The psalm before us is the cry of the nation in days of distress and exile. The psalmist asks difficult questions: Has the Holy One, blessed be He, abandoned us forever? Has His kindness ceased? Has He forgotten His grace? The Malbim shows that these are not questions of despair, but precisely the opposite: this is a chain of powerful arguments demonstrating that it is utterly impossible that Hashem has abandoned us from His side. If there appears to be abandonment, it stems from our side alone, and consequently the key to returning and being redeemed lies in our own hands. In this part, we will follow the order of the verses and see how this proof is constructed.
הַלְעוֹלָמִים יִזְנַח אֲדֹנָי וְלֹא־יֹסִיף לִרְצוֹת עוֹד׃ - Will the Lord cast off forever, and will He be favorable no more?
The Malbim explains, as we have already seen: it is impossible that the Holy One, blessed be He, no longer desires us. The first argument is from the perspective of the Divine will. Once Hashem has already favored and desired us, how could He change from desiring us to not desiring us? After all, "I am Hashem, I have not changed," and with the Holy One, blessed be He, there is no change. If He desired us initially, His will certainly endures as it was at first.
One might raise a difficulty: back then, Hashem brought us close, whereas today we are in exile and cast far away? To this the Malbim replies: indeed, Hashem's will has not changed; rather, His will was conditional - He desired us as long as we improved our deeds. Let us define it this way: this is not an irreversible situation. The Divine will did not change; it was simply contingent. If we return and improve our deeds, He will once again favor us. And this is the meaning of the verse: "Will the Lord cast off forever?" Could it be that Hashem would cast us off forever and never be favorable again? That is impossible. If He has cast us off, it is only so that He may once again favor us when we improve our deeds.
This aligns precisely with what is explained at length in the study of Ramchal's Da'as Tevunos: there is the Order of Judgment (Hanhagat HaMishpat) and the Order of Divine Oneness (Hanhagat HaYichud). The Order of Judgment is the universal governance of merit and liability: if a person performs a good deed, he receives good; if he does evil, he receives evil, in this world or the World to Come. And so it is with the governance of the Jewish people as a whole: when we do good, we merit Divine abundance; when we do evil, there are exiles, plagues, catastrophes, and inquisitions.
Yet concealed within all of this is the hidden Order of Divine Oneness. What is the Order of Divine Oneness? It is the reality of "there is none else beside Him" - that the Holy One, blessed be He, is not bound by any rules. It does not depend on whether you are good or not, or whether you possess merits or not. Hashem will redeem us by His own will, "like a king who breaches a fence," paying no heed to the calculations of prosecuting or defending angels. And this governance is not reserved solely for the future, when "Hashem shall be King over all the earth; on that day Hashem shall be One and His Name One" - rather, even now, within the overt Order of Judgment, the Order of Divine Oneness lies hidden. In other words, ultimately everything leads toward the revelation of the Creator's absolute Oneness, no matter what a person does.
And how does this operate? A prime example: Pharaoh thought he could oppose the Divine will. Hashem wants to bring about the savior of Israel? "Every son that is born you shall cast into the river." And what came of this? The savior of Israel grew up in Pharaoh's own palace and at his expense, with Pharaoh himself providing for him. Furthermore, while every mother nurses her child for free, Moshe's mother received wages - from the very person who decreed his destruction. The Holy One, blessed be He, says, as it were: I will not stop what you are doing; what you are doing is the very thing that will bring My will to fruition. This is the Order of Divine Oneness: beneath everything you perceive as external governance, know that there are undercurrents leading toward the ultimate plan. The redemption of the Jewish people will surely come. You can take part in it or you can oppose it, but opposition will not delay it - on the contrary, the Holy One, blessed be He, will use that very opposition to fulfill His will, and even hasten it.
Thus, to summarize the first argument: it is impossible that the Holy One, blessed be He, has cast us off forever, for "the world" has a deadline, a set target date - ultimately, the Oneness of the blessed Creator will be revealed. Consequently, if He cast us off, it was only in order that He may once again favor us when we improve our deeds.
הֶאָפֵס לָנֶצַח חַסְדּוֹ גָּמַר אֹמֶר לְדֹר וָדֹר׃ - Has His lovingkindness ceased forever? Has His promise come to an end for all generations?
The second argument stems from the perspective of supernal chesed (lovingkindness). When a human being wishes to do good for his friend, he cannot always do so: sometimes his financial situation limits him, and sometimes another factor prevents him from giving. Earthly chesed, carried out by mortal flesh and blood, is limited - limited by the benefactor's capabilities and limited by external forces that can hinder him. But supernal chesed is not dependent on anything, and it is impossible for it to be exhausted. Therefore, the Psalmist asks: "Has His lovingkindness ceased forever?"
