Chapter 7 of Yirmiyahu is one of the sharpest chapters in the prophet's rebuke, and the section before us addresses a fundamental question: what does the Holy One, blessed be He, truly desire from us? The people offer sacrifices in abundance, bringing burnt offerings and peace offerings, confident that this purchases immunity for them - and the prophet comes and shatters that illusion. We will study the verses according to Rashi, Radak, and Malbim, and see how the ultimate purpose of all service of Hashem is revealed here.
כֹּה אָמַר יְהֹוָה צְבָאוֹת אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל עֹלוֹתֵיכֶם סְפוּ עַל זִבְחֵיכֶם וְאִכְלוּ בָשָׂר׃ (כא) - So says the Lord of Hosts, the God of Israel: Add your burnt offerings to your peace offerings, and eat meat. (21)
What is the meaning of "sefu" (add), and what is "your burnt offerings to your peace offerings"? Rashi explains: an olah (burnt offering) is completely consumed on the altar; it is burned entirely. The zevachim are shelamim (peace offerings), from which the owners eat meat. The statement here is cynical: in any case, your burnt offering is not accepted before the Omnipresent, so why waste the meat for nothing? You would do better to add your burnt offerings to your peace offerings and at least eat meat - for from peace offerings, the person offering them also receives a share.
Radak adds an important observation: why are a sin offering (chatat) and a guilt offering (asham) not mentioned here? Because they would not confess and would not bring sacrifices for their sins. A chatat and an asham are brought by someone who feels they have sinned, someone who feels guilty - and they felt no such remorse. Furthermore, Radak adds, they committed their transgressions intentionally, and for intentional sins there is no sacrifice. What did they bring? Burnt offerings - to project an outward appearance of being servants of Hashem: "Look, I am offering an entirely consumed sacrifice to Hashem." And peace offerings - in order to eat meat. To this, the prophet tells them: Why bring peace offerings and add burnt offerings to them? Do you think this is pleasing before Me? It is stated, "and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him," but here there is no acceptance at all - neither for the burnt offerings nor for the peace offerings.
Radak interprets "sefu" as an expression of addition. Malbim disagrees and explains "sefu" as an expression of cessation and destruction, as in "I will utterly consume them [asof asifem], says Hashem," and "they have ceased, they are finished [safu tamu]." According to this, the meaning is: put an end to the burnt offerings along with the peace offerings; do not bring either of them. "To your sacrifices [al zivcheichem]" means "together with," just as the phrase says, "the men together with the women [ha'anashim al hanashim]." And what instead? "And eat meat" - take the animal, slaughter it, and eat ordinary, non-sacred meat, for in any event Hashem has no desire for these.
כִּי לֹא דִבַּרְתִּי אֶת אֲבוֹתֵיכֶם וְלֹא צִוִּיתִים בְּיוֹם הוֹצִיאִי אוֹתָם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם עַל דִּבְרֵי עוֹלָה וָזָבַח׃ (כב) - For I did not speak to your fathers, nor did I command them on the day I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning matters of burnt offerings and sacrifices. (22)
כִּי אִם אֶת הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה צִוִּיתִי אוֹתָם לֵאמֹר שִׁמְעוּ בְקוֹלִי וְהָיִיתִי לָכֶם לֵאלֹהִים וְאַתֶּם תִּהְיוּ לִי לְעָם וַהֲלַכְתֶּם בְּכׇל הַדֶּרֶךְ אֲשֶׁר אֲצַוֶּה אֶתְכֶם לְמַעַן יִיטַב לָכֶם׃ (כג) - But this thing I commanded them, saying: Obey My voice, and I will be your God and you will be My people; and walk in all the ways that I command you, so that it may go well with you. (23)
Here lies a major difficulty that all the commentators address: How can it be said that Hashem did not command concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices? Scripture is filled with commandments regarding sacrifices, and the entire book of Vayikra is devoted to sacrifices. From the very day we left Egypt we offered the Pesach offering, and later, when the Mishkan was erected, it was said: "Command the Children of Israel and say to them: My offering, My bread for My fires, My pleasing fragrance, you shall be careful to offer to Me in its appointed time" - alongside countless other commandments. How, then, can the verse state, "I did not speak... nor did I command them... concerning matters of burnt offerings and sacrifices"?
