"Then shall the virgin rejoice in the dance, both young men and old together. And I will turn their mourning into joy, and will comfort them, and make them rejoice from their sorrow." Then shall the virgin rejoice in the dance. Why in the singular? Why is it not written "virgins"? The Radak says the intent is every single virgin. Like "and I have ox and donkey," where the intent is many oxen and many donkeys. Right? Yonatan translated "and then the congregation of Israel shall rejoice." The virgin here does not refer to a young maiden, but is a parable for Knesset Yisrael. We said that Knesset Yisrael is spoken of in the feminine. So Knesset Yisrael shall rejoice in the dance, in dancing. The intent is dances. The Malbim says, pay attention: the virgin shall rejoice in the dance, young men and old together.
Separate dances - people tell you, sir, this is an invention brought from the Ashkenazim, this is an invention of the last generation, and they have become fanatics, and all sorts of expressions of this kind. Read the explicit pesukim, you will always see the separation in the pasuk. "Then shall the virgin rejoice in the dance," period. "Both young men and old together." It is not written "then shall the maiden and virgin and young men rejoice together," you will never find that. The virgin shall rejoice in the dance, period. Young men and old together, that yes. Young men and old together, but not young men and virgins together, that you will in no way find. And there are many more pesukim on this in Halleluyah, right, we say it every day, young men and also virgins, old men with youths. Not young men with virgins as they do today, but young men and also virgins, old men with youths. And so there are many pesukim expressing this idea, that there is no situation or reality of dancing together, but the separation is always the boundary of holiness.
The Malbim explains, note carefully "both young men and old together," what does "together" mean? "Together" says that their joy will be equal. To exclude what? To exclude the Second Temple. For it is written that in the Second Temple, when the elders returned here, they saw the House and wept. When the young ones saw this, they rejoiced. And why? Because the young ones 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, when they see the Second Temple they weep. They say, what, is this the House? What is this, this is not, this is not even a cheap substitute for what was here. Where is the glory of Hashem, where are the ten miracles that were in the Beit HaMikdash, and now we lack them. In short, they saw a difference like heaven and earth. In contrast, in the future redemption, "young men and old together shall rejoice," He tells you the joy will be equal, the joy will be identical. And not because here no one saw the First Temple, not because of that, but because the House will descend in its glory, built, splendor like which there has never been, splendor that will come from heaven, and in this everyone will rejoice together, because no one will be able to say that something else was better, that another house was more honored.
"And I will turn their mourning into joy, and will comfort them, and make them rejoice from their sorrow." The Malbim will now explain the change in phrasing. There is "mourning" and there is "comfort," there is "joy" (sason) and there is "gladness" (simcha). What is actually the difference between them? The Malbim says, mourning is something external, and sason is external joy. That is, what is the difference between simcha and sason? Simcha is in the heart, says the Malbim, whereas sason is the external signs that are made to display joy. Like wearing festive garments, like dancing. The external expression of joy is called sason. You say "and he rejoices and exults," simcha is more something that happens within the heart. The Malbim says, so too mourning: mourning is an expression of external mourning. That is, mourning is not necessarily an expression of grief. And there is no obligation in halacha that a mourner must grieve. There is no law to grieve. Rather what? He must dress in mourning garments, must sit on the ground, all these are external expressions. So then, mourning is external signs to display the mourning. In contrast, when I say a person was in "grief" (yagon), yagon is something internal, he had internal pain. Mourning is something external, it could be that he is actually glad that he was left a large inheritance. Thus it is written that when a person's father dies, it is written that he blesses "Blessed is the true Judge" and blesses what? Shehecheyanu. Over what shehecheyanu? Not because he expects his father to rise in the resurrection, no. He blesses shehecheyanu over the inheritance he received, yes? It is like among our brethren who bless "May the Omnipresent comfort you." The difficulty of parting from father, the Omnipresent, he left a place here and a place there and a few more places and properties. Among the Sephardim they say "may you be comforted from heaven." With what will they be comforted? Will you be comforted with the debts? May you be comforted from heaven. Well, in any case, to our matter we understand that yagon is something internal, mourning is something external. Simcha is something internal, sason is something external. The Malbim says, now you will understand what is written here. "And I will turn their mourning," their mourning is the externality we said, I will turn it into sason, for sason is the external signs as we explained. So the external mourning, in its place there will be sason which is external. "And will comfort them, and make them rejoice from their sorrow," and corresponding to the yagon which, as we said, is something internal, corresponding to this I will give them simcha, for simcha is something that comes to expression in the inner part of a person.
