Introduction: Sefer Yoel
We begin Sefer Yoel, the second book of the Trei Asar (the Twelve Minor Prophets). The Men of the Great Assembly wrote Sefer Yoel, and they also determined its placement: second in the order of Trei Asar, between Hoshea and Amos.
דְּבַר־יְהֹוָה֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר הָיָ֔ה אֶל־יוֹאֵ֖ל בֶּן־פְּתוּאֵֽל׃ - The word of Hashem that came to Yoel the son of Pethuel.
One of the great mysteries confronts us right at the opening of the book: who was Yoel ben Pethuel? The Ibn Ezra states simply that we have no way of knowing his generation; we cannot determine who he was or in what era he lived. Nonetheless, in the words of Chazal we find several traditions, which we will mention.
First View: Yoel the Son of Shmuel HaNavi
Rashi first cites the teaching of Chazal: Yoel ben Pethuel was the son of Shmuel HaNavi, who was called "Pethuel" because he enticed God through his prayer (pittah la-El). And although Scripture states regarding the sons of Shmuel that they did not walk in their father's ways, the commentaries explain that they may have repented later in life.
Second View: In the Days of Yehoram Son of Achav
Rashi brings another explanation: that this prophecy was delivered during the seven years about which Elisha said, "For Hashem has called for a famine," in the days of Yehoram son of Achav. According to this, it was a much later period. During those years, there were four years marked by four types of locusts, and another three years during which the rains were withheld, making a total of seven years. Why was it determined to be this period? Because here Scripture speaks of famine and locusts, and there too we find a famine, so the two are linked together.
Third View: In the Days of Menashe
Rashi brings an additional view in the name of Halachot Gedolot, and it is likewise cited in Seder Olam, that Yoel, Nachum, and Chavakuk prophesied in the days of Menashe. Once again, this places him in a much later era. If so, the question arises: why does the opening of the book not state "in the days of Menashe," as we find with other prophets? The answer is that Menashe was wicked, and the prophet did not wish to mention his name, which is why it does not say "in the days of Menashe."
Fourth View: Pethuel Related to the Word Betulah
The Yalkut states: Why was his name called Pethuel? Because he would curl his hair like a maiden (betulah). That is, "Pethuel" is akin to "Bethuel," from the word betulah. What is the meaning of this? Some explain simply that he was a nazirite, and therefore his hair grew long and curled, since a nazirite does not shave his head.
Yet there is an allegorical explanation, cited in the work Kiflayim LeTushiyah and quoted by the Malbim. The Gemara in Rosh Hashanah 26b relates that the Sages did not understand the meaning of the verse, "Cherish her [salseleha], and she will exalt you." They did not understand what manner of curling or cherishing (silsul) was meant. One day they heard the maidservant of Rebbe speaking to a man who was twirling his hair, saying to him: How long will you curl (mesalsel) your hair? From this they deduced the meaning of the expression. Now there, the verse speaks of Torah, not hair; yet the disciples understood from this that one must strive to adorn and beautify the teachings of the Torah: just as one who curls his hair beautifies his hair, so "cherish her, and she will exalt you" means that you should curl and beautify the Torah. Often there is a Midrashic teaching whose connection to the verse is not easily understood, and where its scriptural source is elusive; this is the mitzvah: provide it with an explanation, give it a rationale, demonstrate how the ideas harmonize within the text. According to this, it is explained here: through what merit did Yoel attain prophecy? Because he "curled his hair" - meaning, he adorned and embellished the study of the Torah and its verses, studying deeply, assigning a reason to every matter, and beautifying the teachings of the Torah. This is, of course, a homiletical exposition (derash), whereas the simple meaning is that he was a nazirite.
The Maharsha's Difficulty
The Maharsha raises a difficulty concerning all of this. After all, Chazal taught that four prophets prophesied in the same era: Hoshea, Yeshayahu, Amos, and Michah. If Yoel was the son of Shmuel, he should have preceded Hoshea and been listed before them. And if he lived in the days of Menasheh, he should have been placed after Yeshayahu, Amos, and Michah, since Menasheh lived in the final period before the exile. Yet in practice we see that the Book of Yoel is placed neither earlier nor later, but right in the middle: Hoshea opens, and Yoel follows him. The matter remains an unresolved question, and this concludes our discussion regarding the identity of Yoel the son of Petuel.
