Chapter 3 in Yirmiyahu opens in a unique manner: not with a prophecy of direct rebuke, but in the form of a claim and a response. The Community of Israel presents an argument, bringing support for it from the Torah itself, and the Holy One, Blessed be He, answers them from that very same source. The subject is the fundamental question: after everything that has happened, is it still possible to return? And from this discussion stem insights into the definition of hypocrisy (chanufah), brazenness, and the difference between 'le'olam' (forever) and 'lanetzach' (to eternity).
לֵאמֹר הֵן יְשַׁלַּח אִישׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ וְהָלְכָה מֵאִתּוֹ וְהָיְתָה לְאִישׁ אַחֵר הֲיָשׁוּב אֵלֶיהָ עוֹד הֲלוֹא חָנוֹף תֶּחֱנַף הָאָרֶץ הַהִיא וְאַתְּ זָנִית רֵעִים רַבִּים וְשׁוֹב אֵלַי נְאֻם ה' - Saying: If a man sends away his wife and she goes from him and becomes another man's, will he return to her again? Would not that land be utterly defiled? Yet you have played the harlot with many lovers; yet return to Me, says the Lord.
The verse is puzzling: how can a verse begin with the word 'saying' (leimor)? Everywhere else, 'saying' comes after the speaker has already been identified - such as "And the Lord spoke to Moshe, saying." The expression 'saying' always introduces what is to be said, after the speaker has been mentioned. Here, ostensibly, there is no speaker.
Therefore, the Malbim explains that the verse should be read as follows: "Would not that land be utterly defiled, saying: If a man sends away his wife and she goes from him and becomes another man's, will he return to her again?" That is to say, the end of the clause identifies the speaker: that land is the one that acts hypocritically and speaks. And what does it say? This is Israel's claim: It is impossible for the Holy One, Blessed be He, to accept us back. After all, we have worshiped foreign gods and abandoned His path.
And the analogy they bring is not their own invention, but an explicit halachah in the Torah: if a man divorces his wife and she goes and marries another man - "her former husband may not take her again to be his wife, after she has been defiled." If so, they argue to Yirmiyahu: why are you speaking to us about repentance, and about the Holy One, Blessed be He, waiting for us and restoring our fortunes? After all, the halachah itself states that there is no way back. Their claim is grounded in the verses of the Torah.
And why is this claim called "chanof techenaf" (utterly defiled / hypocritical)? The Malbim explains that the verb 'chaneif' also applies to someone who seeks to justify himself publicly, contrary to the truth. A person who searches high and low for arguments to justify his course of action, even when he is wrong - this is chanufah. Chanufah is an outward pretense that lacks truth, like one who flatters his fellow. So too, an untrue claim made in order to justify oneself is called chanufah. The land "chanof techenaf saying" - with this very claim: how could it be possible for Hashem to return to us?
The Holy One, Blessed be He, replies: On the contrary, from the very source you have brought there is an answer, and even a refutation of your words. For the halachah is that if an unmarried divorced woman acts promiscuously as an unattached woman - even if she was with many men - she may still return to her first husband. The entire prohibition applies only if she married another man; once she marries another person, her first husband may no longer take her back. And the Holy One, Blessed be He, says: "Yet you have played the harlot" - prostitution is not by way of marriage, and if so, there is certainly room for you to return to Me. Furthermore: "with many lovers" - you did not commit yourself to one specific, designated partner, but to many. Therefore: "yet return to Me."
The Malbim explains the deeper meaning: if Israel had converted to one specific form of idol worship, clinging to it like a nation clinging to Dagon or another to Ba'al, then indeed there would have been an obstacle to bringing them back, as that would be like a woman who went and married another man. But Israel did not cling to one single idol. "For according to the number of your cities are your gods" - you went in every direction and invested in every avenue. At one time with this idol, and another time with that one, resembling a woman who acts promiscuously now with this one and now with that one. Your attachment to any given idol was merely temporary, not exclusive to it. Consequently, there was no legal acquisition resembling marriage to another, and the prohibition against remarrying one's divorced wife after she has remarried does not apply here.
