[silence]
With God's help we will act and succeed. With the help of Heaven we are beginning today Sefer Yirmiyahu. In Sefer Yirmiyahu we will preface two introductions. Two introductions that I will say in advance, that whoever finds the introductions burdensome and is listening to the recording, may jump ahead, skip them, and move to the beginning of the book.
The first introduction we wish to preface is the introduction of the Malbim, which deals with the eloquence of the prophet Yirmiyahu and with a certain type of criticism leveled at the prophet regarding the manner of his expression. The second introduction we wish to preface will be the chronology: to understand where Yirmiyahu was positioned in terms of the era of the prophets, in which period he was active, against which kings, what befell Yirmiyahu, and this we wish to arrange, as it were, in broad strokes in order to understand precisely what is being spoken about, and afterward to study the book in its order, as is our way, according to the wondrous commentary of the Malbim.
So we will open with the introduction of the Malbim on the eloquence of the prophet Yirmiyahu and on the style of the writing. The Malbim says: three impressions (imitations) are found in human beings, as the minister Abarbanel says in his introduction. It is known that the Malbim in many matters brings the Abarbanel, greatly values his commentary, and in places he agrees with him, in places he contradicts his opinion, but in any case he greatly esteemed the opinion of the Abarbanel.
The Malbim says: three impressions are found in human beings. Impressions in the sense of engravings. The meaning is that there are three kinds of engravings in the human soul, actions that issue from a person, and the Abarbanel will now try to survey the book with respect to these three matters and to decide, in relation to them, the correct way to relate to Sefer Yirmiyahu.
The first thing, says the Abarbanel, is in the souls. The meaning is that engraved in the soul are knowledge and wisdom. The power of the soul in its great strength, says the Abarbanel, is when the soul is able to attain things according to their truth. The wiser a person is, the more complete in his wisdom, the more complete in his prophecy, the more he is able to attain things according to their truth. The meaning is: the more a prophet needs parables, the more he needs to use all sorts of allegories, all sorts of comparisons, that means his level of prophecy is lower. The more he is able to see things clearly, that means his attainment is higher and his lens shines more brightly. This is one point, one virtue of the prophet, and the wiser he is, the more he attains the spirit of God that spoke within him, and this is among the things found in the wise soul and in the prophetic soul.
There is another engraving in the human soul: that he possesses the power of tongue and language to bring out what he sees with his mind's eye. And one must understand that this is very, very not simple, very not simple. There are rosh yeshivas who are considered tremendous geniuses, yet of whoever comes to their shiur one can say, "not every mind can bear this." Not everyone is able to descend and understand what he says, to reach the depth of his intent. That is, this has nothing to do with his clarity. He has tremendous clarity in understanding the sugya, but he does not have the tools to bring that clarity down to the students so they will succeed in grasping what he is actually talking about. And by the way, sometimes this depends on the level and loftiness of the speaker: the higher his level, the much harder it is for him to express the visions and sights that he sees, or, if it is a shiur, the things he understands and delves into. These are two things. There is what he understands, what he delves into, and it may be that he has tremendous attainments, and there is, on the other hand, the power of transmission, which is the power of the tongue. The tongue, the language, that comes to describe what he sees in his soul.
The Malbim says: in this there is a difference between people. There is one who has a tongue that speaks great things, and he is called "a learned tongue." He speaks in clear language, in pleasant eloquence, everything that the soul depicts without hindrance. He has magnificent expressions to describe what is engraved in his soul. He is able to transmit to you in a living manner everything he saw in prophecy or everything engraved in his soul without hindrance. The Malbim says: and in this lay the advantage of the eloquent and the poets one over another. In what does the advantage of one poet over another lie? The power of the splendor of eloquence, to write wondrous, lofty, sharp eloquence that will transmit to you what he saw or the message he wishes to convey. And indeed, among every wise-hearted person and prophet of God, one prophet had an advantage over his fellow also in this matter, in the form of language, in the beauty of eloquence. The more his words are refined in precise language, in beautiful eloquence, so too they are more esteemed.
