, but because he is the son of a slave: I acquired a slave, that slave fathered another slave, and the child automatically becomes my slave, even though I neither captured nor bought him personally.
The Malbim notes that even those who accepted the legitimacy of slavery for a servant acquired by money opposed it for an inherited servant. Historically, slavery met with opposition over long periods, yet until not so long ago, even a century and a half ago, slavery was still accepted, and in America the Civil War broke out over it. The same distinction exists in philosophical thought: one who accepts slavery for a servant bought with money may reject it for an inherited servant. A servant acquired with money - you bought him, you conquered him, that is understandable. But his child: why should he be born into slavery when you had no transaction with him? Did you purchase him for eternity? Under Halachah, it is indeed so: "And you shall bequeath them to your children after you, to inherit as a possession," for so the Torah and Divine wisdom decreed, stemming from the curse of Canaan: "Cursed be Canaan, a servant of servants shall he be to his brothers." Nonetheless, the nations understood that while enslaving someone you personally bought or captured applies to that individual, they found it much harder to accept that his child should automatically become your slave. Thus, a master has a stronger legal and moral claim over a purchased servant than over a home-born slave.
Therefore, the prophet asks: "Is Israel a servant" acquired with money, such that a master would have a strong claim of ownership over us? Did anyone purchase us? "Is he a home-born slave?" - do they have even the weaker claim over us of a home-born slave, one born as the child of a slave? They have neither a strong claim nor a weak claim against us. It turns out they have no legitimate claim whatsoever to come, conquer us, and rule over us.
עָלָיו יִשְׁאֲגוּ כְפִרִים נָתְנוּ קוֹלָם וַיָּשִׁיתוּ אַרְצוֹ לְשַׁמָּה עָרָיו נִצְּתוּ מִבְּלִי יוֹשֵׁב׃ - The young lions roared over him, they raised their voice; and they have made his land a desolation, his cities are burnt without inhabitant.
If so, what remains to be said? That he became plunder because they conquered him by force. Regarding this, the prophet wonders: "The young lions roared over him." For it was not fully grown lions that came upon them, but *kefirim*, young lions, tender in days - an allegory indicating that those who came against them were a weak kingdom, a lowly and powerless kingdom. And not only that, but they did not bite him nor tear him to pieces; they merely roared - in our words, they made noise. Furthermore: "they raised their voice," which, according to the Malbim, is merely the very beginning of producing sound.
The Malbim explains that raising one's voice is less than a roar. The opposite of raising one's voice is silence - meaning that raising one's voice is merely making any sound at all, the mere fact that one was not silent. A roar, by contrast, is the opposite of speaking softly; when one wishes to say that someone did not speak in a whisper, one says: he roared. Thus, a roar is far more than raising a voice: raising a voice means he was not silent, whereas a roar means he did not speak softly, a powerful sound. If so, how is it possible that nations that merely began to raise their voice, that merely opened their mouths, young lions that are not mighty nations, and who did not strike us but merely roared - yet nevertheless "they have made his land a desolation, his cities are burnt" (from the root of ignition), "without inhabitant"? Merely by raising their voice! All of this serves to prove that we were handed over to the nations by Divine Providence, that this did not happen on its own; for naturally, how could young nations possessing little power conquer us?
גַּם בְּנֵי נֹף וְתַחְפַּנְחֵס יִרְעוּךְ קׇדְקֹד׃ - The children of Noph and Tahpanhes as well shall smash your skull.
Rashi explains that this refers to Egypt, known by the cities of Noph and Tahpanhes. The people of Israel relied upon them and turned to them to seek assistance and support, and the prophet had already rebuked them, warning that Egypt is a broken reed and there is nothing to rely upon with them. *Yir'ukh* comes from the root of shattering (*yero'a*), as in "You shall break them (*tero'em*) with an iron rod" - an expression of breaking. And where will they break you? *Kodkod* - your skull; they will strike you on the head. Those very children of Noph and Tahpanhes, whom you bribed to come to your aid, not only will you receive no help from them, but you will also take blows to the head from them.