The Appeal to the Elders and to All Inhabitants of the Land
שִׁמְעוּ־זֹאת֙ הַזְּקֵנִ֔ים וְהַֽאֲזִ֔ינוּ כֹּ֖ל יוֹשְׁבֵ֣י הָאָ֑רֶץ הֶהָ֤יְתָה זֹּאת֙ בִּֽימֵיכֶ֔ם וְאִ֖ם בִּימֵ֥י אֲבֹתֵיכֶֽם׃ - Hear this, O elders, and give ear, all inhabitants of the land! Has such a thing ever happened in your days, or even in the days of your fathers?
עָלֶ֖יהָ לִבְנֵיכֶ֣ם סַפֵּ֑רוּ וּבְנֵיכֶם֙ לִבְנֵיהֶ֔ם וּבְנֵיהֶ֖ם לְד֥וֹר אַחֵֽר׃ - Tell of it to your children, and your children to their children, and their children to another generation.
The prophet turns and asks: Did such a thing ever occur in your days or in the days of your fathers? And about what is he inquiring? About a severe and terrible plague of locusts destined to strike the land, which he announces beforehand through prophecy.
Why does he begin with the elders? Because they know history better than anyone else. A person of a hundred, of a hundred and ten years, knows history thoroughly. "Ask your elders, and they will tell you" - the elders are the ones who know and are familiar with the past. Therefore, he directs his question to them: Has such a thing ever happened in your days? The letter heh here is the interrogative heh of wonderment.
The Malbim explains the division of the verse: "Hear this, O elders" - you who, by virtue of your many years, remember history, do you recall such a decree? And this corresponds to what he says to them, "Has such a thing ever happened in your days." "And give ear, all inhabitants of the land" - and corresponding to them he says, "Tell of it to your children, and your children to their children, and their children to another generation," meaning that they should transmit this astonishing event as a continuous tradition from generation to generation, down to the final generations.
And what is the distinction between shemi'ah (hearing) and ha'azanah (listening/giving ear)? We have already seen in Hoshea that shemi'ah is the stage that follows ha'azanah. When dealing with two distinct matters, Scripture uses the term shemi'ah for the primary and more significant matter, and uses the term ha'azanah for the secondary, less significant matter.
The Four Types of Locusts
יֶ֤תֶר הַגָּזָם֙ אָכַ֣ל הָאַרְבֶּ֔ה וְיֶ֥תֶר הָאַרְבֶּ֖ה אָכַ֣ל הַיָּ֑לֶק וְיֶ֣תֶר הַיֶּ֔לֶק אָכַ֖ל הֶחָסִֽיל׃ - What the shearer-locust left, the swarming-locust has eaten; and what the swarming-locust left, the crawler-locust has eaten; and what the crawler-locust left, the consumer-locust has eaten.
Rashi explains: They are species of locusts, and the prophet is prophesying that they will come and consume all the fruit of the tree and the greenery of the field, as we will see later in the detailed description of the disaster and the damage it will cause.
And what is meant by "in the days of your fathers"? We had one exceptional, unprecedented locust plague, which was the locusts in the days of Moshe. Rashi in Chumash already addresses a difficulty: regarding the locust plague in Egypt it is stated, "before them there were no such locusts as they, neither after them shall be such," while here regarding the locusts in the days of Yoel it is said that there was never anything like it. These verses seemingly contradict one another: if after the locusts of Egypt there would never again be anything like it, how can it be said of a later locust swarm that there was never anything like it before? Perforce, each one had a distinctive characteristic that the other lacked: the locusts of Egypt were unique in one respect, and the locusts of Yoel were unique in another.
Rashi explains in Chumash: We learn that the locust plague of Yoel was more severe than that of Moshe, because Yoel's locusts consisted of many species - gazam (cutter), arbeh (swarming locust), yelek (creeper), and chasil (destroyer) - whereas that of Moshe was only one species, and the likes of that single species never was and never will be. The Re'em clarifies this: in terms of sheer numbers and quantity, there never was nor will there ever be anything like the locusts of Moshe, such an immense quantity. But in terms of the variety of species, there was never anything like the locusts of Yoel. In other words, in the days of Moshe there were billions, and in the days of Yoel millions, but the diversity of species in the days of Yoel was greater.
