Sefer Yirmiyahu, chapter 3. "Saying, if a man sends away his wife and she goes from him and becomes another man's, will he return to her again? Would not that land be greatly polluted? And you have played the harlot with many lovers, yet return to Me, says Hashem."
The Malbim explains that this pasuk is puzzling. How can a pasuk begin with the word "saying"? "Saying" is not the opening of a pasuk. It is always written "so and so said" and then "saying." "And Hashem spoke to Moshe, saying." The expression "saying" always comes after there is something to be said. But this time we do not see "saying" as the opener of a sentence, as the opener of a chapter. What does this mean? Therefore the Malbim explains that one must read it this way: "saying, if a man sends away his wife and she goes from him and becomes another man's, will he return to her again? Would not that land be greatly polluted," that is, "would not that land be greatly polluted, saying, if a man sends away his wife." In other words, "would not that land be greatly polluted" means: this is the claim that land makes. What is the claim that land makes? "Saying, if a man sends away his wife and she goes from him and becomes another man's, will he return to her again?" So what is written at the end of the sentence represents, as it were, the speaker. What did it say? "Saying, if a man sends away his wife and she goes from him, is it possible that he would return to her?" Let us explain.
What the Malbim is saying is that here there is essentially a debate by way of claim and response. That land flatters, that is, it makes a claim saying: it is not possible that Hashem would accept us. How could it be that we would return to Hashem and Hashem would take us back? After all, we served foreign gods, we abandoned His path. And the analogy the land brings is from the Torah, from the mitzvot of the Torah. For in the mitzvot of the Torah it is written that a man who divorces his wife and she goes and becomes another man's, it is written that she may not return to her first husband after she has been defiled. If so, this is what "that land is greatly polluted" means, this is what that land claims: "if a man sends away his wife and she goes from him and becomes another man's, will he return to her again?" So what are you talking about with us, Yirmiyahu, about repentance and about the Holy One, blessed be He, awaiting us and about the Holy One, blessed be He, returning to us, restoring our captivity? "Would not that land be greatly polluted" to make such a claim? Their claim is a claim based on the pesukim of the Torah.
What is the source of the expression "greatly polluted"? The Malbim says that the verb "to pollute" (chanof) also applies to one who wishes to justify himself openly, contrary to the truth. That is, if I want to state something as an argument for my righteousness, even if I am not right, but I search for some arguments beneath the ground in order to justify my way, this is called flattery. This is called chanof. Chanof is some external, untrue action, like when I flatter you. So here too, when I make an untrue claim in order to justify myself, this too is called flattery. So the land "is greatly polluted, saying" with this claim, how would Hashem return to us? So what are you telling us, that we should repent and the Holy One, blessed be He, would accept the nation of Israel? This thing is surely not possible.
What is the response? "And you have played the harlot with many lovers, yet return to Me, says Hashem." The Holy One, blessed be He, comes and says: on the contrary, from the very source you brought there is a response and even a further difficulty with your words. For the halacha is that if a woman committed adultery at the time of her divorce, that is, she was married to a certain man and after she was divorced from him she went and strayed with another man, she went and committed adultery with another man as an unmarried woman, the halacha is that this woman, even if she was with many men, may return to her husband. There is no problem for her first husband to take her back. The entire prohibition applies only if she went and married another man. The moment she married another person, from then on her first husband can no longer take her back. It emerges, then, that the Holy One, blessed be He, says to her: according to this, the entire prohibition applies only after you went and married someone else. He says here, the Holy One, blessed be He, says, "and you have played the harlot." "Played the harlot" means not by way of marriage. If it is not by way of marriage, then certainly there is room for you to return to Me. Another point: you did not commit adultery with one special man, with one particular man, but you committed adultery with many lovers. And so "return to Me," for then I can indeed take you back.
