Sefer Yirmiyahu, chapter 15. "The Lord said to me: Even if Moshe and Shmuel were to stand before Me, My soul would not be toward this people; send them away from before Me, and let them go." The Holy One tells the prophet: even if Moshe and Shmuel were to stand before Me, My soul is not toward this people. Why does He emphasize both of them, Moshe and Shmuel, asks Rashi? Because both of them sought mercy on behalf of Israel, and beforehand they had first brought them back to the right path. After they brought them back to the right path, as Shmuel did there at Mitzpah when he gathered all of Israel, after he brought them back to the right path, then they prayed for them. And it never entered their minds, says Rashi, it never entered their hearts to turn back My anger until they had returned them to the right path. In other words, you are asking on behalf of Israel, but what can be done? Israel has not yet returned to the right path. He tells him: even Moshe and Shmuel, who did succeed in praying on behalf of Israel, if they were to stand now and pray before Me, My soul is not toward this people. Why? Have they lost their power? Have the batteries run out? He says no, because all their success came only because they first brought the people back in repentance, and only then did they pray. Then you can sow upon fertile ground. But by contrast, you are praying for this people when the people have not repented. If so, then even Moshe and Aharon, even Moshe and Shmuel, under these conditions would not have succeeded. Because to pray for the people when they have not repented, even the prayer of Moshe and Aharon would not avail.
With Moshe we saw that it is written "Let every man put his sword upon his thigh," and then he took the calf and ground it into fine powder, and afterward "He scattered it upon the surface of the water," and afterward it is written "I will go up to the Lord, perhaps I will atone." The atonement came only after a complete process of Israel's repentance, the killing of the sinners and those who bowed to the calf; only then was there room to ask for mercy. With Shmuel, we said that at Mitzpah it is written there that the children of Israel removed the Baalim, and after that "gather all Israel to Mitzpah and I will pray for you." But you cannot bring them back to Me, and therefore the Lord tells him: do not stand and pray before Me on their behalf, since My soul is not toward this people, I have no desire for this people.
The Radak explains that the Holy One is, as it were, telling him: even Moshe and Shmuel, who were greater than you, if they were to stand before Me, My soul is not toward this people, meaning I have no desire for them. And why does He mention Moshe and Shmuel? Because they were Levites and prophets, and the greatest of the prophets after Moshe Rabbeinu was Shmuel. In other words, according to the Radak, the reason they are mentioned is not because they first returned the people to the Lord and then prayed, but rather because of the greatness of their standing before Me. For Moshe is the father of the prophets and Shmuel is second to him. "Moshe and Aharon among His priests, and Shmuel among those who call upon His name." It is written of Shmuel that he was faithful as a prophet to the Lord and none of his words fell to the ground. So He tells him: even if you bring the two heaviest bombers of Israel, namely Moshe Rabbeinu and Shmuel, and we have no greater ones of stature than they, even they could not now change the decree. And therefore He tells him: "send them away from before Me, and let them go." Send them away from before Me and let them go. Here the command is directed at Yirmiyahu, meaning it is better that you send them away than that you stand and pray for them.
The Malbim explains that here the Lord is essentially answering him that the sentence has already been sealed. For at the stage when the sentence is sealed, prayer does not avail. Therefore the Holy One tells him there is no point in continuing to pray. For even if Moshe and Shmuel were to stand before Me, who always had the power to stand in the breach, that was when My soul and My desire were still upon them. In simple terms, when the sentence had not yet been sealed. In other words, here even Moshe and Aharon would not avail. Why? Because here the sentence has already been sealed. Even though I had a face of wrath, says the Malbim, still My soul was of goodwill. Even though "His anger burned," that is external; inwardly I had a desire for them. But now the Holy One tells him My soul is torn away from them, and therefore send them away from before Me and let them go. Go where? To exile. Like a rebellious son whose father pushed him out of his house.