This raises a difficulty, as the Ramban asks and as the Radak questions here: How can you say that in the days of Moshe there was only one species, when in Tehillim it says, "He gave their produce to the chasil" and "and the yelek without number"? Dovid thus describes the plague of Egypt as including arbeh, chasil, and yelek! Radak resolves this: the arbeh was the primary species, while the other two species accompanied it merely like groomsmen at a wedding. The arbeh came in the overwhelming majority, joined by only a small amount of yelek and chasil, which is why the Torah mentions only arbeh. In summary: Moshe's locusts were greater in quantity, and although there were two other species present, they were negligible; Yoel's locusts were not as vast in quantity, but were unique in their diversity of species.
There is also another difference here: in Egypt everything came all at once, whereas here the four species arrived one after the other. The first species came and consumed; whatever it left behind - the second species came in the second year and devoured; whatever it left - the third arrived in the third year; and whatever remained - the fourth arrived in the fourth year, wiping out everything. Thus, not only were there more species, but they also came separately, each wave on its own.
And what do these names signify? Radak explains, as does Ibn Ezra: "Gazam" - because it cuts (gozem) and shears the crops. "Arbeh" - because it is the most numerous (merubeh) of all the species, the common and familiar type. "Yelek" - because it licks up (lokek) and laps the grass. "Chasil" - because it cuts down and finishes off (mechasel) everything, which is why it appears last: it carried out total eradication and left nothing behind.
Awake, You Drunkards
הָקִ֤יצוּ שִׁכּוֹרִים֙ וּבְכ֔וּ וְהֵילִ֖לוּ כׇּל־שֹׁ֣תֵי יָ֑יִן עַל־עָסִ֕יס כִּ֥י נִכְרַ֖ת מִפִּיכֶֽם׃ - Awake, you drunkards, and weep; and wail, all you drinkers of wine, over the sweet wine, for it is cut off from your mouth.
To those accustomed to getting drunk on wine, the prophet says: Awaken from your slumber and weep day and night, for the locusts about to arrive will consume everything, and you ought to be worried: From where will we produce wine? "Veheileilu" (and wail) is an expression of howling and lamentation.
The Malbim notes with precision: "Awake, you drunkards" - you who are perpetually sunken in the slumber of drunkenness, awake from the stupor of wine and weep. "And wail, all you drinkers of wine" - those who are not completely drunk, but are merely accustomed to drinking. There is one who is "drunk like Lot," completely intoxicated, and there is one who is only lightly tipsy; first he addressed the true drunkards, and then the wine drinkers who drink for pleasure and have not yet reached full drunkenness. To them as well he says: Wail over the sweet wine, for it is cut off from your mouth.
And what is asis (sweet wine)? A drink produced through crushing and pressing. The term is related to "and you shall tread down (va'asotem) the wicked," from the idea of kneading and treading. That pressing and crushing done to the grapes in order to extract their juice - that is asis. And now, there is no more treading of grapes to produce their wine.
For a Nation Has Come Up Upon My Land
כִּי־גוֹי֙ עָלָ֣ה עַל־אַרְצִ֔י עָצ֖וּם וְאֵ֣ין מִסְפָּ֑ר שִׁנָּיו֙ שִׁנֵּ֣י אַרְיֵ֔ה וּֽמְתַלְּע֥וֹת לָבִ֖יא לֽוֹ׃ - For a nation has invaded my land, mighty and without number; its teeth are the teeth of a lion, and it has the fangs of a great lion.
All the expressions here are metaphors magnifying, by way of allegory, the locust swarm about to arrive. First, he calls it a "nation" (goy). Radak explains: any gathering of living creatures is called a goy, meaning a collection of animals is termed a nation. Proof of this comes from the verses in Mishlei: "The ants are a people not strong," "the rock badgers are a people not mighty" - demonstrating that a large group of animals is called a people (am) or nation (goy). Malbim adds a reason for this: because they band together like a nation, not intermingling with others but rather forming a unified group of their own, which is why they are called a goy.
