מיכה, פרק ב׳, פסוק ד׳

On the day of ultimate disaster, the suffering of the Israelites will become a public spectacle. Their tragedy will birth a bitter lament over the loss of their land and their forced exile, transforming their plight into a cautionary tale for future generations. People will raise their voices in parables and riddles, turning the fallen nation into a subject of conversation and rhetoric [ביאור שטיינזלץ]. The air will be filled with loud wailing over the catastrophe that has finally struck [רש"י, מצודות], bringing with it a profound sense of brokenness and disease [רד"ק, אבן עזרא].

The identity of the one leading this mournful cry varies. The primary approach among commentators is that it is a general mourner or the victims of the disaster themselves. However, [רד"ק] suggests the weeping comes from a false prophet who finally realizes his optimistic predictions were lies and breaks down in tears. Alternatively, [אברבנאל] identifies the mourner as a previously oppressed individual whose property was stolen by the wealthy, now weeping over the unfolding ruin. Taking a unique approach, [מלבי"ם] envisions the lament not as a solo cry, but as a responsive chorus—a tragic dialogue between a lead mourner and the echoing crowd.

The lament opens with a devastated cry that the nation has been entirely robbed, oppressed, and ruined. This destruction carries a dual tragedy: while foreign enemies are the ones physically looting the nation, the Israelites ultimately brought this upon themselves. Through their own sins, they essentially robbed themselves [רש"י, אברבנאל]. As the mourning continues, it focuses on the exchange of the nation's inheritance. The primary approach among commentators is that God Himself transfers ownership of the land, taking it from the Israelites and handing it over to an idol-worshipping enemy. Conversely, [אברבנאל] explains that it is the people who exchange their homeland; their sins of violence and corruption directly cause their exile to a foreign country.

The lament concludes in absolute despair over the loss of the fields. A cry of devastation rises as the people question how God could remove their inheritance. Just when they hoped God would restore their land, the foreign enemy arrives, seizes the fields, and divides the property for himself [רש"י, רד"ק, מצודות, אבן עזרא]. Disagreeing with the idea of hoping for restoration, [אברבנאל] explains that the focus is on the rebellious nature of the incoming enemy. In this view, the originally robbed individual confronts his Israelite oppressor, asking what value there was in stealing the field, since a rebellious enemy is about to arrive and divide all their lands among his slaves. Finally, [מלבי"ם] frames the entire exchange as a poetic measure-for-measure justice. Within the responsive chorus of the lament, the wealthy cry out that their homes have been plundered. The crowd answers them that the foreign enemy is now redistributing the fields for one specific reason: to return them to their original, rightful owners from whom the wealthy had stolen them.