"And I will satiate the soul of the priests with fatness, and My people shall be satisfied with My goodness, says Hashem." And I will satiate the soul of the priests with fatness, the Malbim says, the priests who engage in the service, their soul will be satiated from the fatness of the abundance of the offerings. And he used the term "fatness" (deshen) since in the offerings too there is deshen, and deshen actually expresses fat, yes? As it is written "their bones shall be made fat," and more, deshen is an expression of fat. So he wants to say that their soul will be full, so he used a term connected also to the deshen of the offerings. Since the main thing of the offering service and the Temple service is the drawing close to God. That is the main thing. It is not a slaughterhouse where one eats, but the main thing there is that the priests eat, the owners gain atonement. That is, all of it is service in the Temple. So in effect "I will satiate the soul of the priests with fatness" means their soul will be lifted and elevated spiritually through the matter of the offerings. "And My people shall be satisfied with My goodness, says Hashem," through this My people will be satisfied with My goodness, they will have all good to satisfaction. Because when the Beit HaMikdash functions properly and the offerings are brought before Hashem, this is the source of abundance for the whole world. As the holy Or HaChaim says, if the nations knew how much abundance descends to them from the Beit HaMikdash, they would station guards around the Beit HaMikdash so that it would not be destroyed. For the offerings that we would bring, they were for the nations, what we would offer on Sukkot, seventy bulls, corresponding to the nations. And not only that, the entire abundance in the world comes from the power of the Beit HaMikdash. So through this "they shall be satisfied with My goodness, says Hashem," from the priests performing the Temple service, the whole nation will have satisfaction and good.
"Thus says Hashem: A voice is heard in Ramah, lamentation, bitter weeping; Rachel weeping for her children, she refuses to be comforted for her children, because they are not." A voice is heard in Ramah - Rashi brings Targum Yonatan: "A voice was heard in the height of the world, the voice of the house of Israel who weep over Yirmeyahu the prophet, when Nevuzaradan sent him from Ramah, to return from following the exiles to Gedalyah son of Achikam." What is "a voice is heard in Ramah"? According to Targum Yonatan the intent is the voice of Israel weeping. The voice of Israel weeping over Yirmeyahu the prophet, for when Nevuzaradan exiled them, Yirmeyahu the prophet went with them. Yirmeyahu the prophet said, I will not abandon the flock of my pasture. And then Nevuzaradan sent him from Ramah, from that place there, he sent him to return from behind the exiles, to go to Gedalyah son of Achikam. And then the people began to weep, since until now they still had some measure of security while the prophet was with them and would tell them words from Hashem. But now, "lamentation, bitter weeping, Rachel," this refers to Knesset Yisrael, "weeping for her children, she refuses to be comforted for her children, because they are not." Who is this? They are speaking here of Yirmeyahu, that Yirmeyahu returned and over this Knesset Yisrael weeps.
The Radak explains, a voice is heard in Ramah, this is by way of parable about the ten tribes. Lamentation, bitter weeping - the ten tribes, their head is Ephraim, and the mother of all of them is Rachel. And so she as it were weeps for her children, since Ephraim was exiled, and Rachel has Yosef and Binyamin, which includes among them Ephraim and Menashe, so when they are exiled, the mother is the one who weeps. "Because they are not," who is "they are not"? The people. And on this he says, "they are not" means the intent is that they did not return. For behold you will see, Yehudah afterward, after they were exiled, returned in the Second Temple, Yehudah and Binyamin returned. In contrast, "she refuses to be comforted for her children, because they are not," for behold you will see that Ephraim did not return, they are not, and they did not return until the future redemption. What is "heard in Ramah"? Why heard "in Ramah" (in a high place)? The Radak explains that in order to project a voice far away they would ascend mountains. So therefore he says a voice is heard in Ramah, in order to make everything heard from afar.
