Chapter 31 in Yirmiyahu is one of the greatest chapters of consolation in the book. Following the harsh chapters of calamity, the prophet turns toward the future: the return of children to their border, joy that is followed by no sorrow, and the weeping of Rachel Imeinu from which the greatest promise is born. In the lesson before us, we will follow the order of the pesukim, examine the explanations of the Malbim, and alongside them the words of Rashi, the Radak, Targum Yonatan, and the wonderful Midrashim expounded here.
"Then shall the maiden rejoice in the dance" - Who is the maiden?
אָז תִּשְׂמַח בְּתוּלָה בְּמָחוֹל וּבַחֻרִים וּזְקֵנִים יַחְדָּו וְהָפַכְתִּי אֶבְלָם לְשָׂשׂוֹן וְנִחַמְתִּים וְשִׂמַּחְתִּים מִיגוֹנָם׃ - Then shall the maiden rejoice in the dance, and young men and old men together; and I will turn their mourning into joy, and will comfort them, and make them rejoice from their sorrow.
One might ask: why is "maiden" stated in the singular rather than "maidens"? The Radak explains that it refers to each and every maiden, as is the manner of Scripture to use the singular for the plural, as in "And I have ox and donkey" (Bereishit 32:6), which means many oxen and many donkeys.
And Yonatan translated: "Then the congregation of Israel shall rejoice" - this is not a literal maiden, but an allegory for Knesset Yisrael, who is always spoken of in the feminine. Then Knesset Yisrael will rejoice in dance, in celebrations of joy.
Separation in Dancing - Explicit in the Verse
Notice the precise wording: "Then shall the maiden rejoice in the dance" - period. And afterwards: "and young men and old men together." Some claim that separation in dancing is an invention imported from Ashkenazim, an innovation of recent generations, and they attach all sorts of labels to anyone meticulous about it. But read the explicit pesukim and you will always see the separation. There is no verse that says "then shall maiden and young men rejoice together"; under no circumstances will you find such a phrasing. Young men and old men together - yes; young men and maidens together - no.
And likewise in the Halleluyah we recite daily: "Young men and also maidens, old men with youths" (Tehillim 148:12) - young men and also maidens, not young men with maidens as some do today; whereas "old men with youths." Many pesukim express this principle: there is no such thing as mixed dancing, for separation is the boundary of sanctity.
"And young men and old men together" - Equal Joy
The Malbim analyzes the word "together" (yachdav): it signifies that the joy of the young men and the old men will be equal. Why must this be stated? To contrast with what occurred during the Second Temple era. Back then, when they returned to the land and built the Temple, the elders saw it and wept, while the youth saw it and rejoiced. Why? The youth had not seen the First Temple; they had nothing to compare it to. But the elders, who had seen the First Temple in its glory, wept when they saw the Second Temple, saying: Is this the Temple? This is not even a cheap substitute for what stood here. Where is the glory of Hashem? Where are the ten miracles that existed in the Beit HaMikdash that are now missing? They saw a difference as vast as heaven and earth.
In the future redemption, however, "and young men and old men together" - the joy will be identical. Not because no one will have seen the First Temple, but because the Temple will descend fully built from Heaven in its splendor, a magnificence without precedent, and no one will be able to say that another Temple was better or more honorable. Therefore, all will rejoice together, with equal joy.
Mourning and Joy, Sorrow and Gladness - Inwardness and Outwardness
"And I will turn their mourning into joy, and will comfort them, and make them rejoice from their sorrow" - why does the verse vary its phrasing, mentioning both mourning (eivel) and sorrow (yagon), as well as both gladness (sason) and joy (simchah)? The Malbim explains that there is an exact parallel here. Simchah is in the heart, an internal feeling, whereas sason refers to the external expressions displayed to manifest that joy: donning festive clothing, dancing, and the like. The outward expression of joy is called sason, which is why we say "sas ve'aletz" (rejoiced and exulted).