"And it shall be, when they say to you: Where shall we go out? then you shall say to them: Thus says the Lord: Those destined for death, to death; those for the sword, to the sword; those for famine, to famine; and those for captivity, to captivity." He tells him: if they ask you where they shall go out, you will tell them the decrees destined to come upon them. Those for death, to death; those for the sword, to the sword; and so on. Rashi says: each one mentioned later in the verse is harsher than the one before. The sword is harsher than death. Death by the sword is disgraceful, whereas a person's death upon his bed is not disgraceful. What does disgraceful mean? There is degradation of the body. When a person dies by the sword he is stabbed, he bleeds. By contrast, a person who dies upon his bed, his body is whole. So "those for death, to death," and worse than that, "those for the sword," whose body will also be disgraced. As it is written, "Precious in the eyes of the Lord is the death of His pious ones." After that, "those for famine, to famine," since famine is harsher than the sword. For this one suffers and that one does not suffer. By the sword he kills him in a single moment; by famine he is tormented over days. As it is written, "Better were the slain of the sword than the slain of famine." That is, it was better to die by the sword than the one who died of famine, whose death was harsher and stranger. "And those for captivity, to captivity." Rashi says: captivity contains all of them within it. In captivity there is sword, in captivity there is famine, in captivity there is torment, in captivity there is everything. It is all contained within it. So captivity turns out to be the most severe and the worst of all.
The Malbim explains that when the people ask you where they shall go out, tell them that they will go out to the multitude of punishments destined to come upon them. And here He counts for them several kinds of evils. According to the Malbim, the evils here are arranged by type. There is natural evil, namely death and famine. A person who dies of famine or dies a death upon his bed, that is a natural evil. There is evil brought by free will. By free will means that one who possesses free will chose to harm him. That is the sword, someone went out in order to kill him. There is captivity, which is also a death brought by one with free will, someone who took him captive. And there are evils brought by beings of will. What does that mean? That they come about through beings of will, dogs and wild animals. As it is written, "I will spend My arrows upon them, wasted with hunger and consumed by burning heat, with the teeth of beasts, crawling things of the dust and animals." It turns out, then, that this speaks of beings of will such as animals. And here He says, as it were, that all these evils, all this harm, come from the Lord. "When they say to you: Where shall we go out? then you shall say to them: Thus says the Lord: Those destined for death, to death," and so on. This is the going out that has been, as it were, prepared as judgments for the scoffers, and these judgments are four, each one more severe than the last, as it is written, "And it shall be that the one who flees from the sound of the terror shall fall, as when a man flees from before the lion," and so on. That is, the evils grow ever more intense.
And now He details them. "I will appoint over them four kinds, says the Lord: the sword to kill, and the dogs to drag away, and the birds of the sky and the beasts of the earth to devour and destroy." "I will appoint," Rashi explains, is from the language of appointment and office. Like appointing him over something, like appointing him to a position. And here the four "kinds" means four types of punishment. "The sword to kill," that is the nature of the sword. "The dogs to drag away," since it is the way of dogs to drag the carcass outside. "The birds of the sky and the beasts of the earth": the birds of the sky eat the flesh of the carcass, and the beast, here speaking of a domesticated animal, does not eat flesh, it only tramples and destroys. Therefore He says "and the beasts of the earth to destroy." So notice, it is written here "the birds of the sky and the beasts of the earth to devour and destroy." This is a kind of parallel structure in the verse. The birds of the sky to devour, the beasts of the earth to destroy. For the birds of the sky truly devour, this refers to the eagle, the vulture, the falcon, to the types of birds of prey that also eat human flesh or animal flesh. So the birds of the sky come in order to devour, and the beasts of the earth do not eat flesh, so if they come it is to destroy, meaning to trample.