The Malbim explains: if they had been converts to some specific idolatry, if they had clung to some idolatry, as, say, a certain nation clung to Dagon, and another nation clung to Baal and the like, to the Baalim and the like, then here I would have had a problem taking you back, since it would be as if you had gone and married another man. But you did not cling to a single idolatry. "According to the number of your cities were your gods," so says the Holy One, blessed be He, to Shomron. That is, you went, so to speak, in all directions, you invested in every channel. So you did not cling to one idolatry. Since you did not cling to one idolatry, it is as if you did not go and remarry after abandoning Me. Rather, to be at one time with this idolatry and at another time with that idolatry and at another time with that idolatry, this resembles a woman who commits adultery once with this one and once with that one and once with that one. And in this, says the Holy One, blessed be He, this is on the contrary a reason that I can indeed take you back. Since your attachment to that idolatry is a temporary attachment. It is an attachment that is not exclusive to that idolatry, since you cling each time to a different idolatry. And if so, says the Holy One, blessed be He, "and you have played the harlot," you did not marry, "with many lovers," it was not with one, and therefore "return to Me, says Hashem." Consequently, says the Holy One, blessed be He, in this situation you can return to Me, and since this is so, there is no prohibition here of taking back one's divorcee after she has married another.
The Malbim explains further, that the idolatry you clung to, you went about from nation to nation and tried to resemble the nations of the lands. That is, the nation of Israel did not go with the aim of serving idolatry, but with the aim of being like the peoples of the lands. "I too will do so," to be like that nation and to be like this nation. To a Jew the non-Jew is always perceived as more advanced, as something that expresses innovation, progress. As if the Jew remains somewhere behind. Once a certain fellow came to ask, a certain enlightened one came to ask one of the Torah leaders of Israel, he said to him: tell me, why did Yosef... why did Yosef circumcise Egypt? What is the logic in this? What interest is there in circumcising non-Jews? Why did he go to circumcise Egypt? Now, in Sefer Mishnat HaGilgulim there is an explanation for this, whoever understands what Yosef's reincarnations are and what he went through and what his rectification is, has an explanation for this. But let us leave that. Listen to what the Rav answered him. The Rav gave him an answer that fits an enlightened one. The Rav said to him: I will tell you why. He said to him: there are enlightened ones for whom whatever the Jew does is always inferior, always lowly, always bad. But if a non-Jew does it, oh, that is what must be imitated. He tells you: they already do this in America, this is accepted in Europe. Ah, this is already what they do in the European salons, this is... you have convinced him. He says: what did Yosef do? He knew that such enlightened ones would arise who would say about circumcision, what are you talking about, what kind of thing is this? What, an operation against the child's will? These are all sorts of pagan rituals and... He tells you: the non-Jew does this. Ah, the non-Jew does this? Fine. If the non-Jew circumcises, then it is fine, that he accepts. When one wishes to approach such people, you do not tell them circumcision is written in the Torah, you tell him the British royal house has for hundreds of years circumcised its children. Well, if the British do it, they apparently know what they are doing. That is, whatever a Jew does is never enough, is never sufficient. But if a non-Jew does it, oh, what honor. Once someone said: you know, among Ashkenazim when they bring a child to the brit, you know what they say? What do they say? "Baruch haba" (blessed is he who comes). They say "Baruch haba." He said: but afterward they do not say "blessed is your departure," they say no blessing. He says: you know why? He says: when he comes he is still uncircumcised. Do you understand? He comes and he is still uncircumcised. To the uncircumcised the Jews bow, the Jews honor. This symbolizes, as it were, some progress, this is, in quotation marks, still a non-Jew. After a Jew, already one of ours, is already circumcised, fine, then he is not even addressed respectfully. You see that the Jew often expresses a certain weakness compared to the culture of the non-Jew. Whatever the non-Jew does always seems better to him. So he says here: "you went about from nation to nation, you tried to resemble the nations of the lands." Not because you truly clung to their idolatry, but only in order to resemble the nations. The Holy One, blessed be He, says to her: and this deficiency is in fact your advantage. Since you did not cling to their idol, to their idolatry, it emerges that you did not marry another. And as long as the divorced woman did not marry another, even though she committed adultery after her divorce, she may return to her first husband. Therefore the Holy One, blessed be He, says, "and you have played the harlot with many lovers, yet return to Me, says Hashem."