Rashi resolves this: the meaning is that the beginning of My commands and words to them was not concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices. With what did the Holy One, blessed be He, begin? "If you will diligently obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be My treasured possession." Radak similarly explains: the first commandment given to them was at Marah, where "there He made for them a statute and an ordinance, and there He tested them" - Shabbat and civil laws, not burnt offerings and sacrifices. The priority of the initial command carries significance, for what is spoken first indicates what is truly essential. The Holy One, blessed be He, says: See that sacrifices were not the primary and most important thing to Me, for I did not begin with them.
Radak adds further: the core command was not concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices, but rather concerning obedience to the voice of Hashem. Notice that in the Ten Commandments, which encompass the entirety of the Torah and its core principles, there is no mention of burnt offerings or sacrifices. Moreover, when the Torah speaks of individual sacrifices, it does not mandate bringing them, but rather says, "When a person among you brings an offering to Hashem" - if he brings one, this is how he should proceed. And if you ask: is it not said regarding the daily offerings (temidim), "Command the Children of Israel... My offering, My bread," which is an outright command? Radak replies: the daily offerings are a communal obligation for the honor of the Sanctuary, not an individual duty, whereas here Scripture is addressing the individual. The Holy One, blessed be He, commands the individual to execute justice and observe all the commandments, but does not command him to offer sacrifices. If he stumbles inadvertently, Hashem says to him: I have provided a path of rectification for you. He commands him to burn the choice parts (eimurim), so that he may reflect in his heart and overcome his desires - so that the fat and blood, so to speak, are consumed - and take care not to stumble again.
The Radak further cites the Rambam, who offers a very original rationale regarding the sacrifices (which was previously addressed in the study of Sefer HaKuzari): the sacrifices came to "displace foreign notions." Regarding the temples that were dedicated to idolatry, the Holy One, blessed be He, sought to redirect them toward the worship of God, erasing any trace of idolatry from them. That is to say, the sacrifices were designed to wean Israel away from the degraded practices of sacrificing to idols and to provide an alternative: instead of offering to impurity, they would sacrifice in the House of Hashem. According to this, even the communal offerings - "Command the Children of Israel: My offering, My bread" - are not an intrinsic command for their own sake, but a safeguard against idolatry.
This explanation is difficult from several perspectives, and this has already been discussed elsewhere, so there is no need to delve into it now. It suffices to point out the difficulty: Adam HaRishon brought a sacrifice before idolatry even existed in the world, and similarly Cain and Abel sacrificed before there was any concept of idolatry. Furthermore, the holy books reveal profound and exalted spiritual intentions (kavanot) within the entire concept of sacrifices; how then can one say that their entire purpose is merely prevention of idolatry? There are also types of sacrifices where this reasoning is hard to apply, such as the offering of a woman after childbirth (yoledet) and others. At all events, according to the Rambam, the wording of the verse is resolved: I did not command them as something that is My intrinsic desire, but rather to detach them from idolatry and redirect sacrificial worship toward holiness.
The Malbim likewise asks: How is it possible to say that He did not command concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices, when the entire book of Torat Kohanim (Vayikra) is filled with the laws of bringing offerings? Rather, the meaning is that this was not the primary purpose of the commandment. Even when I commanded regarding burnt offerings and sacrifices - "Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, to hearken than the fat of rams." The primary desire sought from the one who sacrifices is obedience to the voice of Hashem. What good does the sacrifice do you when you despise the word of Hashem and neglect the essential requirement? Therefore, He says to them: "Hearken to My voice."
The Malbim explains that the purpose of the sacrifices comprises three things, and all three are alluded to in the verse. 1. "Hearken to My voice" - it brings satisfaction (nachat ruach) before Me that I spoke and My will was performed. Obedience itself is a virtue. Consider a person who asks his son to make him a cup of tea, and the son immediately gets up and does so; beyond the cup of tea itself, the father takes pleasure in the very fact that he instructed and the son complied. Even if the son brought nothing, the mere fact that the child is obedient gives deep satisfaction.