The third engraving is in writing. The meaning is that the wise man is sometimes able to express himself in eloquence, but he is not sufficiently expert in writing. And this one must know, one can see it even today. Just as I gave the example of someone who delves very deeply but is unable to express what is there, all the sublime ideas in his mind, so too there can be the reality of a person, there are many people, you say, "I heard a derasha of his, wow, I enjoyed it greatly. I read an article of his, I understood nothing." What does this mean? The wisdom of writing and the wisdom of formulation in speech are two separate wisdoms. And also the reverse. There are people who, in terms of writing, they write superbly, you read an article of theirs, a pleasure to read, the writing sings, it is jubilant. When you afterward try to hear him in a derasha, you say, "it is more pleasant to read him." Easier to read him, I understand more when I read him. In a derasha he is not, he is unable, in terms of rhetoric, his rhetoric is far weaker than his talent for writing. So we understand that the talent for writing and the talent for speaking are two separate things.
The Malbim says: and just as the depiction of the soul is the primary thing that influences speech, so too speech is the primary thing that influences writing. The Malbim says: and in this too there are differences between people. There is a great difference between people not only in the form of the writing and the beauty of its design, that one writes beautifully and cleanly, relevant to sofrei stam and the like, that he is not, he writes eloquent phrases, he copies, but writes beautifully, his writing is beautiful. In the precision of the writing and its correctness, says the Malbim, but it is also important that he not have an error or mistake. This too depends on the wisdom of writing. That the masculine not be in feminine form, the singular in plural form, and the past in future form, and vice versa. As I once heard someone say, that he is in favor of two states for two peoples (using feminine "shtei" incorrectly for "amim"). Did you understand? He is in favor of two states for two peoples. Very nice. Two states for two peoples. Well, in any case, that is to say, you understand that one must also know how to express oneself correctly, and also in past and future tense.
Let us note that it may well be that there are things that in speech one does not notice, but when a person writes it is already an error that is noticeable. Because, because if I said "yelech," then when you say "I yelech," then you did not notice whether I said "yelech" or "elech." But when I put it in a book, then it is written "I yelech," you immediately ask yourself, who writes like that? This, this is a clear corruption, an absolute corruption. In our places there are far greater errors. Today, unfortunately, this generation truly does not know how to write. I am telling you about headlines, where they tell you that it is "an inheritance to him from his father and from around" (misreading "misaviv" for "misavo"). Did you hear? It is both from his father and even from around. It came to him from around, apparently, this expression. Yes, instead of "from his grandfather," from the abbreviation, there are so many more corruptions, I tell you, whoever goes over a newspaper today simply stands astonished at the ignorance of the people who are supposed to write. So to write, not to think, is not a simple matter. To use plural and past, singular, and all that is similar to this, this is an error in writing that is precise as it should be.
The Malbim says: and in this too a great difference will be found among the authors of books. The virtue of attainment in the depiction of the soul, the purity of the tongue, the precision of the writing. These three things. What he attains, then how he is able to express things in his tongue, and then when he is to bring them down to writing, how these things too are precise according to the rules of grammar.
The Malbim says: after these three foundations, come see what the Abarbanel did. On the basis of these things, the minister examined, yes, Don Abarbanel, therefore he calls him "the minister." The minister examined the words of our prophet in the crucible of examination. And he investigated about him, whether he was complete in the three aforementioned impressions. And he issued his verdict, engraved and fixed. That regarding the first impression, meaning the power of the soul, its attainment, seeing things in their essence and completeness, without need for parables, and understanding them properly, he rose to the very head above all seers of God and His messengers. He placed him in the first rank of the prophets. Those who saw things in the clearest manner. Until his virtue in this was close to the virtue of the master of the prophets, the man of God. However, in the last two impressions, the power of the tongue and the power of writing, his worth was diminished, in his opinion, from the worth of the completeness of all the prophets. In simple words, in the last two parameters he is worse than all the prophets. I read these words deliberately because for me personally it is very difficult to bring such words out of my mouth. We were never accustomed to criticism of great people, certainly not of our prophets, but it is important to me to bring the words because the Malbim will afterward give a response to what is said.