הֲלוֹא זֹאת תַּעֲשֶׂה לָּךְ עׇזְבֵךְ אֶת ה' אֱלֹהָיִךְ בְּעֵת מוֹלִכֵךְ בַּדָּרֶךְ׃ - Is it not this that does this to you, in that you have forsaken the Lord your God when He led you on the way?
And this matter defies the natural order of the world. If you reflect and ask what causes this destruction for us and what brought us to this, the answer is: "in that you have forsaken the Lord your God when He led you on the way." The parable is of an orphan whose father led him on the road, and now has left him, wandering in the wilderness. What happens to him? Whoever finds him first takes possession of him, for he has no master. So too with Israel: Hashem led you along the way, and now you are like an orphan who left his father, a child without a father, and anyone who wishes to seize you can immediately subjugate you.
And at first glance, it is difficult: why does it say *ta'aseh* in the feminine form? The Malbim explains: because it refers back to the word *zot* ("this") - this is the cause, this is what will do this to you. And what is it? "Your forsaking Hashem"; it is what causes all the nations to now be able to rule over you.
וְעַתָּה מַה לָּךְ לְדֶרֶךְ מִצְרַיִם לִשְׁתּוֹת מֵי שִׁחוֹר וּמַה לָּךְ לְדֶרֶךְ אַשּׁוּר לִשְׁתּוֹת מֵי נָהָר׃ - And now, what have you to do with the way to Egypt, to drink the waters of Shihor? And what have you to do with the way to Assyria, to drink the waters of the River?
Why do you abandon Me and trust in Egypt, to drink the waters of Shihor? Rashi notes that there is an allusion here: Have you forgotten that the Egyptians drowned your male newborns in the Nile, in Shihor? Shihor is the Nile, as it says, "From Shihor which is before Egypt." And why do you rebel against Me, and where are you going - "to the way of Assyria, to drink the waters of the River", going to the Euphrates River where Assyria is located? From here, says the Malbim, the Holy One, blessed be He, argues against them: You yourself caused your own downfall; if so, what business do you have going on the road to Egypt to ask them for help, when you could obtain your help from the Holy Sanctuary, seeking aid from the Holy One, blessed be He? What will you gain by turning to the way of Egypt - you will drink the waters of Shihor, from the waters of the Nile, instead of the Source of Living Waters that you abandoned, which is the Holy One, blessed be He?
תְּיַסְּרֵךְ רָעָתֵךְ וּמְשֻׁבוֹתַיִךְ תּוֹכִחֻךְ וּדְעִי וּרְאִי כִּי רַע וָמָר עׇזְבֵךְ אֶת ה' אֱלֹהָיִךְ וְלֹא פַחְדָּתִי אֵלַיִךְ נְאֻם אֲדֹנָי ה' צְבָאוֹת׃ - "Your evil will chastise you, and your backslidings will rebuke you; know and see that it is evil and bitter that you have forsaken Hashem your God, and that My dread was not upon you, says the Lord, Hashem of Hosts."
The Holy One, blessed be He, says: I do not need to bring you proof from Egypt; come and let Me show you from what you yourself have done. In this verse there are many pairings: chastisement and rebuke, knowing and seeing, evil and bitter - fertile ground for the Malbim.
First, the difference between chastisement (yisurim) and rebuke (tochechah). Rebuke is generally through words: a person comes to return his fellow to the good path and rebukes him so that he will improve his ways in the future. Chastisement is generally through force - either through harsh words and piercing moral admonition, or through blows and beatings. "Chastising him" means bringing him back forcefully to the good, and that is how the Holy One, blessed be He, chastises us; whereas rebuke is through speech, meant to return us to the good path in a pleasant manner.