2. "And I will be your God" - when a person brings a gift to a king, there is a strong possibility that the king will say: "I do not want a gift from you, so that you do not feel you have given me anything." In the words of Rabbeinu Yonah: "And an offering he will not accept from his hand" - when the king has no desire for the service of the one serving him. Thus, the very fact that Hashem is willing to accept a sacrifice from you is in itself an immense privilege. By way of illustration: if you approach a great Torah authority and wish to give him a gift, often he will not take it. If one were to tell Rav Shteinman, "I bought the Rav a shtender," he would reply that his current shtender has served him for sixty years and is quite sufficient for him; "He who hates gifts shall live." The Gemara even states that if a woman gives a gift to an important person (adam chashuv) and he accepts it from her, she can become betrothed to him through this. Seemingly, how can this be? After all, he is supposed to give to her! Rather, she derives deep gratification from the very fact that he was willing to accept from her, and this gratification is worth money (shaveh kesef). If one were offered the chance to buy a study table for Rav Chaim Kanievsky to learn on, how much would one be willing to pay? Fifty thousand, a hundred thousand. One pays a great deal simply so that he will accept it! The same applies here: "And I will be your God" - that I am your God and willing to accept from you, whereas there are those whose sacrifices I do not desire at all.
3. "And walk in all the way" - that the sacrifices should remind a person to walk in the way of Hashem. Voluntary offerings and the pilgrimage to Jerusalem - "so that you may learn to fear Hashem." Obligatory offerings, sin offerings (chatatot) and guilt offerings (ashamot) - so that you remember that you stumbled, and that you need to atone and rectify. The Holy One, blessed be He, concludes: among all three of these things, not a single one is for My benefit or My need. I have no need for the physical substance of the sacrifice, neither the meat nor the fat and the blood. The entire purpose of sacrifices is that through them you will come to know Hashem, draw close to Him, and find favor in His eyes; it is entirely for your sake and for your good.
The Malbim notes a precise distinction: the text states both "I spoke not" and "nor commanded them." What is the difference? Speech (dibbur) can apply even to a voluntary matter (reshut), whereas a commandment (tzivuy) applies to an obligatory matter. "I spoke with him to do so" implies no obligation; whoever wishes may do so. "I commanded him" is a binding directive.
Both of these exist within sacrifices. Voluntary offerings fall under the category of mere speech, as there is no obligation to bring a voluntary offering - "When any man of you brings an offering to Hashem," meaning whenever he chooses, he may sacrifice. By contrast, obligatory offerings are a matter of commandment - "Command the Children of Israel," "This is the law of the burnt offering," "My offering, My bread for My fire-offerings." Yet regarding the ultimate purpose of sacrifices, meaning that which the Holy One, blessed be He, desires to achieve through them, voluntary speech does not apply, but only a strict commandment. And this is what the prophet conveys: even though I spoke and I also commanded concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices - I spoke regarding voluntary offerings and commanded regarding obligatory ones - in both of them, the underlying command was that they should hearken to My voice. Obeying the voice of Hashem does not allow for "if you wish"; rather, it is an absolute obligation.
With this, the Malbim resolves a difficulty in the phrasing of the verse: Why does it repeat, "Rather, this thing I commanded them, saying"? It would have been sufficient to say, "Rather, this thing: Hearken to My voice." In his work Ayelet HaShachar, the Malbim establishes a rule: wherever the phrase "ki im" ("rather / but") appears and repeats the word that was previously negated ("nor commanded them," followed by "rather... I commanded"), the text comes to add beyond the simple meaning and invites deeper exposition. This is the intent: regarding the sacrifices themselves, there is both speech and commandment, but "hearken to My voice" is strictly a commandment, with no element of voluntary option. Consequently, there is no basis to claim that Hashem desires the physical sacrifice itself. The sole commandment is to hearken to His voice, and the sacrifices are merely an instrument through which to achieve obedience to the voice of Hashem. It is therefore accurate to state, "I spoke not... nor commanded them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices" - as an end in itself.
וְלֹא שָׁמְעוּ וְלֹא הִטּוּ אֶת אׇזְנָם וַיֵּלְכוּ בְּמֹעֵצוֹת בִּשְׁרִרוּת לִבָּם הָרָע וַיִּהְיוּ לְאָחוֹר וְלֹא לְפָנִים׃ (כד) - "Yet they did not listen nor incline their ear, but walked in the counsels and stubbornness of their evil heart, and went backward and not forward." (24)
"Yet they did not listen" - the ultimate objective was not achieved. For even though they multiplied sacrifices, they did not bring them for the proper goal, which is listening to the voice of Hashem. And not only did they not listen, but they did not even incline their ear. "To listen" means to heed and accept, whereas "to incline an ear" is even in a casual, momentary manner, and even this they did not do.