And the third argument stems from the perspective of the promise: "Has His promise come to an end for all generations?" The Holy One, blessed be He, promised us that we would be His people. Has He terminated this decree, as if the promise has run its course and expired? Was that promise - that we would endure forever - spoken only for certain generations, and now those generations have passed and the promise has ended? That cannot be, for the promise is eternal.
Radak explains: "Has His lovingkindness ceased forever?" - has the chesed that the Holy One, blessed be He, bestowed upon Israel ended forever, such that there is no more chesed? And "has His word come to an end" - "omer" in the sense of gentle speech, the articulation of His consolations and salvations: have His consolations ceased and terminated, never to come again?
Ibn Ezra, by contrast, interprets "gamar omer" in the sense familiar to us in idiom: gamar omer means making a clear, definitive resolution. According to this: has Hashem decreed that He will abandon me forever? Has He decided and issued an absolute decree that this will remain the case for generation after generation, having no further interest in me ever again?
The Malbim notes a precise distinction between netzach (eternity) and dor vador (generation to generation). Netzach denotes completely limitless time, whereas dor vador speaks of something divided into generations. Therefore, the expressions correspond precisely: chesed is inherently boundless, and therefore it is said of it, "Has His chesed ceased lanetzach (forever)?" - since netzach is likewise an expression of the limitless. By contrast, gamar means completed and concluded, and is therefore paired with ledor vador: has that goodness which Hashem bestowed reached completion within the allocated number of generations, such that from now on the good will no longer continue? To speak of something coming to an end (nigmar) applies to a finite quantity, which is why it says "for generation after generation"; but for boundless chesed, the appropriate term is "forever" (lanetzach).
The author of Tehillot Maharit explains the verse based on the passage in Shemot (3:15): "This is My Name forever, and this is My memorial from generation to generation." Chazal teach that although the merit of the Patriarchs (zechut avot) has concluded, the lovingkindness of the Patriarchs (chasdei avot) never ceases. (As to the difference between them, that will not be delved into here; one who is interested can consult Michtav Me-Eliyahu, part 1, or listen to the shiurim on Michtav Me-Eliyahu, where this matter is explained.) According to this, the Psalmist is questioning the concealment of the Divine Face: given that chasdei avot never end, and Hashem remembers the kindness of the Patriarchs forever, has His chesed - granted in the merit of chasdei avot - ceased forever? And has His decree come to an end for generation after generation - has that declaration of "this is My memorial from generation to generation," in which Hashem promised to remember us, come to an end?
הֲשָׁכַח חַנּוֹת אֵל אִם־קָפַץ בְּאַף רַחֲמָיו סֶלָה׃ - Has God forgotten to be gracious? Or has He in anger shut off His mercies forever? Selah.
First, a linguistic nuance: chanot here is spelled with a dagesh in the nun, and therefore derives from the root of chaninah (grace/favor), not chanayah (encamping). With an unaccented nun (without a dagesh), it means encamping - "and they journeyed and encamped," or "the city where David encamped" (kiryat chanah David - where Chanah is not a woman's name, but the city where David encamped). By contrast, the expression of grace always features a dagesh in the nun - "a King Who is gracious and gives," "be gracious to us and answer us, hear our prayer." So too here: "Has God forgotten to be gracious (chanot)?"
Rashi explains: Has Hashem forgotten to be gracious to us? Chanot is like asot (to do) or re'ot (to see); or it is an infinitive noun, meaning: has He forgotten His grace - not a specific action, but the very attribute of grace, that He is gracious and gives. And kafatz is like "you shall not shut (lo tikpotz) your hand," an expression of closing: has He, through wrath and anger, locked away His mercies permanently, leaving no mercy at all, but only fury and wrath?
The Malbim adds here the fourth claim - from the perspective of grace: after all, we already found favor in His eyes once before, and if so, is it possible that He would forget that favor? Even if we do not see it right now, we found favor before Him in the past - "I remember for you the kindness of your youth" - and that is a reason He should still desire us. And the fifth claim - from the perspective of mercy: when Hashem sees our affliction and oppression, did He shut off His mercies because of anger? After all, it is Hashem's nature to be merciful.