The Malbim adds: Regarding the foreign worship you cleaved to - you wandered from nation to nation, attempting to resemble the nations of the world. Israel did not set out with the goal of serving idols, but with the intention of being like the peoples of the lands: "I will do so too" - to be like this nation and like that nation. The gentile was always perceived by the Jew as more progressive, representing innovation and advancement, as though the Jew had been left somewhere far behind.
Once, a maskil (an "enlightened" secularist) came to ask one of the great Torah leaders of Israel: What was the logic behind Yosef circumcising the Egyptians? What point is there in circumcising gentiles? (In the sefer Mishnat HaGilgulim, an explanation is given based on Yosef's reincarnations and his tikkun, but set that aside.) That Torah leader gave him an answer suited to a maskil: There are maskilim for whom everything a Jew does is always inferior and flawed, while whatever a gentile does is worthy of imitation. "They already do this in America," "this is standard in Europe," "this is already found in European salons" - and you have immediately convinced him. Yosef knew that such maskilim would arise in the future and say about brit milah: What is this thing, surgery against a child's will, pagan rituals? Then they will be told: Gentiles do it. Ah, gentiles do it? All right, if a gentile circumcises, it is acceptable. Indeed, when addressing such people, one does not say to them, "Brit milah is written in the Torah," but rather, "The British royal family has been circumcising their sons for centuries." If the British do it, they must know what they are doing.
And on that same note, someone once remarked: Among Ashkenazim, when they bring the baby in for the brit, they say "Baruch haba" (blessed is the one who arrives), but when he leaves, they do not say to him "Baruch tzeitchem" (blessed is your departure), nor is there any blessing. And why? Because when he arrives he is still uncircumcised, and to an uncircumcised person Jews bow and show deference, as he supposedly symbolizes progress; he is still a "gentile," so to speak. But once he is already one of our own, already circumcised, they do not even address him with special honor. Often, the Jew displays subservience before the culture of the nations, and whatever the gentile does always appears superior to him.
And this is what the Holy One, blessed be He, says: You went from nation to nation and tried to resemble the peoples of the lands, not because you genuinely clung to their idolatry. And this shortcoming is actually your saving grace: since you did not truly cleave to their idol, it turns out that you were not married to another. As long as a divorced woman has not married another man, even if she acted promiscuously after her divorce, she may return to her first husband. Therefore, "yet you have played the harlot with many lovers; yet return to Me, says Hashem."
שְׂאִי עֵינַיִךְ עַל שְׁפָיִם וּרְאִי אֵיפֹה לֹא שֻׁכַּבְתְּ עַל דְּרָכִים יָשַׁבְתְּ לָהֶם כַּעֲרָבִי בַּמִּדְבָּר וַתַּחֲנִיפִי אֶרֶץ בִּזְנוּתַיִךְ וּבְרָעָתֵךְ - "Lift up your eyes to the high hills and see where you have not been lain with. By the ways you have sat for them like an Arab in the wilderness, and you have defiled the land with your harlotry and with your wickedness."
"Lift up your eyes to the high hills and see" - come and see that you were not devoted to one idol alone, or in the metaphor, to one husband; rather, you committed harlotry with many lovers. "Shefayim" refers to a high place, as if to say: ascend and look out from there at all the places where you committed harlotry. The written form (ketiv) is "shugalt," while the read form (keri) is "shuchabt" - in the manner of the Torah, which reads using a more refined expression.
And in the phrase "where you have not been lain with," there is, so to speak, an additional point: I do not wish to enumerate for you the places where you strayed, for the places themselves are beyond count - if one were to count them, there would be no end. Therefore, show Me where you have not lain, where you have not worshiped idols. And this is what was said regarding the era of Achav, that upon every single mound in Eretz Yisrael they set up an idol, and they brought every idol that exists in the world - 365 types of idolatry - serving a different idol each day.
"By the ways you have sat for them" - and even what you did was not done in private. For those "lovers" mentioned in the previous verse, you sat waiting by the roads: in prominent and open places, you were ready to commit harlotry with them. And on the words "like an Arab in the wilderness," the Malbim brings two explanations: like an Arab dwelling in the wilderness where no one sees him - that you committed harlotry in secret, even though outwardly you appeared like a respectable woman; or it is also possible that "ke'aravi" derives from "erev" (evening), referring to night - that you did your deeds under cover of darkness, in the evening, in hiding rather than openly.