And the derash is well known, famous and renowned. The Midrash says, why Rachel? Because the fathers and mothers went to appease the Holy One, blessed be He, over Menashe having set up an idol in the Sanctuary, and He was not appeased. It is written that the cause of the exile was that Menashe set up an idol in the Sanctuary. So we learned explicitly in Melachim II, that over this matter the exile was decreed and the matter was sealed. So even though afterward there were already changes and Menashe repented, nevertheless this matter did not change. Beyond the fact that there is a discussion regarding for what he repented, as the Malbim brings, for he sinned both in bloodshed and in idolatry, and it is not clear that he repented of both. In any case, the matter of the idol in the Sanctuary sealed their verdict of exile. And the Holy One, blessed be He, refuses 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? Who is more merciful, You or flesh and blood? One must say Your mercy is greater. Rachel says to Him, and did I not bring my rival into my house? For all the labor that Yaakov served my father, he served only for my sake. When I came to enter the wedding canopy, they brought in my sister. And not only did I remain silent, but I handed her my signs. So You too, if My children have brought Your rival into Your house, be silent for them. For if I was able to overcome myself and not be strict, and on the contrary, I even gave my sister the signs and did not envy her, then You, Master of the Universe, how much more should You not be jealous for the idolatry. He said to her, you have argued well in defense of My children. There is reward for your deed, for your righteousness in handing the signs to your sister. What is "for your deed"? For that act of righteousness, says Hashem there is reward. What is the reward? That forever Rachel our mother has an opening to argue in defense of the people of Israel.
And there is another derash, says the Radak, for it was by way of Rachel's grave that they were led into exile. When the people of Israel went down into exile, by way of where did they pass? By way of Rachel's grave. And therefore he said Rachel weeping for her children. And where is this matter expounded? On the pasuk "and she was buried on the road to Efrat." They said, what did Yaakov our father see to bury Rachel on the road to Efrat? One buries in a cemetery, one does not bury someone by the wayside, it is not honorable. Rather, Yaakov our father foresaw through the Holy Spirit that the exiles were destined to pass by there. Therefore he buried her there, so that she would plead for mercy for them. Yaakov knew that the exiles would pass by there, and buried Rachel there so that Rachel would plead for mercy, and by virtue of this the people of Israel would be worthy of being redeemed. This is what is written, a voice is heard in Ramah, and so on.
Bitter weeping (bechi tamrurim), what is tamrurim? Weeping with bitterness of heart. Rachel weeping (mevakah) for her children. It is not written "bochah" (weeping), but "mevakah." This is called an intensive verb. "Bochah" is a simple verb. "Mevakah," notice how heavy it is on the organs of speech. "Mevakah" is an intensive verb. And always any expression in the intensive verb form says that it is done with heaviness, it is done with force, it is done with difficulty. A simple verb form says that the action was done as if with ease. So Rachel weeping (mevakah) for her children, he wanted to emphasize the great heaviness of the weeping, that the weeping was with intensity, with heaviness, so Rachel mevakah for her children, and he was not content with "Rachel bochah for her children."
The Malbim explains, a voice is heard in Ramah - the Malbim says Ramah is a city in the land of Binyamin. As it is written "to Ramah, return to Ramah." Rachel weeping for her children - the Malbim says and describes for us Rachel who is the mother of the children, and she weeps for her children. Why "her children" in the plural? Over the children of Yosef and the children of Binyamin. The children of Yosef symbolize the ten tribes, and the children of Binyamin symbolize Yehudah and Binyamin. The Malbim says, the children of Binyamin who were exiled with Yehudah to Bavel are destined to return in the time of Koresh, as we mentioned, the Second Temple. And she weeps over the children who are now going into exile. But in contrast the children of Yosef, Ephraim, Menashe, they were exiled to Chalach, Chavor, the river Gozan, beyond the mountains of darkness, beyond the Sambatyon river. Over these Rachel refuses to be comforted. Notice, and therefore the Malbim says there is a doubling here. Rachel weeping for her children, she refuses to be comforted for her children. Why the doubling? The Malbim says, I have already explained in Ayelet HaShachar - Ayelet HaShachar is a book in which the Malbim writes the rules of Tanach, the rules of his interpretation of Tanach. A weighty book, a very very comprehensive book, very precise. In principle 138, there he writes that when a noun repeats twice in the same pasuk, they are not speaking of the same one. This is the rule. If it repeats twice, they are not speaking of the same one. So if it is written Rachel weeping for her children, she refuses to be comforted for her children - you already said "her children" before, why do you repeat "her children" again? So then they are speaking of other children. Necessarily the first "her children" speaks of Binyamin, "she refuses to be comforted for her children because they are not," speaks of Yosef. He says, and therefore you will understand why "because they are not" is written only at the end. Since indeed about Binyamin one cannot say "because they are not," for Binyamin returned in the Second Temple. In contrast Yosef, the ten tribes, have not returned to this day. And therefore he says she refuses to be comforted, over whom? Over her children because they are not. That is, over Binyamin and Yehudah she still has consolations, over Binyamin she has consolation since he returns. But in contrast over Yosef, she refuses to be comforted for her children which is Yosef, because they are not, since Yosef did not return in the Second Temple.