"And walked in the counsels" - the Malbim explains that "counsels" (mo'atzot) is the opposite of an inadvertent act (shegagah). In an inadvertent sin, a person stumbles without realizing, whereas "in counsels" means that one deliberated and calculated the sin. One should not think that the sin was committed inadvertently; rather, they followed their own calculated schemes.
"In the stubbornness of their evil heart" - there are two explanations of this word. The Radak explains it as related to looking and gazing, as in, "I see it (ashurennu), but not near"; according to this, "the stubbornness of their heart" refers to the vision of their heart: wherever their heart drew them and directed their gaze, that is where they were pulled. Others explain it as related to sharir (muscle or firmness), denoting hardness and heaviness of heart - sheer obstinacy. Thus, they followed both corrupt counsel and the heart's impulses, both in terms of the heart's subjective desires and in terms of its stubborn defiance.
"And went backward and not forward" - the ultimate purpose for which Hashem gave the Torah and mitzvot was that He would be their God and that they would rise from level to level, "and you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation," becoming increasingly elevated, spiritual, and close to Him. Yet they retreated from their level until, in the words of the Malbim, they reached a degraded state where they fell below the level of the human species and were likened to beasts, in the sense of "they turned backward." Scripture is precise: this is not like someone striving toward perfection who falls and rises and elevates himself again. When one says that a person "traveled in reverse," it inherently implies not moving forward. However, a person sometimes retreats, advances slightly, retreats again, and advances again. Therefore, Scripture emphasizes "backward and not forward" - a continuous decline without having advanced at all, not even once.
לְמִן הַיּוֹם אֲשֶׁר יָצְאוּ אֲבוֹתֵיכֶם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם עַד הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה וָאֶשְׁלַח אֲלֵיכֶם אֶת כׇּל עֲבָדַי הַנְּבִיאִים יוֹם הַשְׁכֵּם וְשָׁלֹחַ׃ (כה) - "Since the day that your fathers came out of the land of Egypt until this day, I have sent you all My servants the prophets, daily rising early and sending them." (25)
The Radak notes: In every generation there were transgressors among them, and his phrasing is severe - in most generations, the majority were transgressors. Even so, I constantly warned them through the prophets. "Daily" (yom) - day after day. "Rising early and sending" - each and every morning, for warnings are primarily given in the morning, before a person sets out to his labor; before he goes out to commit sins, that is when he is warned. I would send a messenger early in the morning to go and rebuke the people. The Malbim adds that this is the continuation of "backward and not forward": from the Exodus from Egypt until this day, there has been a steady decline. Do not say that I failed to rebuke them - I did rebuke them, and not merely once, but constantly, yet the words were to no avail.
וְלוֹא שָׁמְעוּ אֵלַי וְלֹא הִטּוּ אֶת אׇזְנָם וַיַּקְשׁוּ אֶת עׇרְפָּם הֵרֵעוּ מֵאֲבוֹתָם׃ (כו) - "Yet they did not listen to Me nor incline their ear, but stiffened their neck; they acted worse than their fathers." (26)
Here too, notice the Radak's wording: in every generation, the majority acted worse than their fathers. It is striking to see how severely the Radak depicts this - the plague spread through all sectors of the nation. This was exemplified by Menashe and Amon, who were among the later kings and multiplied guilt far beyond their predecessors. Of Menashe it is said that he filled Jerusalem with blood from one end to the other and placed an idol in the Sanctuary, while Amon burned the holy names and violated his own mother - horrific, appalling deeds. Notice that as the kings grew more distant in time from the Revelation at Mount Sinai, they progressively deteriorated, continually going backward and not forward. Regarding Achav, who was among the earlier wicked kings, Chazal said that his deeds were evenly balanced, and when Hashem sent Eliyahu to him with the rebuke, "Have you murdered and also taken possession?", it is written of him that he donned sackcloth "and walked softly" - there was still someone with whom to speak. But when one arrives at Amon, one encounters a wicked king who declares: Is it pleasure that I seek? My sole aim is to provoke my Creator!