"Mighty and without number" - "mighty" in terms of strength, possessing great power; "and without number" in terms of sheer quantity. They both wield immense force and arrive in vast numbers. "Its teeth are the teeth of a lion" - its teeth possess the strength of a lion's bite. "And it has the fangs of a great lion" - what is the difference between regular teeth (shinayim) and fangs (metala'ot), since metala'ot are also teeth? The front, cutting teeth are called shinayim, whereas the metala'ot are the coarse, large grinding teeth, the molars. Furthermore, a lavi is greater and fiercer than a standard aryeh (lion), as Radak notes, and the verse thus magnifies the metala'ot, which are larger than the front teeth. Malbim explains that the core message is total devastation: it comes with immense strength, in overwhelming numbers, and with sharp, hard teeth capable of destroying everything.
He Has Laid Waste My Vine
שָׂ֤ם גַּפְנִי֙ לְשַׁמָּ֔ה וּתְאֵנָתִ֖י לִקְצָפָ֑ה חָשֹׂ֤ף חֲשָׂפָהּ֙ וְהִשְׁלִ֔יךְ הִלְבִּ֖ינוּ שָׂרִיגֶֽיהָ׃ - He has laid waste my vine, and splintered my fig tree; he has stripped it bare and cast it away; its branches have turned white.
"He has laid waste my vine" - the past tense is used here in place of the future, just as we saw earlier with "what the chewing locust left, the swarming locust ate," where one might have expected "will eat." We have seen the reason for this in earlier prophetic books: the prophets perceive these events before their very eyes as if they have already happened. For us, living in the realm of physical action, the event is still in the future, but the prophet has already witnessed in his vision the locusts devouring and destroying, and therefore speaks in the past tense.
Radak provides another explanation: these are not the prophet's own words as the speaker; rather, the prophet is putting words into the mouth of the people. In other words, this is how the people will cry out when the locusts arrive: "He has laid waste my vine" - the locust has made a desolation of our vineyards. According to the first explanation, it is the prophet stating that the Holy One, blessed be He, made the vine a desolation through the locusts, while according to the second explanation, the prophet is depicting what the inhabitants of the land will say.
"And my fig tree to ketzafah" - Radak explains this means for anger and a curse, and Targum Yonatan renders it as heartbreak and despair. Others explain liktzafah from the concept of bark or peeling, akin to "foam (ketzef) upon the surface of the water" - meaning that the locust strips the bark of the tree and eats it as well, for locusts are known to not only eat the fruit but to damage the trees themselves. According to the first interpretation, ketzafah stems from fury and wrath (ketzef), something that arouses anger; according to the second, it refers to the bark covering the tree, just as foam covers the surface of water.
"He has stripped it bare and cast it away" - referring to the fig tree and the vine, where the locust stripped away the bark and discarded it, exposing the branch beneath. As a result, "its branches have turned white": the tendrils and branches that had previously been coated in brown, reddish, or green bark now appear white once the bark has been stripped off.
The word hilbinu ("they turned white") is somewhat unusual, and the commentators all explain that it is an intransitive verb. A transitive verb denotes an action performed on something else - such as bleaching clothes or laundering money. Here, one cannot explain that the branches whitened something else, so hilbinu is understood in the sense of lavnu ("they became white"). Malbim explains that since there is no other distinct form, Scripture uses this expression, similar to "they shall turn white as snow" (yallbinu), where one might have expected yilbenu; it functions as an intransitive verb meaning "becoming white," rather than a transitive verb acting upon an external object.
Wail Like a Virgin Girded with Sackcloth
אֱלִ֕י כִּבְתוּלָ֥ה חֲגֻרַת־שַׂ֖ק עַל־בַּ֥עַל נְעוּרֶֽיהָ׃ - Wail like a virgin girded with sackcloth for the husband of her youth.
"Eli" is an expression of lamentation, like "elalai" (woe), and Targum Yonatan translates it as "elya" (wail). Radak explains that this is an address to the Congregation of Israel: Lament over the calamity and make a great mourning, like a virgin girded with sackcloth over the husband of her youth.
The phrase is familiar to us from the Kinot, and we can explain it. When a young woman marries a young man, both are still youthful, and in their youth they have immense joy in each other, an innocence; they have not yet had time to quarrel, and there is still enthusiasm, passion, and longing for one another. And in the midst of their great joy in each other, suddenly - Heaven have mercy - he passes away in the prime of his life. How immense is that woman's lamentation and grief! Her mourning is profound, and she girds herself with sackcloth instead of the finery she once wore: for the wedding celebration she had a magnificent gown, and now she is girded with sackcloth. This is what the prophet says to her: "Eli" - wail, like a virgin girded with sackcloth over the husband of her youth.
