Introduction: A Prophecy in Which the Prophet Himself Is the Sign
Chapter 16 in Yirmiyahu opens with an unusual and difficult prophecy. The Holy One, blessed be He, does not merely give Yirmiyahu words to convey to the people, but commands him concerning his personal conduct: do not marry a wife, do not father sons and daughters, do not enter a house of mourning, and do not go to a banquet house. The prophet's private life becomes a sign and a portent for the impending decree. We will study the verses in their order, alongside the commentaries of the Radak and the Malbim.
The Command Not to Marry and Not to Father Children
וַיְהִי דְבַר־יְהֹוָה אֵלַי לֵאמֹר׃ לֹא־תִקַּח לְךָ אִשָּׁה וְלֹא־יִהְיוּ לְךָ בָּנִים וּבָנוֹת בַּמָּקוֹם הַזֶּה׃ - The word of Hashem came to me, saying: You shall not take a wife, nor shall you have sons or daughters in this place.
The Holy One, blessed be He, says to Yirmiyahu: Do not take a wife and do not father sons and daughters in this place, for whoever is born here will die harsh and gruesome deaths, as will be described further in the chapter.
The Radak elaborates here and raises a profound difficulty: Why does the Holy One, blessed be He, command Yirmiyahu not to marry and not to father children? The decree was that the people of this place and their children would perish from famine - yet does Yirmiyahu lack sufficient merit for his children to live through his merit? Moreover, young children typically die due to the iniquity of their parents; a young child has no sins of his own, and if so, through whose iniquity would he die? Through the iniquity of his father. And who is his father? Yirmiyahu the prophet, a complete tzaddik!
And how great is the stature of a prophet - the Rambam writes that a prophet's evil inclination does not overpower him in anything of worldly affairs. That is to say, a prophet possesses absolute mastery over his desires, his passions, and his physical body. Thus, Yirmiyahu is righteous, and as a tzaddik, there is no way his children would die on his account.
Furthermore, the Radak questions: Even when a decree was issued that people would die by the sword and by famine, the decree was not upon everyone, but only upon some of them. Even when exile was decreed, not all were exiled; a remnant remained. Why, then, would it be inevitable that Yirmiyahu's wife and children would all perish? What is more, regarding the fathers and mothers, who were seemingly more deserving of punishment, not all of them died, and a substantial portion of them were exiled. And in the prophecy of Yechezkel it is stated, "neither sons nor daughters would they save; they alone would be saved" - yet why should righteous fathers not save their children, given that young children have no sin of their own for which to die, and when they die, they die for the sin of their father? It is truly astonishing: the righteous fathers are saved, while the children perish?
The Radak's Answer: The Decree Against Anatot
The Radak explains: "This place" of which the prophecy speaks does not refer to the entire Land of Israel, but to the prophet's hometown - Anatot, the place where they persecuted him. A unique prophecy was spoken concerning the people of Anatot: "And no remnant shall be left to them, for I will bring evil upon the men of Anatot in the year of their visitation." In contrast, in Jerusalem a remnant and survivors would remain, as Yechezkel said, "And behold, there shall be left in it a remnant brought forth, both sons and daughters."
Since the decree upon Anatot was an absolute, all-inclusive decree upon all the inhabitants of the place, whoever was born there was included in it. Therefore, Hashem told him: Do not father children there. Although Yirmiyahu possessed great merits, here there was an all-encompassing decree, as it says, "For judgment shall return to righteousness" - which we explained in its place: until the righteous person is swept away. When the Holy One, blessed be He, executes judgment upon the wicked, the righteous may also be swept away, Heaven forbid, as Scripture states, "lest you be swept away in the iniquity of the city." All the more so does this apply to those who have no merit of their own, such as young sons and daughters, whose entire merit derives solely from their parents.
And should you ask: Could he not father children and take them out of there to Jerusalem before the decree arrives? The Radak answers: Their relatives, the people of Anatot, would not have allowed it, for they did not believe in the prophecy and would not have permitted them to be removed. Therefore, Hashem told him not to have sons or daughters, for they would perish in the iniquity of the city.