The same applies to mourning: eivel is an outward expression of mourning, and not necessarily an expression of inner grief. There is no halachic obligation that a mourner must feel grief; there is no law commanding one to be distressed. What is required? Wearing garments of mourning, sitting on the floor - all of which are external signs. Inwardly, he might even be pleased that he was left a large inheritance. Indeed, it is brought down that when a person's father passes away, he recites the blessing of Baruch Dayan HaEmet and also Shehecheyanu - not because he expects his father to immediately rise at the resurrection of the dead, but over the inheritance he received. This is like the humorous quip on the Ashkenazic formula, "HaMakom yenachem etchem" (May the Omnipresent comfort you) - referring to the difficulty of parting from one's father, along with hamakom (the properties): he left a piece of real estate here and a property there. Among Sephardim the custom is to say "Tenuchamu min hashamayim" (May you be comforted from Heaven) - for one certainly finds no comfort in debts! In contrast to eivel, yagon is internal grief in the heart.
Now the verse can be understood: "And I will turn their mourning" - mourning, which is external - "into gladness (sason)", which is likewise external. "And will comfort them, and make them rejoice from their sorrow" - corresponding to sorrow (yagon), which is internal, I will grant them joy (simchah), which is experienced in a person's inner being.
"And I will satiate the soul of the priests with fatness"
וְרִוֵּיתִי נֶפֶשׁ הַכֹּהֲנִים דָּשֶׁן וְעַמִּי אֶת־טוּבִי יִשְׂבָּעוּ נְאֻם־יְהֹוָה׃ - "And I will satiate the soul of the Kohanim with fatness, and My people shall be satisfied with My goodness, says Hashem."
The Malbim explains: The Kohanim engaged in the Temple service, their souls will be satiated from the abundance (deshen) channeled through the sacrifices. The verse uses the term deshen because sacrifices involve fat ashes (deshen), and deshen denotes richness and fatness, as in the phrase "and their bones shall be made fat (tedashenah)." The meaning is that their souls will be filled to the brim, and therefore the verse employs language connected to the deshen of the sacrifices.
For the essence of the sacrificial service and the Temple service is drawing close to God. It is not an ordinary slaughterhouse where meat is eaten; rather, "the Kohanim eat and the owners achieve atonement," and it is entirely a holy service in the Temple. Thus, "And I will satiate the soul of the Kohanim with fatness" means that their souls will be spiritually elevated and exalted through the sacrificial service.
"And My people shall be satisfied with My goodness" - through this, the people will have an abundance of all good things. For when the Beit HaMikdash functions properly and the sacrifices are offered before Hashem, it serves as the source of blessing and abundance for the entire world. As the holy Or HaChaim writes: If the nations of the world only knew how much bounty flows down to them from the Beit HaMikdash, they would have stationed guards around it to prevent its destruction. After all, the seventy bulls offered on Sukkot correspond to the seventy nations. Moreover, all abundance in the world flows by virtue of the Beit HaMikdash. It follows that through the service of the Kohanim in the Temple, the entire nation will enjoy satisfaction and goodness.
"A voice is heard on high" - The Weeping of Rachel
כֹּה אָמַר יְהֹוָה קוֹל בְּרָמָה נִשְׁמָע נְהִי בְּכִי תַמְרוּרִים רָחֵל מְבַכָּה עַל־בָּנֶיהָ מֵאֲנָה לְהִנָּחֵם עַל־בָּנֶיהָ כִּי אֵינֶנּוּ׃ - "Thus says Hashem: A voice is heard on high, lamentation and bitter weeping, Rachel weeping for her children; she refuses to be comforted for her children, because they are not."