First, regarding the fact that he did not speak well with purity of eloquence and did not arrange his words according to the rules of language. That is, you see that he lacks purity of eloquence in his rhetoric. Instead of "el," he wrote "el" instead of "al," masculine in feminine form, mixing singular, plural, second person, third person, past, future, exchanging "if this" in place of "this." And what does he wish to say is the reason? Because he began to prophesy while still a lad, so as a lad, well, he was not complete in his power of expression, and since this is so, then the results are before you. This is one thing, this is the second, really, because in the first he gave him an excellent grade. In the second he tells you, in language, he was not truly perfect in this and even worse than all the prophets. And likewise he was not perfected in the order of the writing and the letters. Therefore he says, see in his book many keri and ketiv, more than in all the prophets. More than in all the holy writings. And he elaborated to bring proofs that he did not perfect himself in matters of writing, that his writing is deficient, God forbid.
"And behold I say": oh, I have reached this line. "And behold I say," and he writes in parentheses, and if the master, who was among the faithful of Israel, forgives me. I ask the Abarbanel's pardon that I am about to refute all his words. For the good we will accept from him, and the bad we will not accept. This is a phrase expressed in Iyov, only there it is with a question mark and here it is with an exclamation mark. I completely accept what the Abarbanel says, that the prophet Yirmiyahu was above all the prophets in his attainments, in the first rank, in which he gave him the highest virtue, that his attainment was close to the level of Moshe Rabbeinu, this I accept. That he raised the honor of our prophet and his virtue to the head of the cliffs, mightiest of the prophets. He says, see that even Chazal in their aggadot magnified and exalted and set his throne above all the prophets, holy princes, this we will accept. But regarding that which he presumed to lower the honor of his eloquence and the splendor of his book, that he was not complete in the sweetness of eloquence and the ways of language, we will not listen to him and we will not consent. This do not accept from the Abarbanel. And before I respond to his words themselves, I say,
that this investigation in its entirety, and here he says a very hashkafic point that is very important. And it is important primarily for all those who draw their knowledge about Tanach, or about the Bible, from universities, from the Bible critics. And we already said that the Bible critics are those who merely jumped in for a visit to the Bible, they were never really there. That is why they are "Bible critics (visitors)," yes? So, so, now come see how he actually straightens out for us the correct hashkafa. For this investigation in its entirety, to survey and criticize the holy writings that the prophets wrote by the hand of God with His spirit upon them, to define their rank, this prophet gets an eight, that one a nine, this is a ten of a prophet, wow, that one is a bombshell of a prophet. This, each one, he says, this is not our way. This way is not our way, to define their rank, to render a verdict on their author, what are you, you weigh him, you measure him, whether he was complete in the three aforementioned impressions or was deficient in them. He says, first of all, you should know, this way is not our way. This is a university approach to the scriptures. We are not academics, we are not doctors of Tanach, and it was once said, Rav Kahaneman once said, when they told him that so-and-so is a doctor of Talmud, he said, "A doctor of the Talmud? The Talmud is not sick, it does not need a doctor." And once they said to another sage, that here so-and-so is "the rabbi doctor." Do you hear? The rabbi doctor. So he said to them, I know that when the doctor stands beside the rabbi, it is a sign that the rabbi is sick. Do you understand? If this rabbi needs also the title of doctor, it is a sign that the rabbi here is sick. So he also needs the title of doctor. Where did you acquire the doctorate? Where? How many years did you waste dwelling in the domains of heresy and licentiousness and terrible, dreadful things? Where, how many years did you waste reading words of heresy, vanity, and vexation of spirit in order to acquire your doctorate? So if you see that there is "the rabbi doctor," that means the rabbi there is sick.