"Lift up your eyes to the high places and see where you have not been lain with. On the roads you sat for them like an Arab in the wilderness, and you polluted the land with your harlotries and with your wickedness." "Lift up your eyes to the high places and see": He comes and says to her, come and see that you were not exclusive to one idolatry, or in this analogy to one husband, but you committed adultery with many lovers. He says to her, "lift up your eyes to the high places and see where you have not been lain with." In the written text it is written "shugalt," and just as in the Torah a corrected reading uses a more refined expression, "lain with." That is, He says to her, as it were: I do not want to show you the places where you committed adultery, for those very places are countless. That is, if I had to count them, it would be endless. The Holy One, blessed be He, says, as it were: show Me where you have not lain. Show Me where you did not serve idolatry. And this is what is written about the time of Achav, that on every hill and mound in the land of Israel they set up idolatry and brought every idolatry that exists in the world, 365 kinds of idolatry, and each day they served a different idolatry. And He says to her: even what you did was not in secret, but "on the roads you sat for them." Those lovers written in the previous pasuk with whom you supposedly committed adultery, "on the roads you sat for them," "on the roads" means in the famous and public places you were ready, as it were, to commit adultery for them. Like an Arab who sits in the wilderness where no one sees him, so too you sat in a place that is a visible place. And nevertheless, the Holy One, blessed be He, says to her: this is not like a divorced woman who left her husband and went and committed adultery with a particular man. Rather, "you polluted the land with your harlotries and with your wickedness." There was flattery here. Flattery, as we already explained, is when one's mouth and heart are not the same. This is the definition of flattery. It means: you were in your husband's eyes like a woman who is under his protection, and you went and committed adultery. That is, there is a situation in which the woman left the home or was divorced, which is complete distancing. And there is a situation in which outwardly, in relation to her husband, she gives the impression that she is decent and upright and faithful, but commits adultery under him. About this He says to her, "and you polluted the land with your harlotries and with your wickedness." You were like a flattering woman whose mouth and heart are not the same. You were like a woman living under her husband, who when she lacks something asks her husband, for this reason I am a married woman. And she says to him, "you are the master of my youth, upon you I rely, to you I am attached," while in practice she goes and commits adultery with others.
What is written here, "lift up your eyes to the high places and see": the Malbim explains that "high places" means an elevated place. As if to say, come and see and see that there in all those places you committed adultery. "Where you have not lain, on the roads you sat for them like an Arab in the wilderness." The Malbim explains one interpretation: he said "like an Arab," like the Arabs who dwell in the wilderness. So too you acted, as it were, in relation to your husband, you were like a decent woman, but like an Arab in the wilderness, which is a hidden place, in a hidden place you committed adultery. And the Malbim explains that there is another possibility of interpreting this: that "like an Arav" is from the word erev, from the word for night. As if you did your deeds in secret, in the evening, at night, in a hidden place, not in a place that is visible.
"And the showers were withheld, and there was no latter rain; yet you had a harlot's brazenness, you refused to be ashamed." He says: come and see that if the showers were withheld, there is no rain, or there was no latter rain, and you need rain and precipitation, "yet you had a harlot's brazenness." What is a harlot's brazenness? A harlot woman uncovers her forehead, as it were, brazenness of forehead. And then "you refused to be ashamed." In what did you refuse to be ashamed? "Have you not just now called to Me, 'My father, You are the master of my youth'?" That is, without any shame you turn to the Master of the world and say to Him, "Master of the world, have You not from of old, from time immemorial, been the master of my youth, from my youth You are my master, my beloved Master of the world, I need rain, could You send us rain?" The Holy One, blessed be He, says: see what brazenness of forehead and impudence you had, that when the showers were withheld and there was no latter rain, you had a harlot's brazenness, "you refused to be ashamed," without shame you call to Me, "My father, You are the master of my youth, Father, may I have rain?" You ask rain of the Master of the world. About this He says: your action was an action of "you polluted the land with your harlotries and with your wickedness." This is an action of flattery, and an action of flattery, as we explained, is an action that outwardly creates a certain impression, "I am under you, You are the master of my youth," but meanwhile you went and served idolatry, and you still dare to face the Holy One, blessed be He, like a harlot's brazenness, "you refused to be ashamed." And the harlot's brazenness here has a double meaning. It is not enough that you went and committed adultery, but you also behave like a harlot with impudence to turn to your husband, as it were, while you are under him, and you ask him to give and help you.