"And stiffened their neck" - this expression has been explained previously, and the Metzudat David explains it similarly here. A stiff-necked person is one who, as it were, has an iron sinew in his neck. Someone calls out to him: "Come here, listen for a moment, turn around!" - yet his head is incapable of turning back to hear what is asked of him, what the one trying to correct him wants. This is what is referred to today as "banging one's head against a wall": he will march straight into a wall, but he will not turn his head. This is a "stiff-necked people" - unwilling to turn its face to hear another's words. (As an amusing aside: a story is told of an orthopedist from abroad who was asked why he wanted to make Aliyah to Israel, and he replied that Israelis need him dearly, for they are a "stiff-necked people," and he specializes in releasing stiff necks.)
The Malbim notes that there is a double evil here: "Yet they did not listen to Me" - and also "nor inclined their ear." Had they at least inclined an ear and examined the matter, even if in the end they did not listen, we could say that they checked and it did not appeal to them. The worst part is that they were not even willing to check. It is like a child to whom you offer food, and he replies, "I don't like it." Did you taste it? "No, I don't like it." That is infuriating: at least taste it, and then decide! So too here - from the outset they dismissed Hashem's path and were unwilling to consider the words of the prophets, and for this the anger is far greater. And not only that, but even when they were shown Hashem's punishments - they stiffened their neck and did not turn back.
And in this, "they did worse than their fathers": their fathers did follow the stubbornness of their evil heart, but at least "they walked in counsels" - they researched, consulted, analyzed, and decided (a mistaken decision) to deviate from Hashem's path. But these people are not even willing to walk in counsels; they reject the path out of hand, and that is that. Is this not worse than their fathers? Their fathers at least examined the matter, while they are not even willing to examine and listen.
וְדִבַּרְתָּ אֲלֵיהֶם אֶת כׇּל הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה וְלֹא יִשְׁמְעוּ אֵלֶיךָ וְקָרָאתָ אֲלֵיהֶם וְלֹא יַעֲנוּכָה׃ (כז) - "You shall speak all these words to them, but they will not listen to you; and you shall call to them, but they will not answer you." (27)
The Holy One, blessed be He, tells the prophet in advance: I know they will not listen to you, nor will they answer you. Usually, when someone is called, at least he responds - but here they will not even answer. And nonetheless - warn them.
וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵיהֶם זֶה הַגּוֹי אֲשֶׁר לוֹא שָׁמְעוּ בְּקוֹל יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהָיו וְלֹא לָקְחוּ מוּסָר אָבְדָה הָאֱמוּנָה וְנִכְרְתָה מִפִּיהֶם׃ (כח) - "And you shall say to them: This is the nation that did not listen to the voice of Hashem, their God, and did not accept discipline; faith has perished and is cut off from their mouth." (28)
The Malbim explains that here it refers to the ways in which the Holy One, blessed be He, approached them. First - "they did not listen to the voice of Hashem, their God": I appealed to them through intellect - listen, hear, I want to explain to you, try to understand - but it did not help. Afterward - "and did not accept discipline [mussar]," and mussar signifies suffering and afflictions: I saw that the intellectual approach was not working, so perhaps through afflictions and punishments - and that too was not absorbed.
"Faith has perished and is cut off from their mouth" - faith was lost from their heart, and was also cut off from their mouth, so that they do not even cling to the ancestral tradition in their hands. There is a state where faith is lost but not cut off from the mouth: a person no longer believes, yet continues out of inertia, because his father did so. On Friday night, he knows to take a cup, pour wine, recite a certain text, and that is it. Does he do this out of faith? No. Faith has perished - but at least it was not cut off from their mouth.
Well known are the words of Ariel Sharon, who remarked that he still remembered his grandfather making Kiddush, but he worried about his grandchildren who do not even know what Kiddush is, because they never saw their own grandfather make it. What he did with this observation is another matter, but at least he deserves credit for an insightful comment - highlighting a real problem. The third generation still knew a grandfather with a kippah, a God-fearing grandfather. Those who followed know a grandfather with an iPhone - that is what the grandchild sees, so what can one expect of him?