"Thus says Hashem: Restrain your voice from weeping and your eyes from tears, for there is reward for your work, says Hashem, and they shall return from the land of the enemy." We mention here a beautiful interpretation: why does she say she refuses to be comforted for her children because "they are not"? Why the expression "they are not" (einenu)? Because if we pay attention, the expression "einenu" is an expression that pursues Yosef. When the brothers bring to Yehudah, when Reuven arrives and sees that Yosef is not in the pit, there it is written when Reuven sees that Yosef is not in the pit, then Reuven says "the child is not (einenu), and I, where shall I go?" Afterward when they ask Yaakov to send Binyamin down to Egypt, he says "Yosef is not (einenu) and Shimon is not (einenu) and you would take Binyamin." So we saw a second time that regarding Yosef the expression "einenu" appears. And therefore now Rachel comes and says, she refuses to be comforted for her children because they are not (einenu). She again mentions the expression "einenu." One can say, what does she come to hint at by this? That this "einenu" is like that "einenu." Just as that "einenu" was not in the sense of being destroyed, but he is not here yet returns, for afterward it was revealed that he was king. So too she refuses to be comforted for her children because they are not - that is, she hopes that this "einenu" is like that "einenu." He is only "not here" but he is destined to return. There is still consolation here that we will yet merit to see this child anew, and in fact there is a dispute on this among Chazal whether the ten tribes are destined to return or not, and our tradition is that they are destined to return. So then it emerges that this "einenu" is like that "einenu," and therefore she used specifically this expression, very beautiful.
Thus says Hashem: restrain your voice from weeping - the intent is about the children of Binyamin, says the Malbim. And your eyes from tears - about the children of Yosef. For the eyes shed tears over the children of Yosef, as we saw that they did not return. Corresponding to the children of Binyamin He says to her, there is reward for your work, that is, what you are working now, you are praying on their behalf. There is reward, since I promise you, and they shall return from the land of the enemy. They will return from the exile. And corresponding to the children of Yosef who will not return, on this He says, and there is hope for your future, says Hashem, and the children shall return to their border. There is hope regarding the children of Yosef, but it is only for your future. The hope will be only for the future. For your future, then, and the children shall return to their border. In contrast, when speaking of Binyamin, here there is present reward for your work, says Hashem, they shall return from the land of the enemy, they will return now from the land of the enemy. Notice, says the Malbim, why does He say "and the children shall return to their border" and not "and they shall return from the land of the enemy to their border" as He said before? The Malbim explains: because the ten tribes are not in the land of the enemy. They dwell by themselves in a distant place. Therefore regarding them He does not use "from the land of the enemy." They will return in the future to their border. But the people of Israel, Yehudah and Binyamin, they truly were exiled to the lands of their enemies.
The Radak explains, there is reward for your work - not the matter of the prayer. There is reward for your work, that which you pray on their behalf - not about this matter. The Radak says, there is reward for your work means that here there is an address to Knesset Yisrael. You, Knesset Yisrael, who suffered the exile and did not forget the Name of Hashem and did not transgress His covenant, there is reward for the work of your children, that all they went through in exile, in the merit of this they will attain the redemption. And so too Yonatan translated, "for there is reward for the deeds of your righteous fathers." There is reward for whoever does the will of Hashem, the righteous. So the address here is to Knesset Yisrael, that what we labored and served Hashem even in exile, there is reward for this and it is the future redemption.