The Malbim's Poetic Metaphor
The Malbim delves deeper here and explains that the prophet is speaking by way of poetic metaphor. This is not an address to the Congregation of Israel, but rather a description showing that the stricken vine and fig tree are themselves the ones lamenting. The grapevine, as it were, tells the drunkards that they must weep, for a nation has come up against its land and laid the vine waste. The devastated grapevine and fig tree turn to the people and show them how deeply they must wail and lament.
And why is this described as a "virgin girded with sackcloth"? Because the locusts devoured and destroyed the branches of the vine and the fig tree, leaving behind nothing but the trunk. Now, it was their practice, when the bark of the trunk was stripped away, to bandage and wrap it in sackcloth to keep it warm so it would not freeze, enabling it to continue and produce new branches. This is the meaning of "girded with sackcloth."
And why a "virgin"? Note that the term "virgin" (betulah) is also applied to a tree: a tree that has never been pruned or cut is called a betulah, as the Gemara says in Niddah, "There are three virgins," one of which is a "virgin sycamore" - and the sycamore is a tree, called a virgin because it was never cut. It emerges, then, that the prophet depicts the grapevine that had never been pruned as a virgin, and the branches that were severed from it are the "ba'al" (husband / master), since they sit above the body of the vine and above the trunk. Thus the virgin - that is, the trunk at the base - is girded with sackcloth over the "ba'al" that was cut down and fell, namely the branches that were above it. A nation came up against its land and devastated the vine and the fig tree, and it is girded in sackcloth so that it may sprout new branches and yield its fruit. This, the Malbim notes, is a truly magnificent poetic metaphor.
Meal Offering and Libation Cut Off
הׇכְרַ֥ת מִנְחָ֛ה וָנֶ֖סֶךְ מִבֵּ֣ית יְהֹוָ֑ה אָֽבְלוּ֙ הַכֹּ֣הֲנִ֔ים מְשָׁרְתֵ֖י יְהֹוָֽה׃ - "The meal offering and the libation have been cut off from the House of the Lord; the priests, the ministers of the Lord, mourn."
"Hokhrot" is like "nikhrat" (cut off), and the letter heh is vocalized, as Rashi notes, with a chataf kamatz, similar to "and the beasts of the field shall be at peace with you [hushlemah lakh]." That is, the meal offering and the libation have been cut off from the House of Hashem. Meal offerings and libations, which are agricultural produce, were brought to the Beit HaMikdash; when the locusts came and decimated everything, naturally there was nothing left for the Beit HaMikdash either. As Radak writes: If grain and new wine have ceased, from what will they bring a meal offering and libation? They have nothing to eat and drink, so from where could they bring meal offerings and libations - wine being the libation - to the House of Hashem?
"The priests mourn" - according to the simple meaning, because the priests ate from the table of the Most High, from the sacrifices, and if the sacrifices ceased, naturally the priests mourn. But the Malbim explains that their mourning is not over their own sustenance; rather, the priests are lamenting the very fact that the meal offering and libation have been cut off from the House of Hashem: there is no flour for meal offerings, and no wine or oil for libations. The priest is the one stationed in the House of Hashem, and he is the one who feels the pain of the absence of the offerings. Therefore, he mourns and grieves over the desolation of the Sanctuary, devoid of offerings.
A grammatical point: Radak addresses the phrasing "hokhrot minchah." Since "minchah" is feminine, scripture seemingly should have said "hokhretah minchah." Radak explains - and this applies in many similar places - that the masculine form refers to the overall category: the offering (korban, masculine) has been cut off, and within the category of offering there is the meal offering and the libation. The word "hokhrot" is not referring directly to the word minchah itself, for had it been, it would have had to say "hokhretah."
The Field is Despoiled
שֻׁדַּ֣ד שָׂדֶ֔ה אָבְלָ֖ה אֲדָמָ֑ה כִּ֚י שֻׁדַּ֣ד דָּגָ֔ן הוֹבִ֥ישׁ תִּיר֖וֹשׁ אֻמְלַ֥ל יִצְהָֽר׃ - The field is ruined, the land mourns; for the grain is ruined, the new wine has dried up, the fresh oil languishes.