Rashi cites Targum Yonatan: "A voice is heard on the heights of the world, the voice of the House of Israel weeping over the prophet Yirmiyahu, when Nevuzaradan sent him from Ramah, to return from behind the exile to Gedalyah ben Achikam." That is to say, this is the voice of Israel weeping over the prophet Yirmiyahu. When Nevuzaradan exiled the Jewish people, Yirmiyahu went along with them, saying: I will not abandon my flock. Nevuzaradan then sent him away from Ramah, ordering him to turn back from following the exiles and go to Gedalyah ben Achikam. At that moment, the people began to weep, for until then they had derived a measure of security from having the prophet with them, delivering the words of Hashem. This is the meaning of "lamentation and bitter weeping, Rachel weeping for her children" - Rachel represents Keneset Yisrael, weeping because Yirmiyahu was turned back.
The Radak explains that this is spoken allegorically about the Ten Tribes. The head of the Ten Tribes is Ephraim, and the mother of them all is Rachel, from whom Joseph and Benjamin descended, and from Joseph came Ephraim and Menasheh. When the children went into exile, the mother weeps. "Because they are not" (ki einennu, in the singular) means that they did not return: Yehudah and Binyamin, who were exiled, returned during the Second Temple era; but Ephraim is not, and they have not returned to this day, awaiting the future redemption. And why is the voice "heard on high" (ba-ramah)? The Radak explains that in order to project a voice from afar, people would ascend the mountains; therefore it says "a voice is heard on high," so that the cry could be heard from a great distance.
The Midrash: "You Have Pleaded Well in Defense of My Children"
The Midrash is well known. The Midrash relates that the Avot and the Imahot went to appease the Holy One, Blessed be He, over Menashe having placed an idol in the Heichal, but He would not be appeased. For it is stated explicitly in Melachim II that exile was decreed over that very matter. And even though there were later developments and Menashe repented, the decree did not change. Furthermore, there is a discussion, as the Malbim cites, for he sinned both through bloodshed and through idolatry, and it is not clear whether he repented of both. In any event, the matter of the idol in the Heichal sealed their verdict for exile, and the Holy One, Blessed be He, refused to be appeased.
Rachel entered and said before Him: Master of the Universe, whose mercy is greater, Your mercy or the mercy of flesh and blood? Surely Your mercy is greater. And yet, I brought my rival into my house. For all the labor that Yaakov worked for my father, he worked only for me. Yet when I was about to enter the chuppah, they brought in my sister. Not only did I remain silent, but I transmitted my signs to her. You too, if My children brought Your rival into Your house, be silent for them. And if I was able to overcome myself and bear no grudge, and on the contrary, I even gave the signs to my sister and was not jealous of her, then You, Master of the Universe, all the more so should not be jealous of idolatry! He said to her: You have pleaded well in defense of My children; there is reward for your deed - for that act of righteousness in giving the signs to your sister. And what is that reward? That for all eternity, Rachel Imeinu has the standing to plead in defense of the Jewish people.
The Radak cites another Midrash: they led them into exile by way of Rachel's tomb. When the Jewish people went down into exile, they passed by Rachel's tomb, and therefore it is said, "Rachel weeps for her children." And where is this derived? From the verse, "And she was buried on the road to Efrat." The Sages asked: What did Yaakov Avinu see that caused him to bury Rachel on the road to Efrat? After all, one is buried in a cemetery and not by the roadside, which is disrespectful. Rather, Yaakov foresaw through Ruach HaKodesh that the exiles were destined to pass through there; therefore, he buried her there so that she would beseech mercy for them, and by virtue of this, Israel would be worthy of redemption. This is what is written: "A voice is heard in Ramah," etc.
"Mevakah" - An Intensive Verb
"Bitter weeping" - weeping from bitterness of heart. And the commentators noted carefully: it does not say "Rachel bocheh" (Rachel weeps, in the simple binyan) but "Rachel mevakah" (an intensive form). "Bocheh" is a light verb (kal), whereas "mevakah" is a heavy verb (kaved). Notice how heavily it weighs upon the organs of speech. Any expression in an intensive verb form indicates that the action is performed with heaviness, with force, with difficulty, whereas a light verb form indicates that the action is performed, as it were, easily. Therefore, Scripture used "mevakah" - to emphasize the great heaviness of the weeping and its intensity.