What is the difference between showers and latter rain? The Malbim explains that showers are the abundant rain that falls at the beginning, and the latter rain is the rain that falls at the end, like the early rain and the latter rain. And Chazal expound on this pasuk and say: "the rains are withheld only on account of the brazen-faced." For what is written here? "And the showers were withheld, and there was no latter rain." Why? Why is there no latter rain? Why are there no showers? About this He says, "yet you had a harlot's brazenness, you refused to be ashamed." You acted with brazenness of face, with impudence. As in the case of the harlot who bore a child, one who is brazen-faced is called impudent. The rains are withheld only on account of the impudent and the brazen-faced, as is written here in the pasuk.
Rashi, by contrast, explains "have you not just now called to Me, 'My father, You are the master of my youth'": that with this the Holy One, blessed be He, is already turning to the nation of Israel and telling them, if you had returned, I would already have returned to you. Not as the Malbim explains, for the Malbim explains that this is part of the complaint, that the Holy One, blessed be He, says: you have no shame at all, after the wicked deeds you do you still turn to Me asking for help. Not in this way, but according to Rashi it is like an appeal now, "so return to Me." "Have you not just now called to Me, 'My father, You are the master of my youth'": if now you would call to Me, "My father, You are the master of my youth," then I would return to you, as it were says the Holy One, blessed be He. I would already return to you, thus the pasuk is explained according to Rashi.
"Will He hold a grudge forever? Will He keep it eternally? Behold, you have spoken and done evil things, and prevailed." So according to Rashi, indeed, the Holy One, blessed be He, says, "so return to Me, and would I hold a grudge eternally? Would I hold eternally the evils you did to Me? I am ready to forgive and pardon you, only return to Me." This is according to Rashi. By contrast, according to the Malbim's approach, the Holy One, blessed be He, turns to Knesset Yisrael and says to her: "You had such brazenness of face, such impudence, to do all the wicked deeds and yet to turn to the Holy One, blessed be He, requesting help when something is lacking for you, as if you still sit under Him." What is the continuation? "Will He hold a grudge forever? Will He keep it eternally?" When there is no rain, what do you claim? You come and say, "But Master of the world, I am bound to You, I am attached to You. What, true, I had some slight deviations, but surely Hashem would not hold a grudge forever? What, would the Holy One, blessed be He, forever remember my small problems, my shortcomings? Is it possible that the Holy One, blessed be He, would not pardon the small mistakes that were in the past?" "Behold, you have spoken and done evil things, and prevailed." "Behold, you have spoken," you say with your mouth, "there is nothing to fear, the Holy One, blessed be He, does not punish, He will not hold a grudge forever over all the negative things I did." "And done evil things," while you speak you continue to do the evil things, meaning to chase after idolatry, after the idols. "And prevailed," thus you can do the deed of a harlot woman who dares with her face, her countenance, who still turns to her husband, as it were, to receive from him help and support, at the very same time that she also turns to the others with whom she commits adultery. So you ask help of Me, for what? What about the sins and what about what you did? What, will He hold a grudge forever? The Holy One, blessed be He, does not punish, do you think He forever remembers the corrupt things I did?