The Malbim adds: It is the nature of the one who rebukes to clarify the matter from the side of the good - it is worthwhile for you to do this, in this way you will succeed, you will have blessing, you will see elevation, you will profit. Rebuke is always framed positively, pointing out how good things will be for you in the future if you act properly. Notice: the good or the benefit is not inherent in the body of the act, but external to it - if you do this, you will gain that; it is not the act itself that benefits you, but rather the act generates a consequence. Like a person who works: does the work itself provide sustenance? Even from a simple perspective, no. Rather, the employer committed that in return for such-and-such hours of work, you will receive such-and-such pay; thus the compensation is external to the work itself. Similarly, a father who rebukes his son, "Do not eat bad food lest you become ill" - is the food itself the illness? No, but it contains bacteria that act in the stomach or the body and cause an infection, from which the illness comes. This is a process of cause and effect: an action that brings about something else.
In contrast, one who chastises does so with whips, and the chastisement does not result from the sin by a natural process of cause and effect; rather, it depends on the independent will of the chastiser. If I say to you: If you do not listen to my voice, you will get a slap - does not listening naturally generate a slap by cause and effect? No. I decided that whoever does not listen will get a slap. But if I said: If you eat spoiled food you will get an upset stomach - that does not depend on my will; it is a matter of cause and effect, where eating something spoiled causes an upset stomach. Disobeying me does not bring a slap inherently; I decide to administer the slap. Thus, chastisement is not a natural cause and effect, but depends on the will of the chastiser.
And here the prophet says: Come and see that your afflictions are caused by the evil path itself, through cause and effect. "Your evil will chastise you" - not the whip and the rod of someone threatening and saying, "You disobeyed me, you will receive a blow," but the very act you did is what will strike you. This is comparable to a person who punched a punching bag with all his might, and the bag rebounded and delivered a blow straight to his head - there is no one here saying, "If you strike, you will receive a blow from me," but rather cause and effect: the punch you threw created recoil and bounced back at you. Your action creates a reaction that harms you. That is "Your evil will chastise you."
And likewise in reverse regarding rebuke. Ordinary rebuke operates by way of cause and effect: Do not eat spoiled food, it will harm you - the food causes a reaction in the body that produces illness, which results in harm. But here the rebuke is far worse: "and your backslidings will rebuke you" - the evil path itself harms you directly, not merely through cause and effect, but the action itself is damaging. Thus the roles are reversed: chastisement, which normally is not a matter of direct cause and effect, comes upon you as the direct outcome of your own actions; and the backslidings, the fact that you were wayward and strayed from the path, themselves rebuke you.
We have already explained at length that when a person experiences suffering, it is not merely a punishment but cause and effect. A person commits a sin and creates a destructive angel, a mashchit; and what does this destructive angel want? To be sustained. By whom? By the one who created it: "You created me, you sustain me." And how does it feed off him? By tormenting him, and thereby drawing vitality from him. This is the meaning of "A man's foolishness perverts his way, and his heart frets against Hashem" - his foolishness led him to sin, perverted his way, and afterward he fumes: Master of the Universe, why did You bring this upon me? Fool, did I bring this upon you? The creature you yourself created has approached you demanding sustenance! And the Holy One, blessed be He, in His abundant mercy, says: If I were to unleash upon you this Rottweiler that you created, you would not survive for a single moment. But "Hashem bears iniquity" - I sustain and nourish this destructive angel in the meantime, until you regain your senses and repent. This is an unfathomable and indescribable kindness: I angered my Creator, I committed a sin and created a destructive angel, and the Holy One, blessed be He, could rightfully have said to me: Is it not enough that you angered Me, but you also created a destructive angel, and now I have to help you? Yet even so, the Holy One, blessed be He, says: I will sustain that destructive angel. And what results from this? The person continues to create more destructive angels, because he does not get a blow to the head - for who is feeding and sustaining the angel? The Holy One, blessed be He, hoping that perhaps the person will repent. The result is something astonishing: Hashem sustains the angel, and the person continues to create additional destroyers, because he does not feel that it is bringing harm upon him and does not feel injured by it. Thus the Holy One, blessed be He, as it were, "harms Himself" - but this is the greatness of His boundless kindness: "For I desire not the death of the one who dies, but that he return from his ways and live."