"I will make them a horror to all the kingdoms of the earth, because of Menashe son of Yechizkiyahu king of Yehudah, for what he did in Yerushalayim." "I will make them a horror" - the word "zava'ah" (horror) is from the language of "he did not rise and did not stir." That is, "zava'ah" is from the language of "za" (stir), meaning movement. From the language of trembling; "zava'ah" and "za'avah" are of the same matter. Like "kahal" and "lahak," like "keves" and "kesev." And the meaning of all of them is from the language of movement. That is, there will be no rest, but all the time they will be moving and stirring. This is "I will make them a horror" throughout the land. And all this because of Menashe son of Yechizkiyahu king of Yehudah, for Menashe led Yehudah in evil deeds and shed innocent blood until he filled Yerushalayim with blood from end to end. As is stated, as it appears in the scriptures and as Onkelos translated, regarding this. And according to Onkelos's translation a question is in fact resolved, but perhaps before we state the translation. There is a difficulty here, and the difficulty is: Menashe repented. And if Menashe repented, why do they continue to mention him? This is the difficulty that here requires understanding. Therefore the Radak also brings the Targum Yonatan. For the Targum Yonatan says, "because they did not return like Menashe son of Chizkiyah." "Because of Menashe son of Yechizkiyahu king of Yehudah" means: because you did not return like Menashe son of Yechizkiyahu king of Yehudah. According to the plain meaning of the text this is very difficult, because it is not the plain sense. "I will make them a horror to all the kingdoms of the earth, because of Menashe son of Yechizkiyahu king of Yehudah, for what he did in Yerushalayim." The plain meaning of the text is that Menashe son of Yehudah did horrors in Yerushalayim, and about this the Holy One says: I will bring the troubles upon them. According to what the Targum Yonatan explains, this entirely removes the verse from its plain meaning; it is more to explain the matter, as it were, in the manner of derash.
In fact, the Malbim in another place struggles with this matter. In Sefer Melachim, and there the Malbim says that Menashe committed two sins and both were most severe. One sin was the sin of idolatry, and the second sin was the sin of bloodshed. And the Malbim says: when he repented, he repented for only one of them and not for the second. And since that is so, the Holy One still remembers, and therefore in Melachim too it appears there that only because of the sin of Menashe son of Yechizkiyahu will the exile come. And an additional explanation is that at that point the sentence was in fact sealed. That is, even though he later repented, the sentence had been sealed. There is a further explanation that his repentance was private and was not a repentance that included the whole people, to return the entire nation in repentance. So in effect the fact that he repented was a kind of "and I have saved my own soul," but relative to the whole, reality did not change for the good. Since that is so, for all these reasons, Menashe son of Yechizkiyahu is the one on whose account that trouble comes.
"For who will pity you, Yerushalayim, and who will bemoan you, and who will turn aside to ask after your welfare?" "For who will pity you, Yerushalayim, and who will bemoan you." What is "bemoan you"? Rashi says "bemoan" means "lament." The Radak says it is like "to console him and comfort him." And what is this expression "to bemoan"? The most acceptable explanation is what the Metzudat David says, that when a person would come to console someone and to be with him in his grief, then how does a person grieve and say "woe and alas," what does he do with his head? Like this, right and left, right? Like this with his head. That is "bemoan you." They come to bemoan over his trouble, over his calamity, in order to console him. But the Radak explains why this is called "bemoan": because the consolers move from their place, this one from here and that one from there, to console the mourner. Do you hear? According to the Radak, "to bemoan" means that someone moves from a distant place in order to arrive here to console him. That is the bemoaning, as we saw with Iyov, whose friends and companions came from afar. This is the expression "to bemoan" according to his approach. "And who will pity, and who will bemoan you, and who will turn aside to ask after your welfare?" After all, you, as it were, brought all these troubles upon yourself, you, Knesset Yisrael, so accordingly who will now come to be with you in your grief? We spoke about this in the past, that we do not tend to have mercy on someone who, after many warnings, went and did something and harmed himself with his own hands. We do not give mercy; in the worse case there is even a kind of schadenfreude, something in the sense of "he deserves it." But even if not, we are not really filled with compassion for him. Because this person was a fool and an idiot in what he did. That is what He is essentially telling you here. After all, you received warnings and the prophets spoke to you morning and evening, so who will pity you, Yerushalayim? And who will bemoan you? And who will turn aside to ask after your welfare? After all, you received endless warnings and cautions and you said "after me, the flood." So suddenly when the flood catches you in the middle, now someone will come to have mercy on you? No one will spare you or pity you.