Moreover, even Yirmiyahu himself, were he to remain in Anatot, would not be saved - for a specific decree was decreed there. And although it is stated in Yechezkel that if Noach, Daniel, and Iyov were within it, "they alone would be saved" - that applies specifically to three, whose merits combine; but this was not said of a single tzaddik, for he does not possess sufficient merit. In summary: an individual does not even save himself; three save at least themselves; ten, through their righteousness, save all the people of the city, as it says, "and I will forgive the entire place on their account." And even if they do not save them completely, they will at least save them from exile or another punishment, so that they will not die.
And if you ask from the "Song of Plagues" (Shir Shel Pega'im), "He who dwells in the shelter of the Most High": "A thousand may fall at your side, and ten thousand at your right hand, but it shall not come near you" - which implies that even a single tzaddik is saved? The Radak answers: this does not apply to every tzaddik, but only to one upon whom Divine Providence rests constantly and never departs, as it is said there: "Because he has set his passion upon Me, therefore I will deliver him; I will set him on high, because he knows My name." These are unique individuals concerning whom alone this promise was made; but in the ordinary course of things, there is no such promise.
And if you raise a difficulty: was it not decreed upon the people of Anatot that they would have no remnant, yet in the return to Zion from Babylon, "the men of Anatot, a hundred and twenty-eight" were counted? The Radak explains that the people of Anatot repented, thereby nullifying the decree so that a remnant remained for them. And the warning to Yirmiyahu was stated regarding the present situation: since right now they have not repented and the decree stands that all will die, he was therefore commanded not to father sons and daughters in this place.
Now according to this approach, an apparent difficulty arises: if Yirmiyahu himself was in danger in Anatot, why was he not commanded to leave there? It seems that Yirmiyahu was an exception, as he received a special promise from Hashem, as we saw in the previous chapter - "a fortified bronze wall." He was Hashem's emissary and the vessel for delivering prophecy to the people, and he had a kind of guarantee; but his wife, and his sons and daughters who would be born in this place, did not have that same promise.
Who Is Included in the Decree: The Malbim's Explanation
כִּי־כֹה אָמַר יְהֹוָה עַל־הַבָּנִים וְעַל־הַבָּנוֹת הַיִּלּוֹדִים בַּמָּקוֹם הַזֶּה וְעַל־אִמֹּתָם הַיֹּלְדוֹת אוֹתָם וְעַל־אֲבוֹתָם הַמּוֹלִדִים אוֹתָם בָּאָרֶץ הַזֹּאת׃ - For thus said Hashem concerning the sons and concerning the daughters who are born in this place, and concerning their mothers who bear them, and concerning their fathers who beget them in this land:
The Malbim notes a precision in the wording of the verse: regarding the sons and daughters, it states "who are born in this place" - in Anatot; whereas regarding the mothers and fathers, it states "in this land" - throughout the entire land. That is to say, upon the parents destruction was decreed wherever they may be, whereas among the young children, the decree applied only to those born in Anatot, and not to those born in another city.
According to this, the difficulty is resolved: how could the people of Anatot have returned in the days of Ezra and Nechemiah if destruction had been decreed upon them? The Malbim explains that those who returned were descendants born to people of Anatot in other cities, upon whom the decree did not apply. And as we saw earlier, the Radak offers an additional explanation - that they repented.
The Sequence of the Calamity: Pestilence, Sword, and Beasts of the Field
מְמוֹתֵי תַחֲלֻאִים יָמֻתוּ לֹא יִסָּפְדוּ וְלֹא יִקָּבֵרוּ לְדֹמֶן עַל־פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה יִהְיוּ וּבַחֶרֶב וּבָרָעָב יִכְלוּ וְהָיְתָה נִבְלָתָם לְמַאֲכָל לְעוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם וּלְבֶהֱמַת הָאָרֶץ׃ - They shall die of grievous deaths; they shall not be lamented, nor shall they be buried; they shall be as dung upon the face of the ground; and they shall be consumed by the sword and by famine, and their carcasses shall be food for the birds of the heavens and for the beasts of the earth.