The Malbim notes with precision that there is an allusion here to five attributes of mercy: "Rachum" (Merciful) - "Has He in anger shut off His mercies, Selah?"; "Chanun" (Gracious) - "Has God forgotten to be gracious?"; "Erech Apayim" (Slow to anger) - "Will the Lord cast off forever?", meaning that while the Holy One, blessed be He, is indeed slow to anger, salvation will certainly follow; "VeRav Chesed" (Abundant in lovingkindness) - "Has His kindness ceased forever?"; "Ve'Emet" (and Truth) - "Has His decree ended for generation after generation?", for Hashem made a promise, and could that promise end for all generations? Five attributes of mercy are alluded to here, by virtue of which it is fitting that the Holy One, blessed be He, have pity and compassion upon us even in the state in which we currently find ourselves.
And here the Malbim makes a powerful argument: How could it be that Hashem would abandon us? Abandonment only applies when there is a change of will - He desired one thing and now desires another. Regarding this: "Will He never be favorable again?" Could His will change? Or perhaps His capability changed - "Has His kindness ceased?", "Has His decree ended?" - could we say that kindness and truth ran out and He lacks the ability, as it were? Or does forgetfulness apply to Him - "Has He forgotten?" Or perhaps due to anger - "Has He in anger shut off His mercies, Selah?" And "Selah," according to the Malbim's approach, always signifies the conclusion of all arguments. From here the conclusion follows: the matter is settled; it is impossible that the Holy One, blessed be He, has abandoned us on account of His attributes. If He has abandoned us, that abandonment stems from our side, because of actions we have done, and not because anything changed in Him, as it were. Five strong arguments prove that this is impossible, and we are forced to conclude that the cause of the abandonment lies within us. And if the cause is in our hands, then the key to restoring Hashem's mercies is also in our hands: let us change our ways, and we will once again find favor before Him.
The author of Tehillot Maharitza cites from the Yalkut. (The Yalkut Shimoni is not an early Midrash in its own right, but an anthology of Midrashim, and it serves as a vehicle to access many Midrashim no longer in our possession that were available to its author, Rabbi Shimon HaDarshan.) The Midrash does not limit itself to the grammatical peshat, but expounds chanot from the language of chanayah, encampment: "Did You forget Your encampments, O God?" At the commandment of Hashem they encamped, and at the commandment of Hashem they journeyed - these refer to the Tent of Meeting, Gilgal, Nob, Gibeon, and the Eternal House: the First Temple and the Second Temple. That is to say: You used to dwell among us, You rested Your Shechinah upon us, You accompanied us in the wilderness in their journeyings and encampments, and all those encampments were at the commandment of Hashem. Have You forgotten that immense closeness?
And Tehillot Maharitza explains the meaning of this idea: Indeed, in truth, the Holy One, blessed be He, does not forget us, as it is written, "Yet even then, when they are in the land of their enemies, I did not reject them, nor did I spurn them to destroy them, to break My covenant with them" - but this is a mere trickle compared to the immense torrent we had in the past. In plain words: as it were, the Holy One, blessed be He, keeps us clinging to life, just so that we do not die. He does not supply us with oxygen, food, and air as before, but merely ensures that we breathe on life support - minimal existence. This is our reality today, and it is as nothing compared to the kindness and mercies of the days of encampments in the wilderness, and the divine bounty during the era of Shlomo and the periods before it, in Gilgal, Nob, and Gibeon.
According to this, "Has He in anger (af) shut off His mercies, Selah?" is explained wonderfully: "to shut" (likpotz) the hand means to clench and constrict it. And the psalmist asks: Did Hashem constrict all of His mercies into that very "Af"? Which "Af"? "And af (even) then, when they are in the land of their enemies, I did not reject them." That is, does all of His mercy now boil down merely to "I did not reject them" - while they are in distress, in an enemy land, tormented and suffering, with only a little oxygen left for them? Master of the Universe, where is the immense abundance of those days? What is this compared to the kindnesses of old? And this is "Has God forgotten chanot" - have all those encampments and all that mercy now been compressed into "Even (af) then... I did not reject them"? A truly marvelous explanation.