The Malbim continues: Rebuke appeals to knowledge - there is clear evidence that what you are doing is bad; I rebuke you, speak to you, and demonstrate intellectually that your path is mistaken. Chastisement, on the other hand, is felt; I do not need to prove to you that your path is wrong, for you walk on this path and take blows. Chastisement is "seen." And "seeing" does not mean specifically with the eyes; the Malbim explains that the language of seeing applies to all five senses, as in "See, the smell of my son" - can one see a smell? Rather, seeing applies to everything: seeing a scent, seeing a sound, touch, taste. Therefore, something described with the language of seeing is something tangible; chastisement is "seen," meaning it is sensed, pain is felt. Rebuke, however, tells you: This is not worthwhile for you, harm will come of it, proving intellectually that the path is negative and leads to a negative destination.
According to this, the expression here is well understood: "Know and see that it is evil and bitter." Corresponding to "Your wickedness will afflict you" - since afflictions are tangible - it says "and see", seeing and sensory perception: you will see that it is "bitter" from the perspective of punishment, for punishment is bitterness, pain, and suffering. And corresponding to "and your backslidings will rebuke you", since rebuke brings intellectual conviction - it says "know", you will know through evidence and proofs "that it is evil", that the very act of forsaking the Holy One, blessed be He, is inherently evil in its own right.
And finally: "Nor was My fear upon you." The Holy One, blessed be He, says to her: That you have forsaken Hashem is evil and bitter, but "My fear" - reverence of Me and My service - is neither evil nor bitter. For why did you forsake Hashem? You said: The service of Hashem is hard, the service of Hashem is bitter, the service of Hashem demands effort. To this the Holy One, blessed be He, replies: Come and see that your fear of Me is good, sweet, and free of all burdensome labor, in contrast to the fear of idolatry, which is evil and bitter. How so? Idolatry made grueling demands on a person, such as passing their children through fire to Molech. The Holy One, blessed be He, says: I never demanded such a thing of you; I never demanded that you sacrifice your children to Me as an offering. "Nor was My fear upon you" - you cannot claim that reverence of Me was evil and bitter, whereas everything the idols demanded of you was indeed evil and bitter. If so, how could you go and forsake Hashem, taking on something entirely evil and bitter to you, when "My fear upon you" - that very service you claim to dread - is not evil or bitter in the least? Thus it turns out that you exchanged what is sweet and good for what is evil and bitter.
In this passage, the prophet constructs a complete indictment. He directs us to the Chittites and to Kedar to learn loyalty from them: even though they see that their gods are limited, and even though they continually wander from place to place, they do not exchange their gods, yet Israel exchanged their Glory for "that which does not profit". Regarding this, the Dubno Maggid offers a parable: the gentile exchanges toothpicks for shofars, but you exchanged pure silver with which everything can be bought. "Be astonished, O heavens" - the astonishment and outrage over the "two evils": forsaking the source of living waters that flows on its own and increases its flow according to demand, and in exchange, hewing out nonexistent cisterns that must be filled constantly and ultimately turn out to be broken cisterns that cannot hold water - this is the reliance on Egypt and Assyria, a crushed reed of a staff. From here stems the destruction: the nations have no claim over us, neither as a slave acquired with money nor as a home-born servant, and their power is nothing more than that of young lions roaring and raising their voice - yet they still laid the land waste, absolute proof that everything is by Divine providence. And all of this was caused by "this": forsaking Hashem at the very time He was leading you on the way, which left us like an orphan on the road, abandoned to whoever came first. Finally, the prophet teaches that the afflictions and rebuke are not external, but rather stem from the evil deed itself - the evil itself afflicts, and the backsliding itself rebukes; and what seemed bitter and difficult - the service of Hashem - is actually good and sweet, while what seemed easy and comfortable - the worship of idols - is what is truly evil and bitter.