In the book Meil Shmuel he brings the words of the Maggid of Vilna, Rabbi Zev. He would ask: behold all the prophets prophesied that a day would come and the people of Israel would return from exile. So why then is it said of Rachel that she refuses to be comforted? Why does she refuse to be comforted? For the redemption is destined to be and this is agreed. The Maggid of Vilna says, Yirmeyahu the prophet himself explains to you what brought her to refuse to be comforted. She refuses to be comforted for her children because they are not. She does not refuse to be comforted over the fact that they went into exile, for that is clear, the exile was already anticipated in advance. She does not refuse to be comforted over the fact that they will not return, for that too is clear that they will return. So over what does she refuse to be comforted? Notice, for her children because they are not. What does this mean? The children no longer look like children. These are not the same ones who went out into exile. Her children because they are not. They returned here, yes, people returned, but these are not her children. She refuses to be comforted for her children because they are not. The "they are not" here refers to her children. These are no longer my children, they do not look like my children. For what was said there is "and they shall return from the land of the enemy," children are not mentioned. And indeed we see that after Rachel pleads, the Holy One, blessed be He, promises her, and the children shall return to their border. A day will come and the children will return and will be worthy again to be called children. The intent is not only they shall return from the land of the enemy, but the children shall return to their border, they will repent completely and then through this they are in the category of children. And only in this was Rachel willing to be comforted.
"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." I have surely heard Ephraim bemoaning himself - what is "mitnoded"? The Radak explains, weeping and moaning. Rashi says mitnoded is from the language of "who will bemoan you." "Who will bemoan you" - the intent is when someone is in distress, people would come to console him. To bemoan him, the intent is like a person who is grieving, so he shakes his head from side to side. So a person who weeps and sighs also shakes his head. So this is the intent, I have heard Ephraim bemoaning himself, weeping, moaning and sighing. And what does he claim, what does he say? You have chastised me and I was chastised. The Radak says, Ephraim claims and says, Master of the Universe, it has been several years that I am in exile and I am chastised, I have afflictions. And I am like an untrained calf, that was not taught to draw the yoke. The calf they would teach to draw the yoke, but if it does not learn, then it constantly rebels. And then what would they do? They would strike it until it learned to draw the yoke. So too he says, I suffered the afflictions and now I return to You. You have chastised me and I was chastised, like the calf which after being chastised, and I was chastised, accepts the chastisement. The intent is it accepts the discipline and behaves properly, so too I suffered the afflictions and returned to You. Therefore turn me back and I shall return, for You are Hashem my God.
The Malbim explains, I have heard Ephraim bemoaning himself - here Ephraim had, as it were, an argument with the Holy One, blessed be He. And what were the claims? You have chastised me and I was chastised, like an untrained calf. First, says the Malbim, there are two ways to bring the people to repentance. One way is through fear. Through blows, through afflictions, through exiles, through this they repent. A second way is through the way of love. The Holy One, blessed be He, shows us miracles, the Holy One, blessed be He, does kindnesses with us, and out of this we cleave to the love of Hashem, and out of this the Holy One, blessed be He, redeems us. The Holy One, blessed be He, wanted to redeem Ephraim through afflictions. And therefore Ephraim now comes and complains. Ephraim says, You have chastised me and I was chastised. That is, from the afflictions You brought upon me, You gained nothing. That is, nothing came out of it. For behold you will see, what came out of it is only "and I was chastised." I only remained with afflictions, You have chastised me and I was chastised. And so then, I am like an untrained calf. For the trained ox, when it strays from the furrow, you strike a blow, it returns to the furrow. When the untrained calf strays from the furrow, you strike it, it strays more, it flees. For it is an untrained calf. So too the afflictions not only did not draw me close, they even distanced me. For I am like an untrained calf. And therefore what do I ask? Turn me back and I shall return, for You are Hashem my God. I ask of You, Master of the Universe, that You bring about the closeness in a good way. In the way of love, for You are Hashem my God. I ask that You show me the special Providence, Your Godliness over me. "My God" is always an expression by which the Holy One, blessed be He, reveals His kingship over us, from the aspect that He is bound to us, our God. Not the God of the world, but my God, like the God of Israel. And so then, through Your bestowing goodness upon us, this will be the way in which we will connect and bind ourselves to You. But the afflictions gave us nothing but suffering, for indeed we did not draw close to You.
