In the continuation of Yirmiyahu's rebuke in Chapter 2, the prophet turns to describe the relationship between the Holy One, Blessed is He, and Knesset Yisrael as that of a husband and wife. The central claim in our passage is twofold: on the one hand, the yoke of mitzvot that the Holy One, Blessed is He, placed upon Israel is incomparably lighter than the demands of idolatry; and on the other hand, Israel did not merely abandon Him, but denied it and claimed "I have not sinned," turning sin into an ideology. We will proceed through the verses in order, in light of the explanations of the Malbim, along with the words of Rashi and the Radak.
כִּי מֵעוֹלָם שָׁבַרְתִּי עֻלֵּךְ נִתַּקְתִּי מוֹסְרוֹתַיִךְ וַתֹּאמְרִי לֹא אֶעֱבוֹר, כִּי עַל כָּל גִּבְעָה גְּבֹהָה וְתַחַת כָּל עֵץ רַעֲנָן אַתְּ צֹעָה זֹנָה׃ (כ) - For of old I broke your yoke and burst your bonds, yet you said, "I will not transgress"; for on every high hill and under every leafy tree you recline as a harlot. (20)
The Malbim explains: Service can be difficult from two perspectives. From the aspect of positive mitzvot - that there are demanding commandments requiring actions of me and restricting me. And from the aspect of negative mitzvot - that one is told: this is forbidden to you, abstain from this, do not touch that. The analogy is an ox: a heavy yoke is placed upon the ox for labor, and it is tied with reins and cords so that it does not cross the boundary to which they wish to guide it. Therefore it says, "I broke your yoke" - corresponding to the positive mitzvot; "I burst your bonds" - from the language of prohibitions (issurim), corresponding to the negative commandments, like those reins that bind the ox so it does not wander where it is forbidden.
The Holy One, Blessed is He, says: My mitzvot, from both aspects, are light. Regarding actions - "I broke your yoke." On the contrary, what the idols demanded was a far heavier yoke: "For even their sons and their daughters they burn in fire to their gods." But I broke this yoke from upon you, and never asked human sacrifice of you, as the prophet expresses it, "nor did it enter My mind." And regarding warnings and prohibitions - "I burst your bonds": the restrictions binding idolaters were far more severe, and I loosened those bonds. I was content with your saying, "I will not transgress" - merely that you not cross the boundary I set for you. It turns out that "it is evil and bitter for you to forsake Hashem your God": you thought that by leaving Hashem life would be easier and more comfortable, but instead you replaced Him with idolatry whose demands are harsh and whose service is crushing.
One must notice that since then, idols have upgraded themselves. They realized that people seek convenience, and therefore nowadays the requirements are minimal. Christianity only requires that you believe in that man, and beyond that it is a very liberal religion; true, there are Catholics who forbid marriage and divorce, but in general the life of a Christian is quite easy. The life of a Muslim is slightly more restricted - five prayers, a ban on alcohol - but beyond that his life is not restricted. They understood: if you want to win over many believers, do not impose a difficult religion upon them; make your religion user-friendly.
And from time to time, various self-styled "rabbis" arise who want to make Judaism "accessible," supposedly "in the way of Beit Hillel." Why forbid him from marrying her, a non-Jewish woman? Come on, do not be an extremist; one can pull off some little trick, and presto, she becomes Jewish, and all is peaceful in Israel. And you are supposedly heartless, for he has children with her! In the twenty-first century, we are told, you must offer a friendlier religion, more sympathetic, more welcoming, if you want accessibility to wide audiences. In short - we have become like Christians. For that is Christianity: absorb anyone who comes, just come to the religion of love, just come.
And Judaism - does it seek "just come"? Look at what Naomi did to Ruth: she tested her to the very limit before agreeing to accept her - "Go back," "Turn back," until "she saw that she was determined to go." What does "determined" mean, and what did she see there? The Vilna Gaon offers a wonderful explanation of this (which can be heard in the shiur for Shavuot). Either way, to be a Jew requires investing effort; one must humble and wear oneself out. "The Patriarchs ran before Me like horses" - and that is how they merited what they merited. But to think that people can join instantly, send you a conversion certificate by fax, and that is that? After all, to join a motorists' club one must show more qualifications, and to get a visa to the United States one must prove more than what is demanded today by some to become a Jew. In ancient times, idolatry had many demands and many restrictions; today, having realized that people merely seek something to soothe their conscience, they created something light and unburdensome that one can live with comfortably and feel good about oneself.