And one can explain this in another way: We have seen people who, even if they were not observant, you would still hear them say "B'ezrat Hashem" (with God's help), or "Im yirtzeh Hashem" (God willing). But in a generation where faith has been cut off from its mouth - even the mention of Heaven does not pass their lips. Once, even if you argued it was merely lip service, at least it was heard, and saying "B'ezrat Hashem" was not considered a vulgar term in the media. Today, if someone says "B'ezrat Hashem," people immediately pounce on him: "Wait, are you implying that Military Intelligence, the Shin Bet, and the Mossad are not preparing properly? Are you leaning on the Holy One, blessed be He, instead of being prepared? Don't rely on the mysticism you believe in" - may dust fill their mouths. Yet we must recognize that the very utterance of "B'ezrat Hashem," even if not spoken from a fully believing heart, transforms public discourse, showing no hesitation to mention Heaven's name and acknowledging that reality depends on divine assistance (siyata d'Shemaya). Here, Scripture describes an even worse reality: they did not accept discipline, faith was lost and was also cut off from their mouth - they did not even mention it as rote recitation anymore.
Radak explains that "emunah" (faithfulness) is from the root of "emet" (truth). It is well known that "amen" stems from truth - when answering amen to a blessing, the intent is: what you have blessed is true, "that everything came to be by His word," it is true. Likewise, "I tell you this b'emunah" - meaning truthfully. Radak says: Most people speak with their mouths what is not in their hearts, in order to appear righteous when they are not. But here, "faithfulness has perished and is cut off from their mouth" - they have truth neither in their hearts nor in their mouths; they lie freely. With whom can one even speak with such demands? In contrast to the righteous, of whom it is said, "and speaks truth in his heart" - that if he resolved in his heart to sell to you at a lower price, even if you offered more, he sells to you as he initially resolved in his heart. And one who does not speak truth in his heart, let him at least speak truth with his mouth - but these people do not even have truth in their mouth.
גׇּזִּי נִזְרֵךְ וְהַשְׁלִיכִי וּשְׂאִי עַל שְׁפָיִם קִינָה כִּי מָאַס יְהֹוָה וַיִּטֹּשׁ אֶת דּוֹר עֶבְרָתוֹ׃ (כט) - Shear your crown of hair and cast it away, and lift up a lamentation on high barren hills, for Hashem has rejected and forsaken the generation of His wrath.
"Shear" (gazi) is from the language of shearing or cutting, meaning pluck out your hair, as in "and he brought across (vayagaz) quails" and "and he shaved (vayagaz) his head." Rashi brings another interpretation: "your crown" (nizrech) refers to your royal diadem, an expression of greatness, meaning remove your crown. The Radak asks: if this refers to shearing hair, why does it not say "shear your hair"? He explains beautifully: a nazir lets his hair grow long, and therefore long hair is called a nezer - meaning, cut the hair that has grown long like the hair of a nazir, and make a bald patch upon your head.
"And lift up a lamentation on high barren hills" - according to the Radak and the Malbim, shefayim are high, barren peaks, whereas Rashi explains that they are watercourses, namely stream beds. "For Hashem has rejected and forsaken the generation of His wrath" - the generation upon whom Hashem poured out wrath and with whom He was filled with anger. Targum Yonatan interprets evrato not as wrath, but from the root meaning to transgress (la'avor): "the generation that transgressed His word" - the generation that violated His command.
The Malbim explains the reason for the command to pluck out hair: this is a sign of despair and mourning. A person in deep despair and anguish tears out the hair of his head, expressing anger, hopelessness, and grief (and among certain nations it was a standard mourning ritual to lacerate themselves and pull out their hair). "And lift up a lamentation" - to wail in earnest, and to do so publicly: "on high barren hills," in a prominent, elevated place, as a sign that all hope is lost. And what is the primary cause of this lamentation? Over the fact that "Hashem has rejected," and not merely rejected, but "and forsaken" - this is not a temporary abandonment, but one that will endure for a long time. The underlying reason is harsher still: "for Hashem has rejected" - rejection (me'isah) signifies total disgust and absolute estrangement, which is a dreadful thing.
כִּי עָשׂוּ בְנֵי יְהוּדָה הָרַע בְּעֵינַי נְאֻם יְהֹוָה שָׂמוּ שִׁקּוּצֵיהֶם בַּבַּיִת אֲשֶׁר נִקְרָא שְׁמִי עָלָיו לְטַמְּאוֹ׃ (ל) - For the children of Judah have done that which is evil in My eyes, says Hashem; they have set their abominations in the house upon which My Name is called, to defile it.