The Malbim says: the words of the Abarbanel, or in general this conception, this method, we could accept only if we were to agree that the prophets receive a vision from God, but their attainment in things is like the attainment of the sages and students from words of wisdom that they receive from their teacher. If you truly relate to the scriptures this way, then just as you say, listen, the student did not fully understand everything the teacher said, the student did not fully grasp the nuances, so you can also say, listen, apparently the prophet too did not fully, precisely grasp, and did not fully understand, or did not fully express things correctly. The Malbim says: but if we actually relate to the writings of the sages and to the writings of the prophets as a divine message, as prophecy that was entirely given by God, the Malbim says, then how does it even apply to level criticism at things that the Holy One, blessed be He, gave and transmitted in this manner? How could such a thing arise in the heart of a person complete in his Torah and his faith, to compare the divine prophetic emanation, in which He pours His spirit upon His seers and messengers, when God reveals to them His secret and sends them on God's mission, meaning on His errand, how do you compare that to the emanation of the human intellect? For the human intellect is liable to err, by virtue of being material, by virtue of being limited. What has the straw to do with the grain? When someone receives something from God, it is pure, it is clean, it is straight, it is holy. How does it apply to compare that to a student who received from his teacher, and had a lack of understanding, and there were things whose depth he did not fully grasp, and some of the things he tried to transmit afterward and garbled them? Do you compare the divine emanation to this? He says, how could such a thing arise in the mind?
And if God has poured over you a spirit of deep sleep, says the Malbim, over you who expound and examine according to the power of the human intellect. So you expound and examine with the power of the human intellect, and you think that the prophet too delivers his prophecy with the power of the human intellect. The Malbim says: and He has shut your eyes from looking to God. You critics, the Holy One, blessed be He, has shut your eyes from looking to God. Has He indeed also covered the prophets and your heads, the seers and gazers in visions of God? Until the words of God are to them like a sealed book? As if the Holy One, blessed be He, delivers prophecy to the prophet, and the prophet does not understand it, and the prophet does not know how to express it, and the prophet garbles it, and the prophet says the words in an incorrect manner. What, do you truly imagine this? For this is what the prophet claimed against the people of his generation: "Touch not My anointed ones and do My prophets no harm." What, you seek flaws in the prophet? Deficiencies in the prophet? Improper expressions in the prophet? For he tells you, the attainment of the prophet is not like the attainment of man. For it is clear to all of us, and the Malbim already spoke about this on several occasions, that the attainment of man is always from the later to the earlier. The meaning is: if I want to know what happened at the creation of the world, what is the approach of scientists? He takes matter, he examines it, he sees how it changes, he sees how time acts upon it, from this he draws a conclusion, if this is what happened over 100 years, then go back, what happened over 1,000 years? What happened over 2,000 years? And from this he wants to conclude what was so-and-so many thousands of years ago. Human attainment is always from the later to the earlier. I see what is at the end, from this I draw conclusions about what was at the beginning. This attainment will always be deficient. It would be much, much better if we had a recording from the time of the world's creation, and we would attain from the earlier to the later. I would see things in their order, how it was from the beginning to the end. I do not need a recording, because the Creator of the world describes before me what He did. This is the difference between us and the scientists. The scientists try to attain from the later to the earlier, and then they have all sorts of theories that they replace every morning, until truly, thank you very much to them, they reached the conclusion that there was the Big Bang, and they have already gotten very, very, very close. Because before that there were all sorts of theories about the slow development of the world, and before that there were theories that the world had always existed. And behold they have already reached us. They have already reached what the Torah says, that the world was created in a single moment. Thank you very much, there are a few more things they have not yet reached, but little by little they will reach them. One must give them time, we have seen that you give them time, they eventually reach the correct direction. So they will reach this too, to the correct direction. To "In the beginning God created," they will reach this too, the correct direction. But what have you actually understood? That when you come to attain conclusions from the later to the earlier, you will err much along the way. But when you see things from the earlier to the later, then it is described before me from where everything began. In the beginning God created the first primordial matter, and how out of this everything was created. So too he says, you must understand the difference between human attainment and the attainment of the prophet, which is a spiritual, divine attainment.