Here the Malbim explains how "it is evil and bitter for you to forsake Hashem your God": come and see to what lawlessness and abandonment you have descended, to the point that "you recline as a harlot." "Tzo'ah" with the letter Ayin relates to tempest and restlessness - storming after promiscuity on every high hill, like a woman who abandoned her husband and made herself available to all, upon every mountain and hill. That in itself is a great evil. And this is the reality of the Jewish people who abandoned the Holy One, Blessed is He, Who is, as it were, the Beloved and Husband, and consequently she was left abandoned and vulnerable to every nation.
And so we see with our own eyes: every nobody threatens the destruction of Israel; every nobody levels accusations against us. Even Assad criticizes us for not being sympathetic enough, for not knowing how to handle conflicts - one could take a masterclass from him in gentleness! The United States mistakenly bombed a village in Tora Bora and thousands were killed - misidentification, oops, sorry, moving on, over and done with. Who counts Afghan lives? But when the IDF allegedly hit a boy named Muhammad al-Durrah, without even any proof - the whole world is in an uproar, and legal proceedings abroad are still being litigated over it to this day. Meanwhile, Assad has managed to slaughter half his people, and no one cuts their vacation short for hundreds of thousands of Syrians. All that bothers anyone is that we are not doing enough to advance the peace process, that we supposedly have a partner while we put sticks in the spokes; and everyone has always "known" that the Palestinians seek peace while we are the problem. The prophet says: How did you reach such a state? Because you abandoned your Husband. If you had stayed with your Husband, no nobody would dominate or rule over you.
The Radak explains tzo'ah as an expression of travel or movement, as in "the wandering exile hastens (tzo'eh) to be freed" and "marching (tzo'eh) in the greatness of his strength." Meaning, you move and wander from deity to deity: you had one God Who watched over and protected you, yet you roam from hill to hill and under every leafy tree to serve idols. Rashi, on the other hand, interprets tzo'ah from the root of matza, a bed - like a harlot sprawling on every bed.
וְאָנֹכִי נְטַעְתִּיךְ שׂוֹרֵק כֻּלֹּה זֶרַע אֱמֶת, וְאֵיךְ נֶהְפַּכְתְּ לִי סוּרֵי הַגֶּפֶן נָכְרִיָּה׃ (כא) - "Yet I planted you as a choice vine, entirely a seed of truth; how then have you turned into the degenerate shoots of an alien vine to Me?" (21)
The Malbim explains: It was their practice that when they had an inferior vine, they would graft onto it a cutting, a branch from the superior sorek variety, in order to improve the vine. However, in such a case, although this practically improved the fruit of the vine, it also carried a defect: it was no longer "a seed of truth" - meaning, it was no longer purely of that same kind, but mixed with a foreign species. And as is well known, crossbred species (kilayim) do not reproduce - what it produced at that moment would remain, but it would not continue beyond that. It turns out that artificial improvement is temporary and does not endure for future generations.
To this, the Holy One, blessed be He, says: With Me, that was not so. "Yet I planted you as a sorek" - first of all, a choice vine; and lest you think it was a defective vine onto which a superior variety was grafted, which would mean it was not "truth" - it therefore says, "entirely a seed of truth," not a graft from a foreign species, but authentic seed. How, then, despite all this, did you turn into "the degenerate shoots of an alien vine" (surei hagefen nochriyah)? There are two corruptions here: "surei hagefen" - an inferior, degenerate vine; and "nochriyah" (alien) - not a true seed, but from a foreign species. "Surei" comes from the root of sar (turned away or departed), as in "devoid of discretion" (sarat ta'am), whose flavor has turned foul.
What is the allegory? The Malbim explains: The Holy One, blessed be He, planted us separated from the nations. Seemingly, this separation creates a drawback, since we cannot integrate with the nations, whereas if we did, perhaps we would become even more refined. The Holy One, blessed be He, says: Exactly the opposite. Even though I created you separated from the nations, nonetheless "I planted you as a sorek" - you are the most gifted and capable of nations. And as we have discussed in the past, by all metrics and parameters, Am Yisrael in terms of talent is the most successful of nations: among the world's wealthiest, among the inventors, among the bankers - in every respect. Thus, separation is not a minus, but a plus. And what did you do instead? You went and assimilated among other nations, lost your form of sanctity, and joined with peoples who, far from benefiting you, only cause you harm. I planted a seed of truth that tolerates no mixture and cannot blend with others - and not only did you gain no benefit, but you degraded your condition even further.
