Komentaryong Sumisipi para sa Oseas 4:3

בחרבה, but the fish on the earth did not die. They were, after all in their habitat. Furthermore, apart from the technical reason why they would not drown in the water, more importantly, seeing that they had never shared the same habitat as man, they had not learned of man’s corrupt ways and become corrupt themselves. We must contrast the implication here that the fish did not die, with definitive statements threatening the death of the fish of the sea as a result of G’d’s retribution to man for his iniquity both in Hoseah 4,3 וגם דגי הים יאספו, “also the fish in the sea will perish,” as well as the statement in Tzefaniah 1,3 אסף עוף השמים ודגי הים, “both the birds in the sky I will sweep away as well as the fish in the sea.” Either what these prophets threaten are exaggerations, or if we are to take these threats at face value, literally, these predictions apply to specific countries but not world-wide. If the prophet speaks about events which have happened since he issued the threat in G’d’s name, he referred to the fish adjoining a specific country being devastated by G’d, but this did not result in a species of fish being wiped out on a global scale. At the time of the deluge there was a wholesale destruction of life on the earth barring the seas, except for the few specimen of each species that survived in the ark. The specimen that were saved did not deserve to die any less than their counterparts, but they were saved in order not to make it necessary for G’d to create them anew after the deluge. It had been inappropriate for G’d to destroy the fish, or even to save them by means of a miracle, as they would not have been able to share the accommodation in the ark, and the ark itself would have sunk if part of it had been converted into an aquarium holding all the fish.

that you desired to worship idols under them, similar to what is stated (Hosea 4:13): “Under the oak and the aspen, and the elm, for its shade is good.”