The Malbim's Explanation: Two Types of Children
The Malbim explains: "Ramah" is a city in the territory of Binyamin, as it is written: "To Ramah... return to Ramah." And Rachel is the mother of the children, weeping for her sons - the sons of Yosef and the sons of Binyamin. The sons of Yosef symbolize the Ten Tribes, and the sons of Binyamin symbolize Yehudah and Binyamin. The sons of Binyamin, who were exiled with Yehudah to Babylon, were destined to return in the days of Koresh during the Second Temple period, and over them she weeps as they walk into exile. But over the sons of Yosef - Ephraim and Menashe, who were exiled to Chalach, Chavor, and the Gozan River, beyond the Mountains of Darkness and across the Sambatyon River - Rachel refuses to be comforted.
From here, the duplication in the verse is resolved: "Rachel weeps for her children" and then again, "refuses to be comforted for her children." The Malbim explains that he had already elucidated this in his work Ayelet HaShachar - a book in which he set forth the rules of Tanach and his hermeneutical principles, a profound, comprehensive, and meticulous work - in rule 138: when a noun is repeated twice in the same verse, it does not refer to the exact same subject. Thus, the first "her children" refers to the children of Binyamin, while the second "her children" refers to the children of Yosef.
Now you can understand why "for he is not" is stated only at the end. For concerning Binyamin, one cannot say "he is not," since Binyamin returned in the Second Temple era; but Yosef, the Ten Tribes, have not returned to this day. Therefore, concerning Binyamin, she has comfort, for he returns; whereas "she refuses to be comforted for her children, for he is not" refers to Yosef, who did not return during the Second Temple era.
"For He Is Not" - An Allusion to Yosef
And there is a beautiful explanation regarding the reason for the expression "he is not" (einennu). For if we observe, this phrase follows Yosef throughout. When Reuven returned to the pit and did not find Yosef, he said: "The boy is gone [literally, einennu - is not], and as for me, where shall I go?" And later, when they asked Yaakov to bring Binyamin down to Egypt, he said: "Yosef is no more [einennu], and Shimon is no more [einennu], and you will take Binyamin." And now Rachel comes and says, "She refuses to be comforted for her children, for he is not [ki einennu]," recalling that very phrase once again. One can say that there is an allusion here: this "he is not" is like that "he is not." Just as there it was not "he is not" in the sense of having been destroyed, but rather absent and destined to return - for later he was revealed as a king - so too here. She hopes that this absence is only an absence for a time, and that he is destined to return, and there is still consolation that we will merit to see this child again. Indeed, there is a dispute among Chazal as to whether the Ten Tribes are destined to return, and our accepted tradition is that they are destined to return. Therefore, Scripture specifically used this phrasing, which is exceedingly beautiful.
"Restrain Your Voice from Weeping" - Two Responses
כֹּה אָמַר יְהֹוָה מִנְעִי קוֹלֵךְ מִבֶּכִי וְעֵינַיִךְ מִדִּמְעָה כִּי יֵשׁ שָׂכָר לִפְעֻלָּתֵךְ נְאֻם־יְהֹוָה וְשָׁבוּ מֵאֶרֶץ אוֹיֵב׃ - Thus said Hashem: Restrain your voice from weeping and your eyes from tears, for there is reward for your labor, says Hashem, and they shall return from the land of the enemy.
וְיֵשׁ־תִּקְוָה לְאַחֲרִיתֵךְ נְאֻם־יְהֹוָה וְשָׁבוּ בָנִים לִגְבוּלָם׃ - And there is hope for your future, says Hashem, and the children shall return to their border.
The Malbim explains that here, too, there are two distinct responses corresponding to the two groups of children. "Restrain your voice from weeping" refers to the children of Binyamin; "and your eyes from tears" refers to the children of Yosef. Concerning the children of Binyamin, He tells her, "for there is reward for your labor" - that is, for what you are doing right now in praying on their behalf. Your reward is My promise that "they shall return from the land of the enemy" - they will return from the exile. But regarding the children of Yosef, who will not return at that time, Scripture says: "And there is hope for your future... and the children shall return to their border" - the hope concerning them is reserved only for the end of days, for the ultimate future.