It is told that people came and told Ben-Gurion that his son or daughter was about to marry a gentile, and he replied that it was good "to improve the breed." May his merit protect him, his children, and all who follow in his ways... The Holy One, blessed be He, says: "I planted you as a sorek" - the finest in the world - and what did you go and plant? "The degenerate shoots of an alien vine." You departed from the choice vine to become like an alien vine, like one grafted with a foreign species, and you corrupted your great stature.
כִּי אִם תְּכַבְּסִי בַּנֶּתֶר וְתַרְבִּי לָךְ בֹּרִית, נִכְתָּם עֲוֺנֵךְ לְפָנַי נְאֻם אֲדֹנָי יֱהֹוִה׃ (כב) - "For even if you wash with natron and take much lye, your iniquity remains stained before Me, says the Lord God." (22)
"Neter" (natron), Rashi explains, is a type of earth that people scoop up in their hands and rub onto clothes: they would take this mineral-rich earth and scour the garment with it. It is similar to what one sees among garage mechanics, who use soap mixed with abrasive, sand-like granules to clean their hands. "Borit" is either related to purity and cleanliness, as in "pure of heart" (bar leivav), or, as Rashi notes, some translate borit as soap in Old French (savon), showing that this is a very ancient word.
The Holy One, blessed be He, says: Even if you wash with natron and take much lye, scrubbing vigorously with soap, "your iniquity remains stained before Me." "Nichtam" (stained), Rashi explains, means an indelible mark of a stain that cannot be cleansed and will not come out. And to which sin does this refer? Rashi explains that it refers to the sin of the Golden Calf, which is an enduring stain that never completely disappears, as it is written, "Yet on the day when I visit, I will visit their sin upon them" - the stain accompanies them perpetually, and in every reckoning that befalls the people of Israel, there is an element of retribution for the sin of the Golden Calf.
Radak raises a difficulty: this seems astonishing on the surface. The prophet, in the plain sense, is rebuking them for their own sins, not putting them on trial for the sin of the Golden Calf of long ago; how then could he tell them that even if they wash and use much soap there is no remedy? On the contrary, another verse says: "Wash your heart from evil, Jerusalem, so that you may be saved"! The answer: Chazal say that had that generation genuinely repented, the Holy One, blessed be He, would have sent them salvation; they would have been saved from the enemy and He would not have exiled them - yet they still would have received punishment for their deeds in the Land. That is to say, going without punishment was impossible, but they would have been spared exile, and the Holy One, blessed be He, would have chastised them here. The reason, Radak explains, is that there is a type of sin that is not atoned for by repentance alone, as is well known from the four categories of atonement - there are sins that also require afflictions. Therefore, "your iniquity is stained before Me," and there is no choice but to suffer for it. What, then, would repentance accomplish? "Wash your heart from evil, Jerusalem, so that you may be saved" - that you will not have to go into exile, but will receive your afflictions here in the Land. And since they did not repent, they were forced into exile and suffered those afflictions in the land of their enemies, being struck doubly.
And Chazal themselves ask this question and answer: one verse speaks of a decree accompanied by an oath, and the other speaks of a decree without an oath. "Wash your heart from evil, Jerusalem, so that you may be saved" was said regarding a decree without an oath, where it is still possible to rectify and alter the outcome; but when there is an oath accompanying the decree - even if you wash with natron and use much soap, your iniquity remains stained before Me, and nothing will help any longer. As it says: "Therefore I have sworn to the house of Eli that the iniquity of the house of Eli will not be atoned for by sacrifice or offering forever" - there, an oath was involved, and once an oath exists, it can no longer be changed.
The Malbim offers a very original explanation here, which resolves from the outset why washing does not help. "Though you wash with natron" does not mean purifying ourselves from iniquities; rather, it refers to the claim made earlier: "and you say, 'I am innocent,'" "because you say, 'I have not sinned.'" The greatest sin of all is claiming "I have not sinned." That is "though you wash with natron and use much soap" - you live with the sense that you are clean, pure and spotless, that there is no iniquity in you, as though you had never sinned at all. And to this, the Holy One, blessed be He, says: through this very attitude the stain adheres - "your iniquity is stained before Me," leaving no possibility of rectification.