"Will He hold a grudge forever? Will He keep it eternally?" We already know that with the Malbim there is no repetition of a matter in different words. And if it is written "hold a grudge" (yitor) it is not "keep" (yishmor), and if it is written "forever" (le'olam) it is not "eternally" (lanetzach). So what is "hold a grudge forever" and "keep it eternally"? And if it is written "hold a grudge forever" it is not "hold a grudge eternally," it is "hold a grudge forever." And if it is written "keep it eternally," then it is not "keep it forever," it is "keep it eternally." That is, every expression is written exactly in the place suited to it, in the context proper to it. So what is "hold a grudge forever" and "keep it eternally"? The Malbim says: first of all, the first thing, something he explains in several places, is that there is a difference between "forever" (le'olam) and "eternally" (lanetzach). "Forever" always speaks of the time that is in flow. Our time. The time here in the world, every moment a second passes, this is the time we know here from physical reality. Whenever "le'olam" is written it speaks of the time of material reality. As is known, when matter was created, time was created, as the Ramban writes. Einstein discovered this 800 years late, but in the end the men of science always arrive at what the sages of Israel write. And the Ramban already writes that the matter of the existence of matter is connected to the existence of time, and the existence of time is connected to the existence of matter, and time began from the moment primal matter was formed, for where there is no matter, time has no meaning. This time is something over which many pens have been broken to understand it: what is the reality of time? Is time an existing reality? What does it mean? If I follow the clock and see that another second has passed, has something in time changed? This is a question they have dealt with much. But in any case, when speaking of this time of the reality that exists here, the Malbim defines it as "the moving time." That is, the time that passes. The time that is not above time, but within the reality of time. He says: this time is called "le'olam." And it could be that if I speak of the whole life of a person, I would say "to serve him forever." In any case, what are we speaking of? We are speaking of the time that here belongs to the reality of matter. By contrast, when we speak of "lanetzach," we are speaking of metaphysical reality. We are speaking of spiritual reality, where time has no meaning. Where today, yesterday, present, past, future, are one. In spiritual reality one cannot speak of times, for spiritual reality is a dimension in which the matter of time is entirely inapplicable. And if so, when we speak of "netzach," we are speaking of concepts of time that apply to the spiritual beings, who are above time. God, the angels, the soul, all these things are considered above time. This is the difference between "netzach" and "le'olam." The Malbim says: there is also a difference between "hold a grudge" (yitor) and "keep" (yishmor). Bearing a grudge applies only to abstract things. What does this mean? When we speak of "bearing a grudge," it always speaks of an abstract concept. I would not say "I will bear a grudge against the cup" or "against the animal" or "against the child." No, I guard them. But I bear enmity against him in my heart. Have you noticed? Enmity is an abstract concept. Enmity is not an object. It is about matters of thought. To bear it in one's heart is about matters of thought, not about objects. By contrast, guarding, guarding speaks of a tangible thing. I guard the car, the child, the animal, the house. The expression "to guard" applies to tangible things. Bearing a grudge is like harboring hatred, harboring enmity, harboring wrath. The Malbim says: in Sefer Yeshayahu, which we explained there, we also learned this, whoever wishes can hear it on the disc, it is written there "for I will not contend forever, nor will I be angry eternally." This means: sometimes the Holy One, blessed be He, punishes a person, the Holy One, blessed be He, contends with him here in this world. The Holy One, blessed be He, says, "I will not contend forever." I will not be angry with him all his days in this world. All the days of the life of the body I will not be angry with him forever. Rather I will return and have mercy on him. Hashem strikes and afterward heals. The Holy One, blessed be He, is angry and afterward removes His anger. So "I will not contend forever." I will not contend with the person while he is still within a body and living his life, for "le'olam," we said, speaks of the reality known to us here from this world. And regarding anger, sometimes the Holy One, blessed be He, does not punish the person in this world, but He is angry with him in the World to Come. "Nor will I be angry eternally." This fits very well, for "netzach," we said, speaks of the reality beyond our reality, it speaks in fact of the world of souls, of the World to Come. The Holy One, blessed be He, says: the anger with which I am angry regarding the future, "I will not be angry eternally." When is "I will not be angry eternally"? Since there, the Malbim says, He speaks of people who repent. The Holy One, blessed be He, says: My anger against them will not be eternal. Since they repent, consequently My anger against them will cease. So even if he receives some punishment there above, the anger will not be eternal. Hashem will exact from him what he did and afterward will be good to him, for this person repented. On a higher level, He will not exact from him at all, yes? But the anger that speaks of the eternal, of the world beyond, the Holy One, blessed be He, says: "I will not be angry eternally."