"And you have defiled [or hypocritically flattered] the land with your harlotry and with your wickedness" - here hypocrisy is revealed. Hypocrisy (chanufah), as explained, is defined by one's mouth and heart not being aligned. There is a situation where a woman has left the home or been divorced, which is complete estrangement; and there is a situation where outwardly, toward her husband, she gives the impression of being respectable, upright, and loyal, yet in practice betrays him. This is what is meant: you were like a hypocritical woman whose words do not match her heart, like a woman living under her husband's roof who turns to him whenever she lacks something - "after all, that is why I am a married woman" - saying to him, "You are the guide of my youth, I rely on you, I am bound to you," while simultaneously going out to commit adultery with others.
וַיִּמָּנְעוּ רְבִבִים וּמַלְקוֹשׁ לוֹא הָיָה וּמֵצַח אִשָּׁה זוֹנָה הָיָה לָךְ מֵאַנְתְּ הִכָּלֵם - Therefore the showers have been withheld, and there has been no late rain; yet you had a harlot's brow, you refused to be ashamed.
Come and see: the showers were withheld, there is no rain, and even the late rain did not fall, and you need rain - and then, "yet you had a harlot's brow." A harlot bares her forehead, which signifies brazenness. "You refused to be ashamed" - you refused to feel disgrace. And in what way? In that which the following verses reveal.
And what is the difference between revivim (showers) and malkosh (late rain)? The Malbim explains: Revivim refers to the abundant rain that falls at the beginning of the season, and malkosh is the rain that falls at the end, as in the concept of yoreh (early rain) and malkosh.
Chazal derive from here: "Rains are withheld only because of the brazen-faced." For what is written? "Therefore the showers have been withheld, and there has been no late rain" - and why? "Yet you had a harlot's brow, you refused to be ashamed." You acted with brazenness and insolence, and as the Sages put it, one who behaves impudently is called brazen. Rains are withheld only on account of the insolent and brazen-faced, as explicitly stated in this verse.
הֲלוֹא מֵעַתָּה קָרָאת לִי אָבִי אַלּוּף נְעֻרַי אָתָּה - Did you not just now call to Me: "My father, You are the guide of my youth"?
Here it is explained in what way "you refused to be ashamed": without any shame, you turn to the Master of the Universe and say to Him, "Master of the Universe, You have always been the guide of my youth, ever since my youth You have been my master - You know that I need rain, would You please bring down rain for us?" The Holy One, blessed be He, says: See what brazenness and impudence you displayed, that when the showers were withheld and there was no late rain, you had the brow of a harlot and were not ashamed to call out to Me, "My father, You are the guide of my youth; Father, could we have rain?" - asking the Master of the Universe for rain.
And this is precisely "and you polluted the land with your harlotry and with your wickedness": an act of flattery and hypocrisy, which on the outside creates a certain impression - "I am faithful to You, You are the guide of my youth" - while in the meantime you went and worshipped idols, and on top of that you dare show your face before the Holy One, blessed be He, like the brow of a harlot. And "a harlot's brow" here has a dual meaning: not only did you go and stray, but you behave with the brazenness of a harlot, turning to your husband as though you were devoted to him, asking him to provide for you and help you.
Rashi, on the other hand, explains the verse differently: this is not part of the rebuke, but an appeal from the Holy One, blessed be He, to Israel - had you only repented, I would have already returned to you. That is: "Did you not just now call to Me: 'My father, You are the guide of my youth'?" - if you would only call to Me now, "My father, You are the guide of my youth," I would already return to you. This contrasts with the approach of the Malbim, according to whom the Holy One, blessed be He, is saying: You have no shame at all; after the evil deeds you commit, you still turn to Me asking for help.
הֲיִנְטֹר לְעוֹלָם אִם יִשְׁמֹר לָנֶצַח הִנֵּה דִבַּרְתְּ וַתַּעֲשִׂי הָרָעוֹת וַתּוּכָל - "Will He bear a grudge forever? Will He keep it to the end?" Behold, you have spoken and done evil things, and you have prevailed.