The reason is that there is a fundamental difference between a chet (sin) and an avon (iniquity). As is the Malbim's regular approach, a chet is an act born of lust, error, or inadvertence, whereas an avon is a distortion of the intellect. As explained several times: initially, a person sins - he errs, makes a mistake, or follows his desires. Afterwards, he feels bad about himself, for "God made man upright," and when a person does wrong, he finds no peace. At this junction, two choices present themselves: the first is to repent, and then he will feel good about himself, for a truly happy person is one whose actions are validated, and one who walks in the path of Hashem is genuinely happy. The second choice, which is easier: why should I change my ways? Let us build an ideology around the sin, turning it from a lapse after the fact into an ideal from the outset. A bypass around the conscience is paved: the conscience says this is bad, but I say that on the contrary, it is good, for man was created to live freely and do whatever he pleases, and that this is the right way.
It turns out that he took the chet, and instead of repenting for it, transformed it into an avon - a distortion of the intellect. What began as a sin driven by lust became an intellectual distortion that justifies the deed, concluding that "this is how one must act, this is the rule, this is the proper standard" - thus cementing the sin permanently. Regarding this it is said: "For though you wash with natron and use much soap," convincing yourself that you did not sin - "your iniquity is stained before Me." A profound corruption has taken place here, for a simple sin has turned into an avon, and with an avon one denies the commandment, denies everything: you know that you sinned and yet you justify it - what is that if not a distortion of the intellect? Had you acknowledged that you sinned and repented, it could have been easily remedied, for sins of passion can be easily rectified; but here it became an avon endorsed by the intellect, forging a path of sin treated as a virtue from the outset, and consequently there are no pangs of conscience left.
אֵיךְ תֹּאמְרִי לֹא נִטְמֵאתִי, אַחֲרֵי הַבְּעָלִים לֹא הָלַכְתִּי, רְאִי דַרְכֵּךְ בַּגַּיְא דְּעִי מֶה עָשִׂית, בִּכְרָה קַלָּה מְשָׂרֶכֶת דְּרָכֶיהָ׃ (כג) - "How can you say, 'I have not been defiled, I have not gone after the Baalim'? See your way in the valley, know what you have done, a swift young she-camel interlacing her ways." (23)
The Malbim explains: the denial is twofold. It relates both to the defilement itself - "I have not been defiled" - and to the journey - "I have not gone after the Baalim"; that is, not only was I not defiled through idolatry, but I never even went there. Scripture refutes both claims. In response to "I have not gone after the Baalim": "See your way in the valley" - the impression of the footsteps on the path by which you went to the Baalim is still visible; your tracks are noticeable in the valley. And in response to "I have not been defiled": "Know what you have done" - you yourself know that you were defiled by idolatry there, so how can you deny it?
"A swift young she-camel" - Rashi and Radak explain that this is a young female camel, youthful in days, which runs faster than a male. The Malbim notes that bichrah or bechor always denotes the finest of its kind, as in "his firstling bullock," "I will also make him My firstborn," and like bikkurim, which are the choice first fruits. "A swift young she-camel" - when she runs, she runs with agility and ease, as if her footsteps and paces leave no impression.
Yet despite all this, she is "interlacing (mesarechet) her ways." Mesarechet is related to seroch (shoelace), an expression of tying, as in "bound after him." That is, your feet are tied to the road, and even while running, your footsteps are clearly visible on the path. You cannot say "I was not there" - your tracks are apparent. Even though you are a swift young camel, you were nonetheless intertwining your paths, your steps bound to the road, and there are signs and proof that you were in that very place, where you sinned and went after the Baalim. How, then, can you tell Me, "I have not been defiled"?
פֶּרֶה לִמֻּד מִדְבָּר בְּאַוַּת נַפְשָׁהּ שָׁאֲפָה רוּחַ, תַּאֲנָתָהּ מִי יְשִׁיבֶנָּה, כָּל מְבַקְשֶׁיהָ לֹא יִיעָפוּ בְּחָדְשָׁהּ יִמְצָאוּנְהָ׃ (כד) - A wild donkey accustomed to the wilderness, sniffing the wind in her lust; her craving - who can turn it back? All who seek her need not weary themselves; in her month they will find her. (24)
This verse is very difficult linguistically, and we will explain it according to the Malbim. The fundamental principle is this: someone who serves idols for personal benefit and pleasure is easy to bring to repentance, for it is enough to show him that he is not receiving the benefit he hoped for. He does not worship it out of ideology, but because he was promised something, and the moment he does not receive it, it is easy for him to walk away.