The prophet uses poetic imagery to depict the magnitude of the disaster brought by the locusts: the land is devastated and desolate, devoid of fruit. "The new wine has dried up (hovish tirosh)" - Targum Yonatan renders it: yevishu gofneya, meaning dried up. This expression "hovish", which we will encounter again shortly, can be understood in two senses: drying up (yovesh) and shame (boshet), and both explanations are relevant. In his first interpretation, Radak explains that the branches were devoured and the wine dried up; in his second, he explains it as an expression of shame: the vine's glory lies in producing its fruit, and when the fruit ceases, it is as though it is ashamed of having nothing to offer and give. Malbim likewise explains that it denotes shame.
"The fresh oil languishes (umlal yitzhar)" - umlal means cutting off, a term that appears many times throughout Tanach. The most prominent example is in King David's words in Hallel: "In the Name of Hashem, for I will cut them down (amilam)," which stems from the root of milah, cutting: I will cut them off. So too here, the yitzhar, which refers to the oil and olives, is umlal, meaning it was cut off. We have previously mentioned that an ant (nemalah) is named so because it cuts (malah): when it takes a grain of wheat and buries it in the ground, the grain would normally sprout. Why does it not sprout? Because from a grain of wheat, and likewise in all kinds of sprouting vegetables and legumes, a tiny protrusion begins to emerge from which it sprouts - the germ. The ant cuts off and severs this part, and once severed, it can no longer sprout. Thus there is an aspect of cutting off here, and umlal comes from the concept of excision.
The Structure of Parallels According to the Malbim
הֹבִ֣ישׁוּ אִכָּרִ֗ים הֵילִ֙ילוּ֙ כֹּֽרְמִ֔ים עַל־חִטָּ֖ה וְעַל־שְׂעֹרָ֑ה כִּ֥י אָבַ֖ד קְצִ֥יר שָׂדֶֽה׃ - Be ashamed, O farmers, wail, O vinedressers, over the wheat and over the barley; for the harvest of the field is lost.
Malbim demonstrates a precise parallel here. Corresponding to "the meal-offering is cut off," it says, "the field is ruined" - for "field" refers to produce, where wheat for the meal-offerings is grown, and if the field is ruined, one cannot grow wheat for meal-offerings. Corresponding to "the libation is cut off," it says, "the land mourns" - for upon the soil one grows the vines for the libations. Corresponding to "the field is ruined" stands "for the grain is ruined," as grain grows in the field. And corresponding to "the land mourns" stands "for the new wine has dried up, the fresh oil languishes," which are the wine and oil for the libations.
And in the following verse: corresponding to "the grain is ruined," it says, "be ashamed, O farmers," who work the grain fields. Corresponding to "the new wine has dried up," it says, "wail, O vinedressers," who work in the vineyards - and a grove or vineyard (kerem) encompasses both vineyards of wine and groves of olives. Corresponding to "be ashamed, O farmers, over the wheat and over the barley," it says, "for the harvest of the field is lost," referring to the other species of grain and legumes that grow in the field, which are the labor of the farmers, and they too have been lost. And corresponding to "wail, O vinedressers," comes the next verse concerning the vine and the fig tree.
"Be ashamed (hovishu)" - Radak explains that this is a form of imperative: be ashamed, O farmers; it is fitting that you feel shame, because your labor in the field was in vain. When a person exerts himself and toils without seeing any results, it brings him embarrassment and shame. Likewise, "wail, O vinedressers," the workers of the vineyards who toil for nothing and see no results, since nothing has grown.
The Vine Has Dried Up and the Fig Tree Languishes
הַגֶּ֣פֶן הוֹבִ֔ישָׁה וְהַתְּאֵנָ֖ה אֻמְלָ֑לָה רִמּ֞וֹן גַּם־תָּמָ֣ר וְתַפּ֗וּחַ כׇּל־עֲצֵ֤י הַשָּׂדֶה֙ יָבֵ֔שׁוּ כִּי־הֹבִ֥ישׁ שָׂשׂ֖וֹן מִן־בְּנֵ֥י אָדָֽם׃ - The vine has dried up and the fig tree languishes, pomegranate, palm, and apple as well; all the trees of the field have withered, for joy has dried up from the sons of man.