What is that evil? "They have set their abominations in the house." Achaz, Menasheh, and the people of Judah with them brought idols and abominations right into the Beit HaMikdash. The Malbim explains: this is like placing a rival wife alongside her - as if to say, both this is a god and that is a god. They came into the House of Hashem and claimed there are other powers, there is other idolatry, and set it up right inside the House of Hashem. If you wanted to practice your idolatry, do it in your own home - which would be grievous enough on its own. But to bring it into the House of Hashem?
Before continuing, we can draw a lesson of mussar that applies directly to us. Gedolei Yisrael point out that the most defiling abomination of our generation, a tool of the Satan unlike anything the Holy One, blessed be He, created since the world began, is smartphones and unfiltered devices. And this is literally what is written here: "They have set their abominations in the house upon which My Name is called" - inside the synagogue, a person pulls out his smartphone. All the Gedolei Yisrael have declared that possessing an unfiltered device is strictly forbidden, that it leads to idolatry, illicit relations, and bloodshed, that it jeopardizes one's share in the World to Come, that it invalidates one from being a witness - one could assemble an entire list of what has been pronounced about it. Yet a person walks into the House of Hashem with the very thing most repulsive in His eyes, and scrolls through it there. Is this not literally "they have set their abominations in the house upon which My Name is called, to defile it"?
וּבָנוּ בָּמוֹת הַתֹּפֶת אֲשֶׁר בְּגֵיא בֶן הִנֹּם לִשְׂרֹף אֶת בְּנֵיהֶם וְאֶת בְּנֹתֵיהֶם בָּאֵשׁ אֲשֶׁר לֹא צִוִּיתִי וְלֹא עָלְתָה עַל לִבִּי׃ (לא) - And they have built the high places of Topheth, which is in the Valley of Ben-Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in fire, which I did not command, nor did it enter My heart.
The high places of Topheth were dedicated to the cult of Molech, a horrific form of idolatry so monstrous that the human mind can scarcely comprehend how anyone could commit such an act, showing the depths of depravity to which they fell. Chazal provide two descriptions, and we will mention both. Rashi brings one description here: Molech was a massive copper idol with hands outstretched forward like someone reaching out to receive something. They would heat it from beneath with fire until the entire giant idol was glowing red-hot, and they would place the child upon its hands, where he burned and wailed. The idolatrous priests would beat on drums (tupim) so that the father would not hear his son's cries and be moved to pity - hence the name Tophet, after the drums. Another description in Chazal is that they would light two large bonfires on either side and pass or run the child between them, and as the child screamed, they beat drums so his screams would not be heard. The place was named "Gei Ben-Hinnom" (the Valley of the Son of Hinnom) after the groaning (nehama) of the son. They would approach a father and tell him that the idol had chosen him to sacrifice his child to it - presenting it as though it were a great honor.
"Which I did not command" - there is no command in the Torah to offer children as sacrifices, not even for the sake of Hashem, and all the more so for idols. "Nor did I speak it" - I never spoke such a thing to any of the prophets. The Radak adds: if I commanded anything, I commanded that the meat of animals be burned before Me, not their sons and daughters - and not only do you have no mercy on your child, but you even sacrifice him to an idol!
And our Sages expound: "Which I commanded not" - this refers to Yiftach; "nor did it enter My mind" - this refers to Mesha, king of Moav, of whom it is said, "Then he took his eldest son... and offered him for an olah-offering." That is to say, even if you see those who did such things - Yiftach who sacrificed his daughter (and there are opinions among Chazal as to whether he actually sacrificed her or merely secluded her in a house, as discussed in the lessons on Sefer Shoftim), and likewise Mesha, king of Moav, who heard why Yisrael succeeded - that Avraham Avinu was willing to bind his son - and said, "I too will sacrifice my son," and offered his son as an olah, which aroused great accusation and wrath against Yisrael - concerning all of these, the Holy One, blessed be He, says: I did not command it, nor did it enter My mind.