The Malbim further notes with precision: Why does it say "and the children shall return to their border" rather than "and they shall return from the land of the enemy" as in the preceding verse? Because the Ten Tribes are not residing in an enemy's land; rather, they dwell on their own in a remote region. Therefore, Scripture does not say "from the land of the enemy" in their case, but rather that at the end of days they will return to their border. Yehudah and Binyamin, by contrast, were indeed exiled to the lands of their enemies.
The Radak offers a different interpretation: "There is reward for your labor" does not refer to prayer, but is an address to Knesses Yisrael. You, Knesses Yisrael, who suffered the exile yet did not forget the Name of Hashem nor violate His covenant - there is reward for the deeds of your children, who will merit redemption in the merit of all they endured in exile. Targum Yonatan translates along these lines: "For there is reward for the deeds of your righteous ancestors" - there is reward for those who perform Hashem's will, for the righteous. Thus, the address here is directed to Knesses Yisrael: for our having served Hashem even in exile there is reward, and that reward is the future redemption.
The Maggid of Vilna: "For Her Children, Because He Is Not"
The sefer *Me'il Shmuel* cites the Maggid of Vilna, Rabbi Zev, who would ask: All the prophets prophesied that a day would come when the Jewish people would return from exile. If so, why is it said of Rachel that "she refused to be comforted"? After all, the redemption is destined to come, and that is universally agreed upon.
Rather, explains the Maggid, Yirmiyahu himself reveals what led her to refuse comfort: "for her children, because he is not." She does not refuse comfort over the fact that they went into exile, for the exile was foretold from the beginning; nor does she grieve that they will never return, for it is clear that they will return. Over what, then, does she refuse to be comforted? Over "her children, because he is not" - because the children no longer look like children. These are not the same ones who went out into exile. People returned, but these are not her children. That is the meaning of "he is not": the children are "no more" - they no longer resemble my children. And indeed, the verse promises only "and they shall return from the land of the enemy," without mentioning the word "children."
Indeed, we see that after Rachel pleads and implores, the Holy One, Blessed is He, promises her: "and the children shall return to their border" - a day will come when the children will return and once again be worthy of being called children. Not merely "and they shall return from the land of the enemy," but "and the children shall return to their border": they will return in complete repentance, and through this they will regain the stature of children. Only with this assurance was Rachel willing to be comforted.
"I Have Surely Heard Ephraim Bemoaning Himself"
שָׁמוֹעַ שָׁמַעְתִּי אֶפְרַיִם מִתְנוֹדֵד יִסַּרְתַּנִי וָאִוָּסֵר כְּעֵגֶל לֹא לֻמָּד הֲשִׁבֵנִי וְאָשׁוּבָה כִּי אַתָּה יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהָי׃ - I have surely heard Ephraim bemoaning himself: You have chastised me, and I was chastised, like an untrained calf; turn me back and I shall return, for You are Hashem my God.
What is the meaning of mitnoded? Radak explains: weeping and groaning. Rashi says that it is related to "who will bemoan you" (mi yanud lach) - when a person was in distress, people would come to console him (lanud lo), for someone in pain shakes his head from side to side. One who weeps and groans also shakes his head. This is the meaning of "I have heard Ephraim bemoaning himself" - weeping, groaning, and sighing.
And what does he claim? "You have chastised me, and I was chastised." Radak explains: Ephraim argues, Master of the Universe, I have been in exile for so many years and enduring afflictions, and I was like an untrained calf. A calf would be trained to pull the yoke, and if it did not learn, it would rebel, so they would strike it until it learned to pull the yoke. So too with me: I endured the suffering, and now I return to You. Just as the calf, after being chastised, accepts the discipline and behaves properly, so too I have endured the suffering and return to You. Therefore, "Bring me back and I will return, for You are Hashem my God."