The Malbim explains that what is written "who will pity" means: who will refrain from destroying you. Now the nation that wishes to oppress us will come; who will pity you? That is, who will pity you? Do you think Nevuchadnetzar will come and pity you and not harm you? "And who will bemoan you" to console you: this refers to the close ones who come to console the mourner. And not only will these not come, but "who will turn aside to ask after your welfare?" The close ones come to console; the distant ones come after the days of mourning have passed to ask how you are doing and how you feel and whether you are lacking anything and to see how you are. He also says "to turn aside to ask after your welfare," referring to those who come only afterward; even these will not come.
"You have forsaken Me, says the Lord, you keep going backward; so I have stretched out My hand against you and destroyed you; I am weary of relenting." "You have forsaken Me, says the Lord." That is, as we explained, you yourself brought this evil upon yourself by forsaking Me. And not only that, but you continued to grow more distant. "You keep going backward." That is, there is forsaking and there is also going into the distance. You added to your distancing, going backward continually. Therefore the Lord says, "So I have stretched out My hand against you and destroyed you." "I stretched out My hand" means, from the language of, I stretched out My hand against you time after time in order to destroy you. And even though in the end Israel was never destroyed, in the end Israel remained in existence, for I always relented of the evil. The Holy One says, "I am weary of relenting." Like: I have grown tired of relenting of the evil. As it were, this time it is already about to come to an end; here there is to be a harsh exile. For time after time I relented of the evil until I can no longer relent, and they must be punished as they deserve.
"And I have winnowed them with a winnowing fork in the gates of the land; I have bereaved, I have destroyed My people; from their ways they did not return." "And I have winnowed them with a winnowing fork." The Radak explains "winnowing fork" like one winnows grain with a winnowing fork. Thus I will winnow them in the gates of the land, that is, I will scatter them throughout the world. What is "in the gates of the land"? He explains that "gates" means like "cities." And this is an expression that appears frequently in reference to a city; they express it with the term "gate." And why? Because through the gate they would enter and exit the city; every city had a gate. "To all who come through the gate of his city." And so too says the Targum Yonatan, "in the cities of the land." "In the gates of the land," the Targum says "in the cities of the land," meaning in the cities of the land. "Gates" means the city; because of the gate he calls it a city. And He says: I will winnow them. Here this refers back to the ten tribes, for the ten tribes went into exile. Therefore He says "I have bereaved, I have destroyed," because with the ten tribes the Lord is, as it were, bereaved of them, as if they were completely lost, so that there is a dispute whether they are destined to return or not destined to return. And with all this, come and see, the tribe of Yehudah saw all these troubles and did not repent of their deeds, they did not return from their evil way. This is what He says: "And I have winnowed them with a winnowing fork in the gates of the land; I have bereaved, I have destroyed" the ten tribes, My people, and from their ways Yehudah did not return. You should have seen what happened to your brothers who went into exile, and from that you should have drawn conclusions. And with all this, from their ways they did not return.
The Malbim explains the repetition. "And I have winnowed them with a winnowing fork," says the Malbim, means that they went out into exile. "I have bereaved" refers also to their young children, that is the "bereaved." Afterward "I have destroyed" refers also to the adults. That is, come and see, trouble after trouble, and come and see that they did not change their ways. What is the winnowing fork? The Malbim explains: they would scatter the chaff by means of the winnowing instrument. "He winnows with the shovel and with the fork." That is, they had a special instrument with which they would toss the grain up high after they had threshed it, while the grain is still mixed with the chaff, and then the wind would blow and the wind would carry them off. He would winnow; the grain is heavy and it falls in its place, and the wind carries off the chaff, the husks which are lighter. So He says: come and see that I scattered them in such a way that they, notice the Malbim's expression, but he says, yes, the refuse went into exile. Do you hear? Heaven forbid, not in the sense in which we today use the word "refuse," but the meaning is relative to Israel, that Yehudah were still upright relative to Shomron, so those who were in the category of refuse, the corrupt ones, they went into exile. So when I am truly like a winnowing fork, what does the wind take? The bad part. So too in the first exile, those who went were the worst. And afterward Yehudah were supposed to draw the conclusions, and they did not draw the conclusions.