And if you ask, did not Hashem say to Avraham, "Take now your son"? Our Sages say: "Nor did it enter My mind" that he should actually slaughter him, but only to make his righteousness known. I told him, "Take now your son and bring him up," and once he brought him up, I told him, "Bring him down." And the Malbim notes with precision: "Which I commanded not" - I did not command that such forms of worship be performed for Me; and do not say that I refrained from commanding it only because it was clear to Me that they would not fulfill it, whereas in truth it did enter My mind - therefore the verse adds, "nor did it enter My mind" at all, because this idolatry is detestable and abominable before Him, blessed be He.
לָכֵן הִנֵּה יָמִים בָּאִים נְאֻם יְהֹוָה וְלֹא יֵאָמֵר עוֹד הַתֹּפֶת וְגֵיא בֶן הִנֹּם כִּי אִם גֵּיא הַהֲרֵגָה וְקָבְרוּ בְתֹפֶת מֵאֵין מָקוֹם׃ (לב) - "Therefore, behold, days are coming, says Hashem, when it shall no more be called Topheth, nor the Valley of Ben-Hinnom, but the Valley of Slaughter; and they shall bury in Topheth for lack of room." (32)
The site of the high places will no longer be called "Topheth," nor will the valley be called "the Valley of Ben-Hinnom," but they will call it "the Valley of Slaughter" - because in this place, many slain will fall at the hands of the enemies. And to such an extent: "And they shall bury in Topheth for lack of room" - that there will be no room left to bury, and the entire area will turn into a cemetery.
וְהָיְתָה נִבְלַת הָעָם הַזֶּה לְמַאֲכָל לְעוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם וּלְבֶהֱמַת הָאָרֶץ וְאֵין מַחֲרִיד׃ (לג) - "And the carcasses of this people shall be food for the birds of the heavens and for the beasts of the earth, with none to frighten them away." (33)
The carcasses of this people, who commit these terrible acts, will become food for the birds of the sky and the beasts of the earth. Normally, when birds of the sky and beasts of the earth approach, someone chases them away to prevent disgrace to the dead - but here, "with none to frighten them away." Thus we have two punishments: first, there will no longer be any place left to bury; and second, there will not even be anyone to drive the birds and beasts away from the corpses.
וְהִשְׁבַּתִּי מֵעָרֵי יְהוּדָה וּמֵחֻצוֹת יְרוּשָׁלַ͏ִם קוֹל שָׂשׂוֹן וְקוֹל שִׂמְחָה קוֹל חָתָן וְקוֹל כַּלָּה כִּי לְחׇרְבָּה תִּהְיֶה הָאָרֶץ׃ (לד) - "And I will silence from the cities of Yehudah and from the streets of Yerushalayim the voice of joy and the voice of gladness, the voice of the groom and the voice of the bride, for the land shall become a desolation." (34)
The Malbim offers an insightful explanation here. Typically, after major wars and widespread slaughter, marriages and matches increase; since the enemy killed many, widowers and widows remain, and they marry one another, seeking to take spouses, bear children, and resettle the land. As it is said in Chapter 33: "Yet again there shall be heard in this place... the voice of joy and the voice of gladness... for I will restore the captivity of the land as at first." But here the prophet states that it will not be so: "for the land shall become a desolation." There, the land will be rebuilt, but here, the land will be desolated; therefore, even the natural outcome of rehabilitation and marriage will not occur, and neither the voice of joy nor the voice of gladness, the voice of the groom nor the voice of the bride, will be heard.
The prophet rebukes the people, showing that one cannot win Hashem's favor with sacrifices while one's heart remains distant. "Add your olah-offerings to your peace-offerings" - cease them entirely, for He has no desire in them. "For I spoke not... concerning matters of olah and peace-offering" - the sacrifice is not the ultimate purpose, but rather "obey My voice": the gratification of doing His will, the privilege that He is willing to accept from us, and walking in His ways. The korban is merely an instrument, and it is entirely for our benefit, not for any need of His, blessed be He. Yet the people did not listen, nor did they incline their ear; they walked in the counsels and stubbornness of their evil heart, backward and not forward, until they acted more wickedly than their fathers: faith was lost from their heart and even severed from their mouth, and they brought abominations into the House of Hashem and built the high places of Topheth. Therefore, lamentation was decreed, the valley shall be called the Valley of Slaughter, and the voice of joy and gladness shall be silenced. And the piercing message that remains with us is to be vigilant against bringing the abominations of the generation into the place upon which His blessed Name is called, and to remember that all divine service hinges upon one thing - obeying the voice of Hashem.