Malbim's Explanation: Suffering or Love
According to Malbim, there is, as it were, a debate here between Ephraim and the Holy One, Blessed be He. There are two ways to bring the people back in repentance: one out of fear - through blows, afflictions, and exiles; and the other through love - the Holy One, Blessed be He, shows us miracles and performs acts of lovingkindness with us, and as a result, we cleave to the love of Hashem and He redeems us. The Holy One, Blessed be He, wished to redeem Ephraim through suffering, and therefore Ephraim comes and laments.
Ephraim says: "You have chastised me, and I was chastised" - through the afflictions You brought upon me, You accomplished nothing. What came of them? Only "and I was chastised" - I merely remained afflicted. If so, I am like "an untrained calf": when a trained ox veers off the furrow, you strike it and it returns to the furrow; but when an untrained calf veers off the furrow, if you strike it, it strays even further and flees. So it was with the suffering: not only did it not bring me closer, it pushed me even further away, for I am like an untrained calf.
And therefore, what do I ask? "Bring me back and I will return, for You are Hashem my God" - that You bring about the drawing near in a pleasant way, in a way of love. "For You are Hashem my God" - I ask that You show me Your special Divine providence, Your divinity over me. "My God" (Elokai) is always an expression of the Holy One, Blessed be He, revealing His sovereignty over us because He is bound to us - not merely the God of the universe, but my God, like "the God of Israel." By bestowing goodness upon us, this will be the way in which we bond and connect to You; but suffering gave us nothing except pain, for we did not come any closer to You.
"For After I Returned, I Repented"
כִּי־אַחֲרֵי שׁוּבִי נִחַמְתִּי וְאַחֲרֵי הִוָּדְעִי סָפַקְתִּי עַל־יָרֵךְ בֹּשְׁתִּי וְגַם־נִכְלַמְתִּי כִּי נָשָׂאתִי חֶרְפַּת נְעוּרָי׃ - "For after I returned, I repented; and after I was instructed, I struck upon my thigh; I was ashamed, and also humiliated, for I bore the disgrace of my youth."
According to the simple meaning: after I returned to You, I regret and repent over my evil deeds. Radak notes that a penitent's repentance is not complete unless he regrets and laments his past actions. This is the very foundation of teshuvah: "For after I returned, I repented," just as it is written, "Who knows, he may turn and relent" - that a person regrets what he has done.
"And after I was instructed, I struck upon my thigh" - after my sins became known to me and I calculated the corrupt deeds I had done, seeing the great evils, "I struck upon my thigh," for striking one's thigh is done as a sign of pain and anguish. "I was ashamed, and also humiliated" - I was ashamed of my evil deeds, "for I bore the disgrace of my youth" - when I remembered what I bore and suffered, I saw that everything came from the disgrace of my youth, from the deeds I had done in my earlier days. This refers to the Jewish people, the earlier generation, when they were here in the Land and in the Beis HaMikdash and went astray and rebelled against Hashem. "My youth" refers to those earlier days. Over this Ephraim now bemoans himself, in pain and regret over his conduct.
Malbim's Explanation: The Continuation of Ephraim's Argument
According to Malbim, this is the continuation of Ephraim's argument, trying to convince the Holy One, Blessed be He, why it is not worthwhile to bring him back through suffering, but rather to draw him near through miracles. He already said, "You have chastised me, and I was chastised" - all the afflictions merely caused me pain and accomplished nothing; I was like an untrained calf that flees.
Now he adds: "For after I turned back, I regretted." You, Hashem, try to bring me back through afflictions, and at times an awakening is indeed stirred within me, but afterward - after my return, I regretted it. A person repents, and afterward feels regret. And what did he regret? Not his evil deeds, but the very fact that he had returned! If so, what purpose did the blows serve? Even if I returned for a moment, afterward I regretted my return and slipped back into corruption. It turns out that the blows not only failed to help, but actually caused subsequent deterioration.