"For after I turned back, I repented, and after I was made to know, I smote upon my thigh; I was ashamed, and also confounded, because I bore the reproach of my youth." For after I turned back, I repented - the meaning is, now I regret. After I returned to You, I take comfort from my evil deeds. The Radak says, for a penitent, his repentance is not complete unless he regrets and repents of his former deeds. The ABCs of repentance must be that after I turned back, I repented. After I returned in repentance, I take comfort, I regret the former deeds. As it is written "who knows, he may turn back and repent." That is, the ABCs of repentance must be that a person regrets what he did. And after I was made to know, I smote upon my thigh. After my sins became known to me and I reckoned the corrupt things I had done, I saw the many evils, I smote upon my thigh. A person who smites upon his thigh is a person who strikes upon his thigh as a sign of pain and grief. And I was ashamed, I was ashamed and also confounded, I was ashamed of my evil deeds. For I bore the reproach of my youth. When I remembered what I bore and suffered, it was the reproach of my youth. That is, I remembered that all the evil that I have is the reproach of my youth. That is, the deeds I did in my youth, which describes the people of Israel who describe what they had in the past. What they did in their youth, the intent is when they were here in the land and in the Beit HaMikdash, and they then corrupted and rebelled against Hashem. This is called "my youth." "My youth" the intent is in the previous generation, when I was younger, in the ancient days. So I remembered the reproach of my youth, over this Ephraim now bemoans himself, Ephraim now grieves over this matter and regrets his conduct.
The Malbim explains, for after I turned back, I repented. The Malbim says, this is the continuation of Ephraim's claim, that he tries to appeal to the Holy One, blessed be He, why it is not worthwhile to bring me back to You through afflictions, draw me close to You through the way of miracles. Thus Ephraim appeals to Hashem. And we saw that he said, You have chastised me and I was chastised, all the afflictions only gave me a state in which I was afflicted, more than that it did not benefit me at all. I was like an untrained calf that only flees. And behold you will see, after I turned back, I repented. You, Hashem, try to turn me back through afflictions, and also sometimes it causes me some awakening, but sometimes after that, after I turned back, I repented. A person repented, afterward he regretted. What did he regret? Not his evil deeds. He regretted that he had repented. So what did the blows help, Master of the Universe? Even if for a moment I repented, but after I turned back, I repented. I regretted my turning back and returned and corrupted. So then these blows not only did not help, but see that they cause corruption afterward. "After I was made to know" - the intent is after You chastised me another time. "Made to know" the Malbim explains is afflictions, like "and he made known to them" the men of Sukkot. The intent is like Hashem making the sin known to me through the blows. This is "made to know," I know that I sinned by force of what? By force of the afflictions. After I was made to know, You afflict me a second time, I smote upon my thigh. Again I lament over my sins, I smite upon my thigh, striking upon my thigh as a sign of grief and regret. And despite all this, what do you think, that I truly repented? Behold, I was ashamed and also confounded because I bore the reproach of my youth. I was ashamed and also confounded that I see I still bear the reproach of my youth, I did not repent of them. So then you see that even though it seemed there was some awakening here, but afterward I discover that I bore the reproach of my youth, I still bear the reproach of my youth, I did not abandon them. So behold, Master of the Universe, the afflictions do not help. Is it not better that You turn us back to You through miracles, through closeness, through love, and then it will truly hold, and not like now, that if for a moment I repent, afterward I return and corrupt.
The Malbim says that the whole expression of "safek" (clapping/smiting), like "he clapped his hands," "smote upon the thigh" - the Malbim says it is not without reason that it is called "safek," since it comes about "doubt" (safek). Safek, like "he multiplies in his cheek, under the wicked He smites them" - upon striking palm against palm or thigh. He says, in the place where it comes regarding striking palm against palm, it is about something in which a person is as if astonished, like uncertain, what, is it possible? He claps his palm, as if over something he does not believe, something about which he has doubt. "And he clapped his hands... to curse my enemies I called you, and behold you have blessed." Something of doubt, as if how is it possible? Something that arouses wonder. "They have clapped their hands over you... is this the city that they called the perfection of beauty?" So this is "safek," it is from the language of "safek" (doubt). Like one clapping the palm, and thus he stands in doubt and wonders how it is possible that such a thing happened. So too here, he says after I was made to know I smote upon my thigh, like I regretted this matter, for behold you will see that in the end I return and corrupt.
"Is Ephraim a precious son to Me, a child of delights? For as often as I speak of him, I earnestly remember him still; therefore My innards yearn for him, I will surely have mercy on him, says Hashem." Rashi says, these are the words of the Shechinah. We saw that Ephraim bemoans himself, we saw that he regrets "after I turned back I repented," and the Holy One, blessed be He, says My heart has turned to have mercy on him. For behold Ephraim is My precious son, like a person who has only one son, and a person fulfills all his will. So Hashem says, I had compassion on My son, on Ephraim. And as often as I speak of him, all the time that I speak of him, My innards yearn for him, I will surely have mercy on him. As often as I speak of him I remember him, and My mercy is aroused toward him.