So we find regarding that Levite who went and served Micah's idol, whom Chazal identify as Shevuel, and whom David brought back in teshuvah. How? David understood that this Levite was greedy. For when someone came to offer food to the idol, he told him: "Leave it, this idol gives nothing, you will gain nothing from it - arrange food for me here and I will take care of you." They asked him: "If so, what are you doing here serving as an idolatrous priest?" He replied: "Livelihood, my friend, one has to make a living, but I do not truly believe in this." King David realized that the man loved dealing with money, and appointed him over the royal treasuries. Following this, he abandoned all matters of idolatry, for the idol was never the main thing, only a vehicle to earn a salary. That lasted until Shlomo came and dismissed him for his own reasons, at which point he returned to his idolatry.
The Malbim explains: when someone sins out of love for the sin itself, the sin is not incidental to him, but essential. One who worships idols for a livelihood, the idolatry is incidental to him and the money is essential; if he can acquire money another way, he will go there. But one for whom idolatry is essential, who worships because he believes in it and trusts in it and holds it dear to his heart - it is very difficult to bring him to repentance. Even if you show him a thousand proofs that it does not provide for his needs, he is not serving it for his needs; he serves "for the sake of Heaven," so to speak, and is not an egoist. Indeed, it is very difficult to bring ideologues of sin back in teshuvah. A person who transgresses out of lust - if you show him that there are greater pleasures in life, he will abandon foolish lusts and connect to more spiritual, authentic pleasures. But one who built an ideology around his idolatry, around his heresy, is difficult to pull away, for even if you prove to him that it harms him, he will say: "Am I doing this for personal gain? I do this because I believe it is the truth!"
The Malbim cites in the name of the Philosopher that they would say: one who commits adultery for money is essentially a scoundrel and only incidentally an adulterer. That is, someone who commits adultery for money is essentially unscrupulous, while the adultery itself is merely incidental, since if they brought him money in another way, he would take the other way; the adultery is nothing more than a vehicle to acquire money. Therefore, an adulteress who acts for a prostitute's fee can easily be turned back if her needs are provided for in her husband's home - for she will see that she has no reason for it when she receives more at home. By contrast, a woman who is unfaithful without receiving payment, who is essentially promiscuous - it is very difficult to turn her back. One who commits a sin for the sake of the sin itself, and not for peripheral benefits, has an ideology and an intrinsic desire in the sin. If the sin is not primary, but only what one gains from it, tell him: "Come receive it from me in a permissible way," and he will come. But if the sin itself is the essence - how do you bring such a person to repentance?
With this foundation, we can understand the verse. The Jewish people are compared to a "wild donkey accustomed to the wilderness." All animals run and leap for a purpose: this one runs because it knows there is food there, the lion chases the deer to eat it, and an animal flees from a forest fire. Their running is meant to achieve a benefit or escape harm, not a goal in itself. But the species called a "wild donkey" - "accustomed to the wilderness," where the desert ingrained this nature into it and trained it - runs without any reason. Its nature is erratic and restless; it runs constantly, neither to obtain anything nor to flee. Other animals, if you say to them, "Stop, here is food for you," will eat and stop running. But for the wild donkey, running is essential to it, not incidental; it is the purpose itself.
"Sniffing the wind in her lust" - inhaling the wind is not for the sake of anything else, but is simply its nature. As is well known, when a person runs, his breathing is heavy and he inhales wind in large quantities. Here, too, the running and inhaling of the wind are not a means of catching prey or fleeing from predators, but are themselves its pleasure. To run, to pant, to inhale the wind - this is the goal itself, even without any practical need.
Therefore, "her craving - who can turn it back?" The word ta'anatah is related to inah leyado ("caused it to happen to his hand"), meaning an occurrence, and similarly mit'aneh hu li ("he seeks an occasion against me") - looking for a pretext; that is, all the happenings that occur to it. Who can turn it back from the occurrences that happen to it, when this is not an accident or incidental circumstance, but its very essence? If the events were incidental - it is looking for food and therefore it runs - you could provide food for it right here and it would stop running. But since running is a purpose in itself, even if it is given its food, it will continue running in the desert. "All who seek her need not weary themselves" - whoever seeks it, it is without reason, without purpose and without sense; no matter how much you pursue it, you will grow weary and not catch it, you pursue it in vain, for its nature cannot be changed. You can take a horse and place it in an enclosure, you can put a wild ass in an enclosure, but a wild donkey accustomed to the wilderness cannot be kept in an enclosure. For the goal of its running is not food but running itself, and this restless, rebellious nature will remain within it even if you subdue it, bring it in, and conquer it.