According to Rashi, the Holy One, blessed be He, continues His appeal here: Return to Me; will I bear a grudge forever? Will I hold onto the evil deeds you have done for all eternity? I am ready to pardon and forgive, if only you return to Me.
However, according to the Malbim's approach, the Holy One, blessed be He, rebukes the Congregation of Israel for its brazenness: You had such audacity to commit all these evil deeds and still turn to Me requesting help whenever you lacked something, as though you were still dwelling faithfully under My care. And what do you claim when there is no rain? You say: Behold, I am bound to You and connected to You; true, I had a few minor deviations, but will Hashem bear a grudge forever? Will He forever hold these small issues and shortcomings against me? Is it possible that He would not forgive small past mistakes?
"Behold, you have spoken and done evil things, and prevailed" - "Behold, you have spoken": with your mouth you claim there is nothing to fear, that the Holy One, blessed be He, does not punish and does not forever harbor a grudge over my negative actions. "And done evil things": and while speaking in this manner, you continue to do evil, running after idolatry and false gods. "And prevailed": and thus you have the audacity to act like an unfaithful woman who brazenly turns to her husband asking for help and support, while at that very moment she also turns to the others with whom she betrays him. You ask Me for help - but what about the sins? What about what you have done? "Will He bear a grudge forever?"
As is well known, according to the Malbim, there is no mere repetition of an idea using different words. If Scripture writes yintor ("bear a grudge"), it is not identical to yishmor ("keep"), and if it writes le'olam ("forever"), it is not identical to lanetzach ("eternally"). If it says yintor le'olam, it could not say yintor lanetzach; and if it says yishmor lanetzach, it could not say yishmor le'olam. Each expression is placed precisely where it belongs and in its proper context.
First, regarding the difference between le'olam and lanetzach, which the Malbim explains in several places: le'olam always refers to time in its flow, our time, the time in which every second passes - the time familiar to us from physical reality. The Malbim terms it "moving time": time that is not above time, but within the reality of time. And as is known, when matter was created, time was created, as the Ramban writes: the existence of matter is bound to the existence of time and the existence of time to the existence of matter, and time began the moment primordial matter came into being, for wherever there is no matter, time has no meaning. Einstein discovered this eight hundred years later, but ultimately scientists arrive at what the Sages of Israel wrote. As for the nature of time, and whether time is an independent entity - many pens have been broken over this question.
In contrast, lanetzach refers to metaphysical reality, to spiritual reality, where time has no meaning and past, present, and future are one. In spiritual reality one cannot speak of time intervals, for it is a dimension devoid of time altogether. When one speaks of netzach, one speaks of concepts belonging to spiritual beings who transcend time: God, the angels, the soul. But when one speaks of le'olam - even if it refers to the entire lifespan of a person, as in "and he shall serve him le'olam" (forever) - it refers to time belonging to physical reality.
Second, the difference between yintor and yishmor: netirah (bearing a grudge) applies only to intangible matters, to abstract concepts. One does not say "I will entor the cup," or the animal, or the child - rather, I will eshmor (guard or keep) them. But one "bears (noter) enmity against him in his heart," or "harbored (natar) this in his heart" - enmity is not a physical object, it is an abstract concept, a matter of thought. Netirah is used for harboring hatred, enmity, or wrath. Shemirah, by contrast, applies to a tangible thing: guarding a car, a child, an animal, or a house.
In the Book of Yeshayahu, which we have already studied, it is written: "For I will not contend forever (le'olam), nor will I be eternally (lanetzach) wrathful." There, each word is perfectly in its place: sometimes the Holy One, blessed be He, punishes a person and contends with him here in this world, saying, "I will not contend le'olam" - I will not be angry with him all the days of his bodily life, but will return and show him mercy; Hashem strikes and then heals, grows angry and then removes His wrath. Le'olam addresses the reality familiar to us from this world. Other times, the Holy One, blessed be He, does not punish a person in this world, but directs His wrath toward him in the World to Come; concerning this it is said, "nor will I be wrathful lanetzach," for netzach refers to the reality beyond, the world of souls. There the verse speaks of people who repent: the Holy One, blessed be He, says that My wrath against them will not be eternal; because they repent, even if they receive some punishment Above, the wrath will not last forever - He will exact retribution and then bestow good upon them. On an even higher level, He will not punish them at all.