When the seer contemplates the word of God, says the Malbim, he attains a sudden attainment, from the earlier to the later. Abstracted from all matters of matter. For God gives His spirit upon him in a manner exalted above the way of nature. When you try to grasp something with the intellect, as we said, from the later you try to attain what was earlier. And one thing. A second thing, your attainment is gradual. What does gradual mean? I learn one more thing, I advance a bit more, I delve a bit deeper, and little by little by little until the matter becomes clear to me. Intellectual attainment is always gradual. We would be very, very glad if we would get up in the morning and discover that someone had inserted into the hard disk of our brain the entire Torah in its entirety. This is spiritual attainment. Spiritual attainment is not gradual. It is not "another chapter and another passage I learned." In a single moment he knows everything. This is the prophet. The prophet, this is spiritual attainment. Understand, matter is limited. Matter cannot receive everything in a single moment. Matter must acquire slowly. In contrast, spirit, something spiritual: what happens to a person in a dream? In a single second a person knows everything. In a single second a person sees a dream of an hour, two hours. How long does it take? A few seconds. What happens to a person who experiences an experience of clinical death? He describes to you that he saw his entire life. And his clinical death lasted four seconds. And he saw his entire life, everything in a film, sometimes he describes to you a heavenly court and everything that befell him. And all of it was in a few seconds. One must know, in spiritual reality there is no limit of place, of time. In a single moment everything happens. So is the attainment of the prophet. The Holy One, blessed be He, as it were, raises his spirit to Him, and then in a single moment the prophet receives a message from God.
And this is what the Malbim says, defines, he says: know, the emanation of prophecy depends on the divine will and on His great power, which creates a new creation, something above the attainment of the intellect that is attached to matter. And then his soul goes out and separates from the company of matter, and becomes like one of the separate intellects. This is always the expression in the early authorities for angels. It becomes like an angel, for whom there is no screen or barrier in man that prevents seeing in the clear light. You are within a physical body, you cannot see divinity. But the prophet went out of the body, and he is connected to spirituality. For the cloud and the fog have departed, the shadows have fled, for the spirit of God passed and purified them. This is the language of the verse. So that in practice it does not apply at all to compare the attainment of the student from his teacher to the attainment of the prophet from his God. And also according to what the Rambam wrote in the Moreh Nevuchim, that prophecy rests according to the preparation of the prophet, he says, even so you see that the Rambam did not agree with the opinion of the philosopher, for the philosopher there claimed that anyone who is physically prepared, that is, created with physical preparation, will certainly receive prophecy. Certainly not. You see that here one needs the will of God, and according to what God wishes to emanate upon him. He says, if so, you understand that in fact it does not apply to begin criticizing the prophet. Did he write something precise, or did he stand according to the precision of the language? For in general this does not depend on him. Everything is from the hand of God who granted him understanding. So would it arise in the mind that the prophet did not see well when God shows him? Would it arise in the mind that the prophet did not express himself correctly when God speaks through his mouth? When God places the words in his mouth? So what, the Holy One, blessed be He, delivered His words deficiently? This you imagine? Would it arise in someone's mind to criticize the words of the Torah and to say that in the Torah there are things written incorrectly or imprecisely? Do you know better than the Holy One, blessed be He? For if you see something that is lacking, you understand that the lack is in you. You understand that the Holy One, blessed be He, is the pinnacle of completeness, and you want to correct Him and tell Him that He made something incomplete? And if it is empty, it is from you. If you see emptiness and deficiency, the deficiency is in you. In your understanding, in your conception, in your manner of criticism. With you is the problem. The problem is not with the Holy One, blessed be He, for what the Holy One, blessed be He, delivers to the world is a perfect thing, without any flaw and without any deficiency.