"Their widows were more numerous before Me than the sands of the seas; I brought upon them, against the mother of the young man, a plunderer at noon; I caused to fall upon her suddenly a city and terrors." This verse has several words that require explanation, and as we have mentioned several times, when there are unclear words in Nach, as the commentators multiply, so do the explanations multiply. We will begin with Rashi. "Their widows were more numerous before Me than the sands of the seas." The Holy One says: their widows were more numerous before Me than the sands of the seas. The Radak explains that the meaning is that I grieve over them, and their widows are many in My eyes. The widows of Israel following the enemy who will kill among the men, and consequently many women were left widows; the Holy One says: do not think this is a light matter in My eyes. "Their widows were more numerous before Me" is from the language of might and abundance. And whether in the matter of quantity or in the matter of quality, says the Radak, I grieve over them; their widows are many in My eyes. The Radak explains that this was in the days of Achaz, when Pekach son of Remaliyahu killed 120,000 in Yehudah in a single day. It is easy for us to imagine how many widows were left following such a great slaughter. And these widows are more numerous in My eyes than the sands of the seas. The Metzudat David explains that the meaning is: I am not doing this out of vengeance. And then you might think that everything happening here is a small thing in My eyes. No, says the Holy One, know that I am doing this in order to correct them, and every pain of a widow and all the grief of this matter is revealed before Me and causes Me grief.
"I brought upon them, against the mother of the young man, a plunderer at noon, and I caused to fall upon her suddenly a city and terrors." "I brought upon them, against the mother of the young man, a plunderer at noon." What is "the mother of the young man"? The Radak explains that "the mother of the young man" means a community of young men. That is, they did not come like thieves in the night, but they came at noon, and their strength did not avail the young men to be saved from them. And when it is written "em" (mother), the meaning is a community, a family, like "umah," like "nation." Yes, that is the meaning. So I brought upon them, He brings, I brought upon them against the mother of the young man, meaning against a community of young men. "Young men" (bachur) is like when we say there are 600 select chariots; the meaning is the chosen ones, the men among them. I brought upon them plunderers; here "plunderer" does not mean in the sense of a thief but in the sense of an enemy who came to exact retribution from them. I brought upon them a plunderer at noon. And "at noon" comes to emphasize that it was not at night. Night expresses someone who comes out of fear. Noon comes to express that he came openly, without fear. And he came like a plunderer at noon. And then "I caused to fall upon her suddenly a city and terrors." What is "I caused a city to fall upon her"? How does one make a city fall upon someone? The Radak explains: upon the mother, upon the group of young men we mentioned before, I caused a city to fall. "City" means the destruction of cities. One can explain that "city" is from the language of "Raze it, raze it, down to its foundation." Yes, the meaning is the destruction of cities. And one can explain that "I caused a city to fall" means like: the city collapsed, the city was destroyed. "A city and terrors" means all this came suddenly and abruptly. That is, there was no prior preparation and they did not anticipate this matter, but it was sudden and abrupt. And "terrors" is like "and they hastened to bring Haman." In one moment I caused this trouble to fall upon her. The Radak brings an additional explanation in the name of his father, who explains that "city" (ir) is from the language of enemy. So too Rashi brings that "ir" is from the language of enemy. As it is written regarding Shaul, that the Lord left him, "and became your enemy." "Your enemy" means now he is with your enemy, or that he is an enemy to you. So "I caused to fall upon her suddenly" enemies and terrors; that is the meaning of "a city and terrors."