The Malbim says: our pasuk speaks of people who did not repent. For according to the Malbim's approach, "yet you had a harlot's brazenness, you refused to be ashamed," you continue and flatter, as it were, your husband, that you do His will and you call to Me, "My father, You are the master of my youth, give me rain," and you continue in your corrupt ways. If so, here we are speaking of such as did not repent. The Malbim says: if it had said here "Will He keep it forever, will He hold a grudge eternally," the opposite of what is written in our text. In our text it is written "Will He hold a grudge forever." The Malbim says: if it had been written "Will He keep it forever," in our text it is written "Will He keep it eternally." If it had been written "Will He hold a grudge eternally," the Malbim says, you would understand very well what is written here. And why? Guarding, we said, expresses a tangible thing. "Will He keep it forever," "forever," we said, is here in this world. So in this world tangible things apply. I guard the table, the cup, the child, the house. "Olam" expresses this world. So what is the fitting expression? "Will He keep it forever." Will the Holy One, blessed be He, keep here in this world forever, always, the enmity, punishing us here in this world? "Will He hold a grudge eternally?" To bear a grudge, we said, is about abstract things. "Eternally," we said, is the world of souls. It would have been fitting to say "Will He hold a grudge eternally?" Will Hashem bear a grudge over what? Over His anger, which is an abstract thing, eternally, endlessly? The Malbim says: here it is written the opposite. "Will He hold a grudge forever." To hold a grudge is a matter of the heart, and "forever" is this world. How does this connect? "Keep," as we said, is to guard a tangible thing, and "eternally" speaks of the World to Come. The Malbim says: know that what is written here is in full harmony. For here we are speaking of people who make false claims, and they say: the Holy One, blessed be He, does not punish. The Holy One, blessed be He, does not exact retribution. The Holy One, blessed be He, will not do to me according to the evils I did, neither in this world nor in the World to Come. And then they say that even in the heart He does not hold a grudge forever. Know that even in the heart the Holy One, blessed be He, does not hold a grudge. For the Holy One, blessed be He, pardons immediately. So "Will He hold a grudge forever?" To keep it for long periods, who is even speaking of that? I tell you, "forever," even here in this world, the Holy One, blessed be He, does not keep even in His heart a grievance over what I did. Do you understand what distortion they reached? Not only not eternally, but even here in this world Hashem does not remember even in His heart to exact retribution from me here. And what do you think, in the World to Come? In the World to Come He does not keep or punish at all, and eternally, forever, He will do nothing. Even here in this world there is not even a thought. Even to bear a grudge in the heart there is none. The Holy One, blessed be He, waives everything they do, there is nothing to worry about, one can continue in our corrupt deeds and the Holy One, blessed be He, is indulgent. Whoever says the Holy One, blessed be He, is indulgent, his innards will be given up to indulgence. And about this He says "and prevailed." Do you think you can do such a thing, something against nature? "And prevailed," does Knesset Yisrael think that thus she can claim and say and succeed? The Malbim says: it would only have been more fitting to say "and you (feminine) prevailed." For "yet you had (feminine) a harlot's brazenness, you refused to be ashamed, you called to Me, my father, master of my youth." He speaks to her in the feminine, comparing her to a woman whose ways are corrupt. And behold He says "behold, you have spoken and done evil things, and prevailed." "And you did the evil things and you (feminine) prevailed," that would have been the fitting expression, throughout the way He addresses her in the feminine formulation. The Malbim says that here, as it were, the speaker turns his face toward the people of the world. And then he says "and prevailed," as it were: what do you think? Will she be able to continue doing such things and no retribution be exacted from her? Therefore it is written "and prevailed." For the "and prevailed" now turns to the people of the world. You, people of the world, what do you think? "And prevailed"? Do you think she will be able to do such things? If He were addressing her directly, He would say "and you (feminine) prevailed." But since He turns to the people of the world and says to them, "see what evils she did, and prevailed? Do you think she will be able to do so?" therefore the expression is "and prevailed" and it did not write "and you (feminine) prevailed."