"And after I was made known" - the Malbim explains that this too refers to afflictions, as in the phrase, "and he taught (literally: made known) with them the men of Sukkot." That is to say, Hashem makes my sins known to me through the blows; I know that I sinned through the force of the afflictions. And after You afflicted me once again, "I smote upon my thigh" - again I lament over my sins and strike my thigh as a sign of sorrow and remorse. Yet with all this, did I truly repent? Behold, "I was ashamed, yea, even confounded, because I bore the reproach of my youth" - I was ashamed and disgraced seeing that I still carry the reproach of my youth and have not truly repented of it. Thus, even though there was seemingly an awakening here, in the end it turns out that I still carry the reproach of my youth and have not abandoned it. If so, Master of the Universe, afflictions do not help. Would it not be far better for You to bring us back to You through miracles, through closeness and love, and then it would endure, unlike now, when I return for a moment and then lapse back into corruption?
The Expression "Safak" - An Expression of Doubt and Wonder
The Malbim notes that every usage of the root safak - such as "he clapped his hands," "I smote upon my thigh" - is not coined by chance; rather, it relates to doubt (safek) and astonishment. Just as in "He will strike them down like wicked men" (tachat resha'im sefakam), referring to clapping hand to hand or striking the thigh. Where this clapping of hands occurs, it is over something that astonishes a person, like someone in doubt who says: "What? Can this be?" He claps his hands over something he cannot believe, something fraught with doubt. Just as Balak "clapped his hands together... I called you to curse my enemies, and behold, you have blessed them!" - a matter of astonishment, how could this be, a thing that evokes bewilderment. And likewise, "All who pass by clap their hands at you... Is this the city that was called the perfection of beauty?" Behold, it is like a person who claps his hands in doubt and wonder at how such a thing could have happened. So too here: "After I was made known, I smote upon my thigh" - I was filled with regret and bewilderment over the matter, for in the end I revert to corruption.
"Is Ephraim a Precious Son to Me?"
הֲבֵן יַקִּיר לִי אֶפְרַיִם אִם יֶלֶד שַׁעֲשֻׁעִים כִּי־מִדֵּי דַבְּרִי בּוֹ זָכֹר אֶזְכְּרֶנּוּ עוֹד עַל־כֵּן הָמוּ מֵעַי לוֹ רַחֵם אֲרַחֲמֶנּוּ נְאֻם־יְהֹוָה׃ - Is Ephraim a darling son to Me, or a child of delights? For whenever I speak of him, I earnestly remember him still; therefore My inward parts yearn for him; I will surely have mercy on him, says Hashem.
Rashi explains that these are the words of the Shechinah. We have seen Ephraim swaying and grieving in regret - "for after I turned back, I regretted" - and the Holy One, Blessed be He, says: My heart is overturned to have mercy on him. For Ephraim is My darling son, like a person who has an only child and fulfills his every wish. Hashem says: I have had compassion upon My son, upon Ephraim. "For whenever I speak of him" - whenever I speak of him, "My inward parts yearn for him, I will surely have mercy on him" - I remember him, and My mercies are stirred toward him.
Rashi also cites a Midrash from Vayikra Rabbah: "For whenever I speak of him (kidei dabri vo)" - the speech (dibbur) that I placed in him, that I taught him My Torah, is enough (dai) to merit mercy upon him. In other words, Hashem remembers that He gave us the Torah, and the mere fact that we accepted His Torah is sufficient cause to have mercy on us.
The Malbim's Explanation: Hashem's Response to Ephraim's Claim
According to the Malbim, after the people claimed that afflictions do not change their ways - for "after I turned back, I regretted," "after I was made known, I smote upon my thigh," "I was ashamed, yea, even confounded, because I bore the reproach of my youth," and their entire repentance was fleeting - and asked what purpose afflictions serve, Hashem's response now arrives. You ask: Why through afflictions? Reveal Your divinity to us, "as in the days of your coming out of the land of Egypt I will show him marvelous things," and then we will draw close to You. The Holy One, Blessed be He, says to them: There is a vast difference between those generations and the generations of now.