The Malbim explains that here He comes to describe, in His poetic manner, that the widows who remained were mighty and more numerous than the sands of the seas. Therefore the Malbim says, notice, He brought upon every mother; "I brought upon them, against the mother of the young man, a plunderer at noon." The Malbim explains that upon every mother He brought a young man from among the nations who would lie with her, says the Malbim. And he was a plunderer who committed adultery with her and plundered her. That is the meaning of "against the mother of the young man, a plunderer at noon." And in essence He continues and speaks of the widows. Those women who were left widows, I brought upon them the enemy who would do such a thing to them. And this was at noon, this was before the eyes of all. And this I caused to fall suddenly. And that is what is written: "I caused to fall upon her suddenly a city and terrors." He does not explain that this is from the language of an actual city, nor is it from the language of enemy, "your enemy," but rather the Malbim explains that it is from the language of "ervah," from the language of uncovering nakedness. I brought upon her suddenly the uncovering of nakedness and terrors, for he is speaking of the young plunderer who uncovered her nakedness.
"She who bore seven languishes; she has breathed out her soul; her sun set while it was still day; she was shamed and disgraced; and their remnant I will give to the sword before their enemies, says the Lord." "She who bore seven languishes." An expression that we all know from the kinot of Tishah B'Av. About whom is it said, "She who bore seven languishes"? Rashi explains that this speaks of Shomron, of the ten tribes. And why does he define them as "she who bore seven"? Rashi says: because there were seven families there that went into exile. And which families are we speaking of here? Those central families that were in Shomron, namely the family of Yeravam son of Nevat and his house, Baasha and his house, Omri and his house, Yehu and his house, Menachem and his house, Pekach and his house, Hoshea and his house. Hoshea son of Elah. These were the seven kings about whom He says "she who bore seven languishes, she has breathed out her soul." What is "she has breathed out her soul"? Well, we express "she breathed out her soul" in the sense of "she died." But in fact there is no necessity to explain it so; on the contrary, from the Targum it is implied that "she has breathed out her soul" is from the language of anguish of soul. Like we say today "a bitter disappointment." You came away from it with a bitter disappointment. The meaning is: I had great grief from the matter. And so too here, "she has breathed out her soul" is like "her soul grieved." And this was that "she who bore seven languishes, she has breathed out her soul; her sun set while it was still day." That is, they did not expect that the downfall would come so quickly and that they would be exiled among the nations; they fell in haste, before their time. And so too the Gemara in Tractate Gittin describes how it could be that at one edge of a city there was joy and gladness and musical instruments, and at the other edge of the city, may the Merciful One spare us, there was already killing and slaughter and harsh and terrible things. So this is "her sun set while it was still day." "Her sun set" means it went down. It had a setting while it was still day. That is, the setting is toward evening, but when one wants to say that the setting was untimely, one tells you "her sun set while it was still day." The sun set in the middle of the day, meaning while they were still at the peak of their strength, and in that moment suddenly everything fell.