Rashi brings a Midrash, Vayikra Rabbah. As often as I speak of him - enough of My speech that I placed in him, that I taught him My Torah, to have mercy on him. That is, Hashem remembers this, that He gave us the Torah, and it is enough merely this matter, that we received His Torah, to have mercy on us.
According to the Malbim, as recalled, we saw that the people did not repent. They claimed that, Master of the Universe, through the afflictions we do not change our way, since even after I turned back I repented, after I was made to know I smote upon my thigh, I was ashamed and also confounded because I bore the reproach of my youth, so all my repentance is only temporary, for afterward I return and corrupt. So what then is the benefit, Master of the Universe, in our being afflicted? Hashem now gives them an answer to this. Hashem says to them, there is a difference between the earlier generations, where there I showed them My Godliness and thus drew them close to Me, and that is actually what you are asking for. Why through afflictions? Show us Your Godliness, like the days of your going out of the land of Egypt do wonders for us, and then we will draw close to You. The Holy One, blessed be He, says to them, there is an enormous difference between those generations and the generations of now. Hashem says to them, there is a difference between a precious son and a child of delights. A child of delights is a small child, who does not understand much, and even if he sins and does things by which he angers his father, the father loves him since he is a small child, he delights in him. A precious son is a grown son. He has many virtues from the aspect of the preciousness of his stature, the precious son. And if he sins, nevertheless the father loves him since he is a precious son, he has virtues, he has importance, he has a level. So even if he has these minuses, from the aspect of his virtue he is worthy of being loved. The Holy One, blessed be He, says to them, in Egypt, even though the people of Israel had no virtue, but they were a child of delights. "Israel is a lad and I loved him." They were still small, still in swaddling clothes, still a little child, you are not overly strict with him even when he corrupts. Afterward when they were in the wilderness and also when they entered the land and then there were miracles and the Holy Spirit accompanied them and Hashem's wondrous Providence, Hashem says to them, then too I did miracles for them since they were a precious son. The intent is they had virtue in their own right. Among them were prophets, holy ministers, sages. And even if they sinned, the Holy One, blessed be He, says I earnestly remember him. I remember the men of virtue among them, and through this I bear his iniquity. The Holy One, blessed be He, says to them, in contrast this generation, Hashem says to them, is Ephraim a precious son to Me? Is Ephraim today a precious son? The intent is, does he have virtue that is a reason to do miracles for him? For he has no preciousness and no importance. Is he a child of delights? Perhaps, even if not preciousness and importance, but perhaps he is still a child? Is he a child of delights and then you have mercy on him? The Holy One, blessed be He, says to them, certainly not so. He is already old and advanced in years. A child of delights is only when we are at the beginning of the way, still in Egypt, in swaddling clothes, not understanding much, not knowing much, so it is fitting to have mercy on us like one has mercy on a mischievous child. But we today are already Ephraim, already grown, so Hashem says, is Ephraim a precious son to Me? Is he a precious son and from the aspect of his virtue is it fitting to spare him? Or is he a child of delights and from this aspect is it fitting to do miracles for him? The Malbim says, notice that the phrases here are parallel. Is Ephraim a precious son to Me - as a precious son, Hashem says, as often as I speak of him I earnestly remember him still. The intent is if he were a precious son, the precious son is worthy of being remembered even as you speak of him. And then what is "as often as I speak of him" (bo)? The Malbim says, there is a difference between speaking "al" (about) and speaking "be" (in/of). Whenever "speaking" appears with the word with the letter "be," disparagement is implied. The Holy One, blessed be He, says, as often as I speak of him (bo), I earnestly remember him. Even when I speak against him and find flaws in him, but I remember the preciousness of his virtue, then it is fitting to have mercy on him. But is Ephraim a precious son? Regarding Ephraim can one say yes? If a child of delights - for a child of delights, My innards yearn for him, I will surely have mercy on him. For one delights in him and he is still a small child who occasionally misbehaves. So indeed it is fitting to do miracles for him and to have mercy on him. But you, how do you ask that I do wonders for you and love you as in the days of old, when you are neither a precious son nor a child of delights?