The difference is between a "precious son" (ben yakir) and a "child of delights" (yeled sha'ashu'im). A child of delights is a young child who does not understand much; even when he sins and angers his father, the father loves him because he is young and delights in him. A precious son is a grown son who possesses many virtues by virtue of his noble stature; even if he sinned, his father loves him because of his stature, importance, and spiritual level. Even if he has flaws, by virtue of his stature he is worthy of love.
The Holy One, Blessed be He, says to them: In Egypt, even though Israel possessed no intrinsic virtue, they were a "child of delights" - "For when Israel was a youth, I loved him." They were still young, still in swaddling clothes, and one is not overly strict with a small child even when he misbehaves. Later on, in the wilderness and when they entered the Land, accompanied by miracles, divine inspiration (Ruach HaKodesh), and wondrous providence - then I performed miracles for them because they were a "precious son." They possessed intrinsic virtue; there were prophets, holy princes, and sages among them. Even when they sinned - "I earnestly remember him," I remember the people of noble stature among them, and through that, I bear their iniquity.
But regarding this generation: "Is Ephraim a precious son to Me?" - Is Ephraim today a precious son, possessing a virtue that serves as a reason to perform miracles for him? After all, he possesses no preciousness and no stature. "Or a delightful child?" - Is he at least still a child, such that You would have compassion on him for that reason? Certainly not, for he has already grown old and advanced in years. A delightful child was only at the beginning of the journey, in Egypt, in infancy, when we did not understand or know much, and at that stage it is fitting to have mercy just as one has mercy on a mischievous child. But today he is already Ephraim, already mature.
The Malbim notes that the clauses here are parallel. Corresponding to "Is Ephraim a precious son to Me?" comes "for whenever I speak against him, I remember him still" - for with a precious son, it is fitting to remember his virtue even when speaking against him. And what is the meaning of "whenever I speak against him" (midei dabri bo)? There is a difference between "to speak about" and "to speak against": wherever speech is accompanied by the prepositional letter beit, disparagement is implied. The Holy One, blessed be He, says: "Whenever I speak against him, I remember him still" - even when I speak critically of him and find flaws in him, I remember the preciousness of his virtue, and then it is fitting to have mercy on him. And corresponding to "or a delightful child?" comes "therefore My inner parts yearn for him; I will surely have compassion on him" - for a delightful child is a small toddler who occasionally acts out, and therefore it is fitting to perform miracles for him and have mercy on him. But you - how can you ask that I perform wonders for you and love you as in days of old, when you are neither a precious son nor a delightful child?
In summary:
We have seen in this section how the promise of complete joy - "and young men and old together" in equal joy, in the Temple that descends already built from Heaven - is accompanied by a subtle distinction between the external and the internal: mourning corresponding to gladness, and sorrow corresponding to joy. From there we proceeded to the blessing of the Kohanim and the people, showing that through the service of the Temple, divine abundance is drawn down to the entire world. At the heart of the chapter stands the weeping of Rachel: Targum Yonatan interpreted it as weeping over Yirmiyahu, the Radak as weeping over the Ten Tribes, and the Midrash as Rachel's defense of her children, having given the secret signs to her sister and thereby meriting "there is reward for your labor" for eternity. The Malbim distinguished between the "children" of Binyamin who returned in the Second Temple era and the "children" of Yosef over whom "she refused to be comforted, for they are gone," while the Maggid of Vilna taught that her refusal was because those who returned were no longer in the status of children - until "the children shall return to their border" through complete teshuvah. And finally, the great debate: Ephraim argues that afflictions do not bring one closer but rather drive one away like an untrained calf, and pleads to be drawn close with love; while the Holy One, blessed be He, replies that this generation is neither a precious son nor a delightful child. Yet nonetheless, whenever He speaks against him, He remembers him still; His inner parts yearn for him, and He will surely have compassion on him.