In the Midrash Tanchuma they expound this verse not about Shomron but about Yerushalayim. And then we will try to understand who the seven are, what is "she who bore seven"? The Midrash answers: seven wicked kings who were in Yerushalayim. And they are: Yehoram, Yehoash, Achaz, Menashe, Amon, Yehoyakim, and Tzidkiyahu. But Rashi notes that one must also count Rechavam, Aviyah, Amatzyah, and Achazyah, so that ostensibly the number seven does not fit so well here, because there were other wicked kings who were not counted here in the Midrash. The Radak, by contrast, notice, does not seek numbers here. The Radak says: when it is written "she who bore seven," do not try to count seven kings, neither in Shomron nor in Yehudah; seven is an expression. The Radak says: when one wants to say abundance, one says seven. When one wants to say a large quantity without a precise count, one says seven. "Seven times a righteous man falls and rises." Seven and not eight? And not six? Seven means many times. "Seven times for your sins." Precisely seven? No, the meaning is: he will repay, like when we say "he will pay sevenfold." It does not mean precisely sevenfold. "Until the barren woman bore seven." There too the meaning is that that barren woman bore many. And there in truth she did not bear seven, she bore five. Only Chazal make the calculation as to why it is called seven. But we will not get into this matter. In any event you see that the expression "seven" comes to express a matter of many. Incidentally, so too Rav Margaliot brings regarding the expression "three hundred" that is written in Chazal. The expression "three hundred" or "four hundred" often comes to express abundance in the language of Chazal. "They brought up to the upper story for him three hundred jars of wine." Three hundred, or it is written there that four hundred children of beautiful form did David have. And in various other places where three hundred or four hundred is written, he proves from many places that the meaning is not a precise number but rather a large quantity. So too here, when "seven" is written in the language of Chazal, they do not mean to say seven as a number, but rather "she who bore seven" means the one who bore many. "She has breathed out her soul," she had anguish of soul, "and her sun set while it was still day," the sun set while it was still day. "She was shamed and disgraced," the meaning is she had degradation in this, disgrace. "And their remnant I will give to the sword before their enemies, says the Lord." The remnant, those who did not go into exile, will be given to the sword, and "their remnant" means, like "to give you a name and a remnant," their children.
"I did not lend, and they did not lend to Me." That is, they have no reason to quarrel with Me, since I did not lend to them. "I lent" is from the language of a creditor. I did not demand from them my loan, so perhaps that is why they come to curse Me. And they also did not lend to Me, that they should be demanding their loan from Me, and I, as it were, am not willing to pay, and on account of this they curse Me. In simple terms, they have no reason to curse Me. What is written here? "I did not lend," that I should be demanding my loan and they would curse Me on account of it.
I will tell you that once someone asked a friend of his for a loan. He knew the type. He knew this was not a loan, it was a grant. So he tells him: first curse Me. What do you mean, curse you? Why would I curse you? You are my friend, why would I curse you? He told him: no, no, curse me. He cursed him. He tells him: what, that is not enough, curse me more. Fine, he cursed him more. He tells him: well, now will you give me the loan? He tells him: what, after such curses, that I should give you a loan? So he does not get it: tell me, what do you want? What is your story? He tells him: listen, I know that I will give you a loan, and afterward when I come to ask for the money, not only will I not see the money, but you will even curse me. He tells him: I prefer that you curse me while the money is in my pocket, rather than curse me while the money is in your pocket. That is why I told you to curse me; the money is still with me, now you can still curse me, that is fine, it passes. But cursing me while the money is also in your pocket, he tells him, that is an unbearable thing.
So why did I now recall this? He says, "I did not lend to them" so that I would be demanding my loan from them. Well, what do you expect? That he apologize, ask forgiveness, ask for an extension, and then they curse me on account of it. You come to ask the person: I lent you money, pay me back, and not only does he not pay you back, he even curses you, do you understand? And why are you nagging? When I have the money I told you I would call you. Do you understand? He has already been waiting for years. But when he has it, when he has it. Who knows, maybe someday he will win the lottery, he will have money to spare, he will not know what to do with it, and then he will pay you back the thousand dollars. So do not pester, do not nag. He even knows the halachah: what, you shall not be to him as a creditor? Well, you are a criminal, there is "you shall not be to him as a creditor." So what do you do with that? Do you understand? So that is how it looks: you ask for a loan, I gave it to you, and afterward you even curse me. You see, this has already existed in ages past. "I did not lend to them" so that I would be demanding my loan from them and they would curse me on account of it. I ask for the loan I gave him, and this ingrate even curses me.