The Malbim explains: our verse speaks of people who did not repent. For according to his approach, "You had a harlot's forehead, you refused to be ashamed" - you persist in flattering your Husband as though you were doing His will, crying out to Me, "My Father, You are the companion of my youth, grant me rain," while at that very moment continuing in your corrupt ways.
Seemingly, had the verse been written in reverse - "Will He keep le'olam, or will He bear a grudge lanetzach?" - it would be perfectly understood. Shemirah denotes something tangible, and olam is this physical world where tangible things exist; if so, "will He keep le'olam" would mean: will the Holy One, blessed be He, always retain enmity here in this world and punish us here? Meanwhile, netirah applies to abstract things, and lanetzach belongs to the world of souls; if so, "will He bear a grudge lanetzach" would mean: will Hashem harbor His anger, which is an abstract concept, endlessly?
Yet here the opposite is said: "Will He bear a grudge (yintor) forever (le'olam)" - netirah, which is an inner feeling of the heart, paired with this physical world; "or will He keep (yishmor) eternally (lanetzach)" - shemirah, which relates to a concrete action, paired with the World to Come. The Malbim explains: know that these words are formulated in precise alignment, because here the verse speaks of people making false claims, arguing: The Holy One, blessed be He, does not punish and does not exact retribution, and He will not repay me according to the evil I have done, neither in this world nor in the World to Come. Their claim is that even le'olam, even here in this world, the Holy One, blessed be He, harbors no grudge at all - He does not even hold resentment in His heart for what I have done, for He pardons immediately. And if there is not even a grudge held le'olam, all the more so there is no prolonged retention of sin. See the distortion they arrived at: not only is there no eternal punishment, but even here in this world Hashem does not even remember it in His heart to punish me; and all the more so in the World to Come, where He certainly does not preserve the sin or punish, and will do nothing eternally. The Holy One, blessed be He, overlooks everything people do; there is nothing to worry about, and one may persist in corrupt deeds. Concerning such an attitude the Sages said: Whoever says that the Holy One, blessed be He, overlooks sins - his entrails shall be surrendered.
And on this note comes the conclusion, "and could she?" (va-tuchal): Do you really think you can do such a thing, something that defies nature? Does Keneset Yisrael think she can make such claims and prevail?
Yet it should have said "va-tuchli" in the second-person feminine, for throughout the entire passage He addresses her in the feminine: "You had the forehead of a harlot, you refused to be ashamed," "You called out to Me, 'My Father, the guide of my youth,'" "and you did evil" - portraying her as a woman corrupting her ways. The Malbim explains that here the speaker turns to face the people of the world and says to them: What do you think? Can she continue doing such things and not be held accountable? That is why it is written "va-tuchal" (third person) rather than "va-tuchli" (second person), for "and could she?" is now addressed to the people of the world: Look at the evil she has done - and could she prevail? Do you think she can really do this? Had He been addressing her directly, He would have said "va-tuchli."
The opening of the chapter is a debate: Israel acts hypocritically and justifies itself with an argument based on the halachic ruling "she may not return to her first husband" - claiming they have no way back. The Holy One, blessed be He, responds from that very same law: "Yet you have played the harlot with many companions" - you did not marry another, nor did you cling permanently to a single idol, but rather drifted from nation to nation out of a desire to assimilate, and therefore, on the contrary: "yet return to Me!" Yet alongside this wide-open gate of teshuvah, the severity of hypocrisy is exposed: outwardly crying, "You are my Father, the guide of my youth," while in practice committing betrayal under her husband; and with the brazen forehead of a harlot, unashamed, they ask for rain from the very Master of the Universe whom they abandoned. From here Chazal derived that rain is withheld only because of the brazen-faced. Most severe of all is the claim, "Will He bear a grudge forever? Will He keep it to the end?" - the flawed notion of Hashem as a "vatran" (one who overlooks sin), asserting there is neither judgment nor reckoning in this world or the next, concerning which it is said: "Behold, you have spoken, and you did evil." The prophecy then turns its face toward the people of the world and asks: "And could she?" Do you truly believe she will succeed in this?