The Malbim says: and not only in the message itself, but also in the language in which he spoke the work of prophecy to the people, and the beauty of the poetry and the eloquence, and the details of the words in which he writes the things down in a book, this the prophet does not invent from his wisdom and his intellect. Rather they were placed in his mouth and his pen by the spirit of God upon him. So everything is from God, and God, as it were, says to him, "write thus." He placed His words on his tongue, and said, "thus you shall speak and thus you shall write with a holy pen, do not subtract and do not add." So how do you imagine that the prophet wrote things with deficiency of writing and beauty of eloquence? The Malbim asks, would such a thing arise in the mind? For there is an explicit verse saying, "And I will be with your mouth and will teach you what you shall speak." Or another verse, "The spirit of God spoke through me and His word is on my tongue." Or another verse, "From his mouth he would read to me and I write in the book with ink." This is what happened, that Yirmiyahu read before Baruch, and Baruch was a swift scribe, the Malbim says, he had no permission to correct even a single letter. For here there is no room for opinions, here there is no room for beauty of eloquence, if the Holy One, blessed be He, said to write the things otherwise. And if you imagine that there are errors, then let us correct all the books of the prophets. Let us lay a hand on them, let us make on them objections and emendations and corrections in every single place according to what seems to us based on the precision of the language. And then the holy books would be like a breached city without a wall, foxes ruining vineyards would walk in them, to ruin and destroy and cut down the plantings. And to swallow the holy. For each one would say, "no, here it is not written correctly," the second here would see a place to correct, the third there would say the beauty of eloquence permits changing the word to another word, or in order to achieve a rhyme, and so on. So what, like a breached city without a wall, all the writings of the prophets we should come and change and garble? And the Masorah made a fence and boundary around the holy writings, a fortified wall around. Everything in writing from the hand of God who granted understanding. And how can such a thing be said that has no basis, to place the spirit upon a scale and to weigh in the balance the virtue of the books of the prophets and their rank on scales? Would it arise in the mind, you want to weigh the rank of the prophet, this one expressed himself thus, that one expresses himself otherwise, this one's language is pure, that one's language is stammering? Would such a thing arise in the mind?
And even if you see that there are differences between the formulations from one prophet to another, that there are stylistic variations, the Malbim says, thus was the will of God who prophesied to him. That this would be written in this style, and that would be written in that style. For no two prophets prophesy in one style. And the Holy One, blessed be He, to this one gave such a style, and to the other another style. Since, says the Malbim, the divine emanation has boundaries and levels and orders known to God, and to each one the Holy One, blessed be He, emanates according to his matter. And you have permission, says the Malbim, to say, in this I do agree, that there is no heresy in it if you say that it was arranged according to the preparation of the prophets and according to the will of God who prophesied to them. This one may say. But to say that it is deficient, because, God forbid, the prophet is deficient? To say that it is written garbled because the prophet does not know how to write? For it is impossible that a deficient thing should issue from God, may He be blessed. And if you say, no, God brought out the things complete, the prophet, due to his deficiency, wrote the things thus. Would it arise in the mind? Would a prime minister ride in a rattling vehicle? That every 10 minutes he needs to pull over to the side because it is emitting some smoke? So if you would not ascribe this to the prime minister, then the Holy One, blessed be He, would use a defective instrument in order to bring His prophecies to the people? Through someone who is a stammerer, who does not know how to speak? Him the Holy One, blessed be He, would use? What, is the Holy One, blessed be He, lacking complete ones? Is the Holy One, blessed be He, lacking those who would bring out the things in a precise and fitting manner? And behold you see that although Moshe Rabbeinu was a stammerer, even so in the Torah no words of stammering were written. And no one would imagine that since the Holy One, blessed be He, said His prophecy through Moshe's mouth, then in the Torah things would be written in an incomplete manner. For the word of God always comes in completeness. And when it is written in a book, it is written in completeness. And if you see that it seems to you that in one of the statements of the prophets there is a deficiency of words or things not aligned according to the rules of eloquence, the Malbim says, you must attribute the things to the deficiency of your understanding. Not to the words of the living God, complete and perfect, in which there is nothing twisted, twisted and crooked.