Here too, there are two explanations of "hovishah": either in the sense of dryness, as in Targum Yonatan's translation, "the vines dried up," or from the concept of shame, as the vine that cannot yield its fruit feels shame. "For joy has dried up from the sons of man" - Radak says: fruit and crops are the joy of human beings, and when there are no fruits or crops, joy and gladness cease. Alternatively, here too it is related to shame, as if joy itself became ashamed and withdrew, leaving no joy or gladness among humankind.
Malbim notes: those engaged in planting vineyards would plant all varieties of fruit trees, and all of them were destroyed. Here the prophet enumerates the Seven Species for which the Land of Israel is praised: wheat, barley, grapevine, fig, pomegranate, and date palm. The olive seems to be missing, but the olive is actually included under the heading of kerem (orchards and groves). As for why the apple was added here among the tree species, it is because the apple tree is the most distinguished among the other fruit trees. Furthermore, the "apple" (tapuach) of which Chazal consistently speak is not the European apple, but the etrog (citron); Tosafot explain that wherever "apple" is written, it refers to the etrog. This also sheds light on the solitary opinion stating that the Tree of Knowledge from which Adam HaRishon ate was an "apple" - meaning, in the sense of an etrog.
Regarding those who work the produce of the earth, the verse states, "The harvest of the field is lost," including all varieties of harvested field crops. And here, explains the Malbim, it was their custom to rejoice over the trees and the fruit of the tree. As noted previously, early commentators cite concerning the custom of dancing with the Arbaah Minim on Sukkot that this was the ancient practice: at the time of the grain harvest they held celebrations, and at the time of the grape vintage they held celebrations, and it was their way to dance with crops of the earth to increase joy. In a similar vein, the Torah instituted the waving of the Arbaah Minim, "And you shall rejoice before Hashem your God," to rejoice before Hashem with great joy, for the festival of Sukkot is the Harvest Festival (Chag Ha'asif), and their celebration came when gathering everything into their homes. Thus, they were accustomed to rejoice at the gathering of fruit and grain; but now that all is lost - the vine has dried up and the fig tree languishes - joy has dried up from the children of men. There is nothing to celebrate; they were accustomed to dancing and rejoicing, and now they have nothing with which to rejoice.
The Malbim notes a precise distinction: regarding the vine it is written "hovishah" (dried up), whereas regarding the fig tree it is written "umlalah" (languished). What is the difference? The grapevine, even if cut down to its roots, will grow back. It is well known that the vine regenerates readily: you take a branch, place it in the ground, and it takes root, and the vine grows quickly. Not so the fig tree, which, if cut down, does not grow again. Therefore, regarding the vine it says "hovishah", for it merely dried up, whereas regarding the fig tree it says "umlalah", for it was cut down completely - since "umlal" carries the connotation of being cut down, as we saw in verse 10: "umlal yitzhar" (the fresh oil has failed).
In summary:
We opened with the enigmatic identity of Yoel ben Petuel, about whom the Ibn Ezra observed that we have no way of knowing his generation, and we examined the various views: that he was the son of Shmuel HaNavi who enticed God with his prayer; or that he prophesied during the days of Yehoram ben Achav during the seven years of famine; or during the days of Menasheh, whose name was omitted due to his wickedness; as well as the homiletic exposition that he curled his hair - in its plain sense as a nazirite, and as an allusion, that he adorned and elaborated upon the words of Torah ("Exalt her [salseleha], and she will raise you up"). From there we turned to the prophecy of the locust plague: the prophet calls upon the elders to testify from memory and upon all inhabitants of the land to recount it to future generations, describing four types of locusts arriving one after the other - gazam, arbeh, yelek, and chasil - whose unique nature lay in the multiplicity of species, unlike the locusts of Egypt whose uniqueness lay in sheer quantity. The locust is described as a mighty nation without number, bearing the teeth of a lion and the fangs of a lioness, laying waste to vine and fig tree and stripping their branches bare. The vine and fig tree themselves, in the Malbim's magnificent poetic imagery, are like a maiden girded with sackcloth for the husband of her youth - the trunk that was never severed in all its days, wrapped in sackcloth so that it might regrow its cut branches. From there onward, the catastrophe spreads across all spheres: the meal offering and libation are cut off and the kohanim mourn the desolation of the Sanctuary, the field is ruined and the ground mourns, farmers are dismayed and vinedressers wail, and all the trees of the field have dried up - until "joy has dried up from the children of men," as the celebration to which they were accustomed at the time of harvest and gathering has ceased.