The Me'am Lo'ez cites in the name of Rabbi Merkado another wonderful explanation: Here the psalmist is, as it were, conversing with his heart. He fears the enemy, and therefore he reviews these matters and speaks to himself - as was said above, "and my spirit made diligent search," meaning I am trying to understand Hashem's deeds. And he raises difficulties to himself from all the promises:
"Will the Lord cast off forever?" But it says (Yeshayahu 54), "In a surge of wrath I hid My face from you for a moment, but with everlasting kindness I will have mercy on you" - only for a moment, not forever. "And will He never be favorable again?" But it says, "I will bring them to My holy mountain... their burnt offerings and sacrifices will be accepted upon My altar" - which proves He will once again be favorable. "Has His kindness ceased forever? Has His decree ended for generation after generation?" - has He decreed that we will remain in exile for generation after generation? But it is written, "From there Hashem your God will gather you." "Has God forgotten to be gracious?" Has He forgotten to rest His Shechinah among us? But it is written, "And I will dwell in your midst." "Has He in anger shut off His mercies, Selah?" Is there no longer any expression of His mercies? But it is written, "And with great mercy I will gather you." It turns out that such a thing is impossible, and perforce redemption and salvation are near at hand. And for this we pray and plead: Master of the Universe, how much longer?
וָאֹמַר חַלּוֹתִי הִיא שְׁנוֹת יְמִין עֶלְיוֹן׃ - And I said: This is my sickness, the changing of the right hand of the Most High.
Rashi explains: "Challoti" - my thoughts tell me that this is only to make me sick and to cause me to fear, so that I will return to Him. All the tribulations that come upon me are like an illness that Hashem brings upon me to awaken me, just as all troubles come to bring us to awakening and repentance. And "challoti" is related to illness (choli) and trembling (chil), as in trembling and quaking (chil u're'adah). As for "shenot yemin Elyon" - this is not from the root for years (shanim), nor from repetition and review (shinun, for a year is called shanah because of its recurring cycle), but from the root for change (shinuy): the right hand of the Most High has changed. "Your right hand, Hashem, is glorious in power" - yet now we are battered and cast away in our exile, and we do not see the right hand of the Most High saving us as in earlier times. And as it says in Eichah, "He drew back His right hand": when an enemy approaches, the Holy One, Blessed be He, naturally strikes him with His right hand - "Your right hand, Hashem, shatters the enemy"; but when Scripture describes Him not fighting on our behalf, He, so to speak, draws His hand backward, and then the enemies do with us as they please.
Radak explains "challot" as matching the grammatical pattern of chanot, but derived from the root ch-l-l - an expression of a corpse or slain person (chalal), as in "If a slain person be found in the land." Thus, "And I said: Challoti hi" means: it is my death; the prolonged exile is my death, I see no prospect of emerging from it, and here I am destined to become a corpse. Radak connects "shenot yemin Elyon" to the following verse - "I remember the deeds of God, for I recall Your wonders of old" - reading "I remember" (ezkor) as applying both backward and forward, as though it were written: "The years of the right hand of the Most High I remember," and also "I remember the deeds of God." That is to say: I remember the years gone by, in which Hashem aroused His right hand and delivered us from the exile of Egypt and the exile of Babylonia; all this I remember - yet now we are seemingly forgotten in our exile. (Many verses are explained in this way, where a word reflects back on what precedes it and forward to what follows it.)
The Malbim explains: "And I said" - I resolved in my mind, I arrived at a firm conclusion. "Shenot yemin Elyon" - the right hand of the Most High represents the awe-inspiring deeds of Hashem and the acts He wrought in His world in days of old, and it has seemingly changed, for we no longer witness miracles and wonders. Yet surely, "I, Hashem, have not changed," and with the Holy One, Blessed be He, there is no change in divine governance. How, then, can there be a "change of the right hand of the Most High"? Perforce I must conclude: "Challoti hi" - my own sickness is the cause. The change did not occur in Him, but in us; Hashem did not change His governance, but rather we changed our deeds.
The Malbim further explains that earlier in the psalm, the psalmist already described the nation as sick: "My hand flowed by night without ceasing" - the hand is wounded and discharging pus due to illness, "without ceasing" - relentlessly and without end. An unspecified "hand" refers to the left hand, for wherever the word "hand" (yad) is used alone, it denotes the left, whereas when the right hand is intended, it explicitly says "right" (yamin). So too regarding Heaven: "Your right hand, Hashem, is glorious in power," whereas "the hand of Hashem" unspecified signifies the left hand, for an explicit left hand is never attributed to the Holy One, Blessed be He. Likewise, "If I forget you, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget its skill" - it does not say "let my hand forget," because it specifically means the right hand.