Good, first of all the Malbim set us upon the correct hashkafa. Now the Malbim will come and say, good, but they presented claims, claims. What do I do with those claims? The Malbim says: and now turn aside and let me see the proofs of the critic rabbi. From which he concluded that our prophet was not expert in the rules of eloquence and language and writing. For behold, he found several times changes, "el" instead of "al," and masculine and feminine mixed, singular and plural, second person and third person, without order. And because of this he decided that the prophet began to prophesy while still a lad, and the lad, what can one do, was not complete in the ways of language, and since this is so, then you see corruptions. Now he raises a tremendous difficulty against him. Let the master say now, for even a lad does not err in such errors. Now we are not speaking of the youth of our times. We are speaking of a lad from 3,000 years ago. Would it arise in the mind that he would err in linguistic errors? A lad from 2,500 years ago, would he have such confusions of masculine, feminine? Would he swap the word "el" for "al"? For even today he would not be confused about this. Would he say "put el the table" when he means "al the table"? What is this, is this his error? Or would he say "put al the tables" when he means "on the table"? Would he be confused between plural and singular? For a lad is not confused. Perhaps if he were a new immigrant, but the prophet was not a new immigrant. So how did he really suddenly get confused between masculine and feminine, between "el" and "al"? Now the greatest difficulty. He says, how long did he prophesy while still a lad? For Yirmiyahu was a prophet for 40 years. So let us say he prophesied while still young. When he reached the age of 30, 40, 50, you agree that he had already acquired the language thoroughly. He is no longer a lad. The Malbim says, when you contemplate you see that most of Yirmiyahu's prophecies, and we will see later that we can know more or less what was said at the beginning of his prophecy, what was said toward the end of his days, you see that most of his prophecies he prophesied when he was already at the end of his days. Most of Yirmiyahu's prophecies were at the end of his days. So if that is so, your entire argument can be correct only regarding a small portion of the prophecies, that you would say he was still a lad. But most of the prophecies he prophesied already as an elder, expert and practiced. So how there are there errors according to your understanding? First difficulty.
Second difficulty, he says: on the contrary, when you contemplate you see that those very deficiencies that the Abarbanel and the critics found in him, those very deficiencies are found specifically in his last prophecies. So that his first prophecies, while he was a lad, were specifically precise according to the ways of language and all the deficiencies he found in them. That is, the opposite of what you claim. For according to your method, we should find the deficiencies in language in the first prophecies, when he was a lad. But we see the opposite, that specifically about the first prophecies he has no complaints, he has no complaints about them, they are linguistically precise, while about the last prophecies specifically there is against him a supposed complaint, in which he was already truly not a lad, he was already an elder, expert and familiar with all the ways of language. Well, is this not a proof to refute all his claims and the claims of the critics who argue that it is because he was a lad?
The Malbim further asks: for the author of our book composed other books as well. Does anyone know which other books Yirmiyahu composed? Yirmiyahu composed Eichah, as is well known, but Yirmiyahu also composed Melachim. About Melachim, the Malbim argues, no one found in it a deficiency. No one found all the flaws you found in Sefer Yirmiyahu. So are you willing to explain to me how there he suddenly learned to speak? And here he suddenly forgot how to speak? And as we saw, this is not a matter of period, for you find the deficiencies also at the end of his period.