How, then, can one overcome it? "In her month they will find her." The Malbim explains: when the wild donkey accustomed to the wilderness is born, it has a first month in which it is still trainable, having not yet acquired this trait as second nature. "In her month" - in its first month, that is the only time when "they will find her," when it can still be subdued and mastered. But once they have become habituated in their nature, there is no chance, and anyone who chases after it will only grow weary and exhausted, unable to properly catch it.
מִנְעִי רַגְלֵךְ מִיָּחֵף וּגְרוֹנֵךְ מִצִּמְאָה, וַתֹּאמְרִי נוֹאָשׁ, לוֹא כִּי אָהַבְתִּי זָרִים וְאַחֲרֵיהֶם אֵלֵךְ׃ (כה) - Withhold your foot from being unshod and your throat from thirst; but you said, "There is no hope! No, for I have loved strangers, and after them I will go." (25)
Rashi explains: You are like a wild donkey that loves to always be in motion, and the prophets tell you - withhold yourself from going barefoot. Do not follow the nations and idolatry, which will force you to walk barefoot. And where did we walk barefoot? Into exile. In other words: withhold trouble from yourself; do not do evil deeds because of which you will later be forced to walk barefoot. "And your throat from thirst" - and when did we go thirsty? When they took us out into exile, and the Ishmaelites came with blown-up waterskins and salty fish, and thirst was the weapon, leading to what happened. The Holy One, blessed be He, says: I advise you right now - withhold this thirst from yourself; repent now, and you will not have to go into exile barefoot, nor will you have to suffer thirst there.
Yet Kenesset Yisrael replies: "And you said, 'It is hopeless!'" - there is no point, I despair of your words; there is nothing in your words that could convince me, and I no longer have any use for what you say. "For I have loved strangers, and after them I will go" - and this is already in the realm of love, not of practical benefit.
Here the Malbim explains the nimshal (the underlying meaning). We noted that for a wayward woman who commits adultery for the sake of hire, one could provide for her needs in a permissible way so that she would not need to entangle her ways. Thus the husband says to her: "Withhold your foot from being unshod" - if you go out to pursue promiscuity, you will be forced to walk barefoot, whereas if you remain at home, that will not be so. For what is she lacking? Perhaps shoes, perhaps wine to drink, and for this reason she goes to commit wicked deeds in order to have money to buy shoes and wine. The husband tells her: Keep yourself from being unshod - stay here, do not go astray, and I will provide shoes for you; "and your throat from thirst" - stay here and I will provide you with wine, so you will not have to commit sins to gain a profit.
"And you said, 'It is hopeless!'" - you say that you despair of all these things. And why? Because when one strays essentially, by nature, it is not done to achieve some external goal. Do I lack wine? Do I lack shoes, that you should tell me to acquire them in a permissible way? "No! For I have loved strangers, and after them I will go" - I did not follow them for the sake of another goal; rather, the love of strangers is itself the goal and the ultimate purpose. If so, this is just like the wild donkey accustomed to the wilderness, whose running is not to reach a destination but is itself the purpose. So too here: the entire purpose is to go after strangers, to worship idols, and to attach oneself to the nations. Therefore, any attempt to offer me gain in an alternative way is futile - I am not looking for profit; rather, the idolatry and the strangers are an end in themselves.
In this passage, the prophet rebukes Israel in several stages: The Holy One, blessed be He, broke the yoke and burst the bands, giving them a faith whose requirements are incomparably lighter than those of idolatry - and yet they abandoned it, abandoning themselves on every hill and under every leafy tree, leading to a state where every nameless scoundrel ruled over them. They were planted as a "choice vine, entirely of true seed," set apart from the nations and the most distinguished of peoples, yet they transformed themselves into "the degenerate shoots of an alien vine" by assimilating among the nations. And worst of all: the denial of sin - "I have not sinned" - is like cleansing with natron and soap, which is ineffective, for it transforms an incidental sin into an iniquity of intellectual distortion, until "your iniquity is stained before Me." Finally, when sin becomes essential rather than incidental, like a wild donkey accustomed to the wilderness whose running is its very purpose, it is no longer enough to offer an alternative benefit - "For I have loved strangers, and after them I will go." From here lies a lesson for all generations: as long as sin is incidental, arising from lust or practical benefit, repentance and repair are within reach; but once an ideology is constructed around it, turning back becomes immensely difficult.