Why was the left hand specifically chosen to depict our affliction? Because when we stand before the Holy One, Blessed be He, our right is opposite His left, and our left is opposite His right. Therefore, at the conclusion of prayer in Oseh Shalom, we bow first to the left - seemingly, one should always begin to the right, but here our left is the right of the Shechinah. Similarly, regarding what is written that a person should picture himself standing before a king - Heaven forbid that one should imagine the Holy One, Blessed be He, but in his heart he must consider himself as standing before a king - this intention is indispensable; the Rambam rules that if one did not pray with this awareness, it is as though he did not pray at all, which is why prayer books state, "One should intend as though standing before a king." According to the Brisker Rav, one must have this intention during every blessing, whereas the Chazon Ish maintains that once during the prayer is sufficient. In any case, the underlying principle is clear: I stand before the King, face to face, and my left is opposite His right.
Accordingly, the right hand of the Most High is aligned opposite my left hand - and that very left hand is the stricken hand symbolizing Israel in exile, from which sickness flows by night without ceasing. When I wait for the Most High to perform awesome wonders, it turns out that our left hand is incapable of receiving them. As it were, the Holy One, Blessed be He, seeks to manifest within us and perform awesome wonders for us, yet He is, as it were, prevented from doing so because our hand is diseased - we lack sufficient merits, lacking the spiritual strength and the worthiness for wondrous miracles like those of earlier times. Because the receiving hand is weakened and sick, I misinterpret the reality as "the changing of the right hand of the Most High," as though the right hand of the Omnipresent has altered and ceased bestowing abundance. But the true understanding is: "Challoti hi" - it is my sickness; the flaw lies within me. My left hand, which is meant to receive the divine influx from the right hand of the Most High opposite it, is the one that is sick - and that is what prevents the Holy One, Blessed be He, from bestowing upon us miracles and wonders as is fitting and needed, and as He did in days of old.
The Malbim adds that "challoti" comes from the root ch-l-h in the heavy conjugation (binyan kaved). We have already explained the distinction between a light conjugation and a heavy conjugation: the light is easy on the organs of speech, while the heavy is heavier upon them. "Shover" (breaks) is in the light conjugation; "meshaber" (shatters) is in the heavy conjugation, and it is indeed more difficult to articulate. The Malbim explains in several places that this linguistic difference reflects the nature of the action: a light conjugation indicates something done with ease, whereas a heavy conjugation indicates an action performed with force, intensity, and heaviness. "Rotze'ach" means one killed easily; "meratze'ach" means one exerted great force and brutality. "Shover" means one broke easily; "meshaber" means one invested great force in breaking, or smashed it into smaller pieces. Therefore, the word is written here in the heavy conjugation.
Thus far we have seen two avenues of interpretation: an expression of illness (Rashi, and likewise the approach of the Malbim), and an expression of a fallen corpse (Radak). The Midrash offers a third interpretation: "challoti" is related to entreating favor (lechallot panim). (Incidentally, one must be very cautious with the phrase "atanu lechallot panecha" and enunciate it properly, so that it does not, Heaven forbid, sound like a different, inappropriate word.) "Challoti hi shenot yemin Elyon" - because we did not entreat Your favor in repentance, the right hand of the Most High has changed. The Midrash asks: Have you ever in your life heard that the sun fell sick and could not rise? That the moon fell sick and could not rise? If His servants suffer no illness, could there be illness before Him? Rather, perforce the cause for the apparent change in the right hand of the Most High lies only within us - because we did not entreat His favor.
According to this, the meaning of the verse is: And I said - I have found the reason. For what reason is there a "change in the right hand of the Most High"? "It is my prayer [challoti]" - prayer is the reason, meaning the lack of prayer; that I did not supplicate before You. "Challoti" here functions as a noun: the reason is prayer - what about prayer? That I did not pray. In simple terms: the blame lies with us. Had we conducted ourselves properly and supplicated before Hashem, we would not have reached this point.
The author of the psalm raised five powerful arguments - from the perspective of the unchanging Divine will, from the boundless supreme chesed, from the eternal promise, from the favor we have already found before Him, and from the attribute of mercy - and they all prove that it is entirely impossible that the Holy One, blessed be He, has abandoned us on account of His attributes. "Selah" - the arguments are concluded, and the necessary conclusion follows: if there is concealment, the cause is within us. Hashem's will was contingent on us bettering our deeds, and therefore this is not a point of no return; and beneath the overt Providence of justice (hanhagat hamishpat) always operates the Providence of Oneness (hanhagat hayichud), leading everything ultimately toward "And Hashem shall be King over all the earth." Hence, "And I said: This is my affliction [challoti]": the illness is mine, my receiving left hand is the one that is sick - whether because of our deeds or because we did not supplicate before Him in prayer and repentance. And since the key is in our hands, we must change our ways, supplicate before Him, and once again find favor before Him, and then the right hand of the Most High will return to be revealed over us as in days of old.