The Malbim says: according to what you will be compelled to say, that even if you find deficiencies according to the precision of language and the like, in truth these are deficiencies according to the interpretations of the commentators. And according to the interpretation that I will show you, says the Malbim, you will become convinced to see that the changes have vanished and ceased, they have passed and gone, a few remain out of the many, and what was loathsome in the eyes of the commentators, for us will become delicacies sweeter than honey and the honeycomb. On the contrary, what for them was perceived as a deficiency, I will show you how much inner meaning there is in the things, how much beauty, splendor, and glory, and you will see, you will see that not only is this not a deficiency, but you will see how much inner meaning and depth there is when the prophet took care to express himself specifically with this expression and specifically with this statement, and specifically here it seems to you that he changed, but this change is not incidental and it is not an error, rather he intended to hint to us with a wondrous hint. And even the few remaining strange things, things that still remain for you as strange things regarding the manner of the prophet's expression, are not a crookedness that cannot be corrected, if you take to heart that God spoke and opened His lips with you, and God will reveal to you the mysteries of wisdom that are wrapped and covered in a strange garment, so that you will penetrate into them and recognize that it is doubly sound wisdom. And that besides the plain meaning, God still has words. And he says, and specifically in the places that are strangest in your eyes, there is the most inner secret. There is the most inner hint of the things. That is, if the things are written according to their plain meaning, then I understand the thing according to its plain meaning, I do not search for pearls beneath it. But when someone brings me a riddle, I say, wait, I do not understand what is written here. "If in the tenth you take the third, add to it the fourth, you will get the prophet who prophesied to Israel." What a riddle. Everyone begins to understand, no, wait, come, come, this is not simple, this is not simple, one must understand what is written here. But when someone says, "And God spoke to Moshe saying," then no one searches for depth. It is written, it is written that God spoke to Moshe. So that is to say, on the contrary, specifically in the places where suddenly you see, you say, listen, no, it is not clear to me what he wrote here, these are the places where there is depth. These are the places where there is a riddle, which one must crack, which one must understand. And he says, and specifically then, the precious children clothed in strange garments, what seems to you strange, what is written here, this is not understood, they are the darling children, dwelling within, in the palaces of the King. This is specifically the wondrous things, these are the inner things, the hinted ones, specifically in what seems strange to you.
Just as when the Gemara writes about a bird that landed on a tree and laid an egg, and the egg drowned so-and-so many cities and towns, then everyone understands, listen, listen, no one intends to picture to himself, to himself, that they wrote here plain meaning. That there really was here a bird that laid an egg and the egg drowned so-and-so many towns. As that sage said, who was asked by the king, I do not remember who it was, so the Caesar asked him, how, what is this, these things? The aggadot of Rabbah bar bar Chanah and all sorts of such things that seemed to him very, very strange, about a giant frog and about, what are these strange things? So he said to him, tell me, if it were written that a drop of ink from the Caesar's pen drowned thousands of villages and towns, what would you understand? You would understand that the Caesar decreed a decree, signed it, and following this decree annihilation was decreed upon so-and-so many villages and towns of the Caesar. So in eloquent language, a drop of ink from the Caesar's pen drowned so-and-so many villages and towns. Now someone will come in another 500 years, will read "a drop of the Caesar's ink drowned," come on now, what pen is being spoken of? What, and how can a drop of ink drown villages and towns? Listen, these people spoke illogical things. But whoever lives now and understands the hint and eloquence, then understands that they actually want to say that with the stroke of a signature destruction came upon thousands of villages and towns. And no one intends to say that the drop of ink really drowned, rather this, this is an allegorical matter, this is a parable that you need to understand accordingly. So too says the Malbim, always when you see something that is a bit strange in its plain understanding, dig down, you will find pearls. Dig within, you will see that there is depth. So on the contrary, what you found as a deficiency, not only is it not a deficiency, but it comes to hint that there is here something inner, that there is here some hint that one must dig for and find. For everything that deviates from the rules of language, this is a very important principle that the Malbim wrote in Sefer HaTorah VeHaMitzvah, where he writes all the rules of the writings of the prophets, so there he brings this principle. Everything that deviates from the rules of language and the foundations of eloquence is a hidden storehouse and a great treasure of precious pearls that were transmitted from mouth to ear, there they dwell in the secret of the tent, and investigating their honor is honor. Investigating their honor is honor to God, that you reveal the hidden things of the Torah, that things that seemingly appear to us as not grasped in ordinary understanding, suddenly you see how much depth and inner meaning there is in those things.
He further says: why does the sage complain that in our book there is keri and ketiv double what is in other books? What he wishes to say by this is that in fact he was not expert in writing, and then he would write one expression, when in fact one should write another expression. So what did they do? The expression that he wrote they defined as the ketiv, and the other expression, which is more grammatically correct, they wrote on the side, this became the keri. In simple words, the keri and ketiv, as it were, someone came and emended the book. All his incomplete expressions, he wrote in the book, it was written in completeness. And if you see that it seems to you that in one of the statements of the prophets there is a deficiency of words or things not aligned according to the rules of eloquence...