It follows, then, says the Radak, says Rashi, there is nothing, there is no reason whatsoever for these people to hate Me, and if so, their entire matter of hatred is because of the rebuke. Yet at the same time, the rebuke is for their benefit. The rebuke is to bring them back in repentance, to prevent the exile from them, so why do they curse Me? Why do they hate Me? There is here the expression "all of them curse Me" ("mekalluni"). What is "mekalluni"? It should have said "mekalleni." What is "mekalluni"? Rashi explains that this is a word, Rashi, Radak, the Radak says, yes, that this is a word composed of two roots. From the root k-l-l and from the root k-l-h. "Kalah" is from the language of "kalon" (disgrace). The curse, says the Radak, is the opposite of the blessing. The opposite of blessing is cursing. And "kalon" is the opposite of honor. He did not come away from him with honor but rather came away from him with disgrace. It follows that there are here two different verbs. And if so, says the Radak, the prophet wanted to combine both of them into a single word. Therefore he says "all of them mekalluni," which is a double expression, both in the meaning of cursing and in the meaning of disgrace. That is, both things were present here. And the "heh" of "kalah," from the language of "kalon," was replaced with a "vav," as he brings additional examples of this, so that in effect this is a double expression that includes within it two matters.
The Malbim explains that this is a continuation of what we saw earlier, according to the metaphor and parable he gave, that they brought upon the mother of the young man a plunderer. For the parable is essentially that upon every single mother, upon each of those widowed women, a young man will come and lie with them. And according to the meaning of the parable, we are speaking here of a city and mother in Israel. For he is speaking here about Yerushalayim, and prophesies this about his mother who bore him, and about the city that is, as it were, his poetic mother, the city in which he was born. And he laments: why did you bear me to be what, one who prophesies evils upon you? As if to say, what a terrible fate you brought me into the world for. The Midrash brings a parable for this. A parable to a woman, a woman who strayed and was brought before the priest so that he would make her drink the bitter waters, and now he uncovers her head and is stunned to see that this is his mother, may the Merciful One spare us. They bring the priest to make whom drink? His mother. And this is essentially what is happening here. You, my mother Yerushalayim, bore me, and what must I now do? Say harsh things about you, that you are about to be destroyed. What great and terrible grief, that you, Yerushalayim, are my city, and I must now speak harsh prophecies about you.
And since the Holy One told him "their remnant I will give to the sword," and the curse includes all of them, it includes his mother as well, so he now laments and says about this: that I was born to see toil and sorrow, to see quarrels and disputes. Until now I still had hope that I would return them in repentance. So I still hoped for the good. But now I see that the Holy One does not accept my prayer and tells me not to pray for them. That is, there is essentially no hope. So all that I did until now out of the expectation that at any moment things would change, the people would repent, the exile would cease, those who were exiled would return, all of that is an illusion. I see that my hope has been disappointed. Therefore he says: woe is me, that I am a man of strife and a man of contention. What is a man of strife and a man of contention? And essentially, says the Malbim, what is the difference in the holy tongue between "riv" (strife) and "madon" (contention)? The Malbim explains: "riv" is without cause. You are simply looking to quarrel. "Madon," by contrast, is a matter of legal dispute. "Madon" is when he has some legal claim and dispute with him, he has some matter and reason to argue with him; that is called "madon." "Madon" is from the language of "diyun" (deliberation), from the language of "din" (law).
Therefore he says: I am now a man of strife, and corresponding to my being a man of strife he says, "I did not lend." What does "I did not lend" mean? I did not lend money to other people. So when you lend to someone, then the borrower has strife with the lender, since the lender demands the money from him. And now notice, here it is without cause. Why are you quarreling with me? I lent you money. So this fits the expression "riv," because "riv" is without cause. Corresponding to "a man of contention," a man of contention is already with cause, he says "they did not lend to Me." What does "they did not lend to Me" mean? They did not borrow money from me and fail to return it. Now notice, when they do not return it to me, I must demand it from them. That is justified. You did not return the money to me. So if so, in this situation the quarrel is justified. Therefore it is not "riv," it is "madon." It is "madon": I must summon you to a court of law, you did not return the loan. Therefore he says, corresponding to this, "they did not lend to Me," so they had "madon" with me, a legal dispute so that the money would be paid. And with all this, all of them curse me. And with all this, it is clear that they still all curse me, both in the language of disgrace and in the language of cursing, unjustly.