The Malbim explains that there is a step-by-step progression here. Initially they will die of illnesses, and this death itself will cause that "they shall not be lamented, nor shall they be buried": when someone dies - Heaven forbid - in a plague, there is great fear of contagion, and no one comes near to attend to his burial out of fear of being infected. Therefore, no one will come to eulogize or bury them, and consequently "they shall be as dung upon the face of the ground."
And why at this stage do wild beasts not devour them? Because there are still living people in the area, and when people are present, wild beasts do not spread into settled areas. Afterward, "and they shall be consumed by the sword and by famine" - those who survived the plague will also perish by sword and famine. And when no living human beings remain at all, then "their carcasses shall be food for the birds of the heavens and for the beasts of the earth" - the beasts of the field will come and consume the corpses.
"Do Not Enter a House of Mourning" - What is a Beit Marzei'ach?
כִּי־כֹה אָמַר יְהֹוָה אַל־תָּבוֹא בֵּית מַרְזֵחַ וְאַל־תֵּלֵךְ לִסְפּוֹד וְאַל־תָּנֹד לָהֶם כִּי־אָסַפְתִּי אֶת־שְׁלוֹמִי מֵאֵת הָעָם הַזֶּה נְאֻם־יְהֹוָה אֶת־הַחֶסֶד וְאֶת־הָרַחֲמִים׃ - For thus says Hashem: Do not enter a house of mourning, do not go to eulogize, and do not grieve for them; for I have withdrawn My peace from this people, says Hashem, [even] lovingkindness and mercy.
The term "beit marzei'ach" has a dual meaning. In one sense, it refers to a house of feasting, as in the verse, "and the banquet (marzei'ach) of loungers shall pass away" - banquet halls. Chazal, on the other hand, explain that a beit marzei'ach is a house of mourning. This fits the phrasing of our verse: "Do not enter a house of mourning, and do not go to eulogize," which indicates that it concerns the deceased and mourners, and "do not grieve for them" means do not lament over them.
In fact, both explanations are correct, as the Radak explains: in Arabic, "marzei'ach" denotes raising the voice. Since it was customary to raise one's voice both at a celebratory banquet in joy and at a house of mourning in lamentation, both of these places were called "batei marzei'ach" - houses where people raise their voices, whether in weeping or in celebration. The Malbim explains that "marzei'ach" means a feast, and it was their custom to make a feast both at a house of rejoicing and at a house of mourning: comforters would serve wine to the mourners to soothe their grief and sorrow. According to this as well, the expression applies to both.
The word itself belongs to the quadrilateral roots, composed of two roots: "mar" - bitterness, and "zach" - movement and removal, as in "so that the breastplate will not be displaced (yizzach)," meaning to dislodge something from its place. A pier or jetty (mizach) is so named because it pushes back and displaces the waves. Thus, "marzei'ach" means that bitterness is moved away - pain and sorrow are shifted and cleared from the person. This happens either at a house of feasting, where one goes to dispel his bitterness, or at a house of mourning, where he would drink wine to ease his sorrow.
Incidentally, the expression "zacha da'ato alav" (he grew haughty) comes from the same root: "zach" means to remove and displace from its position, and here his intellect and composure are lifted up and displaced from the person - arrogance of heart. A contemporary idiom for this would be "he is full of himself." The same applies to "gasut haruach" (arrogance) - where one's spirit swells and inflates, and in his haughtiness he is already in the heavens, no longer down to earth among us.
Three Warnings Corresponding to Three Attributes Withdrawn
The Malbim explains that the verse contains three elements corresponding to three things. "Do not enter a house of mourning" - those who come to the onen (the immediate mourner) when the deceased is buried come to inquire after the welfare of the living, to comfort him and speak to his heart, which is done for the honor of the living. "Do not go to eulogize" - this concerns the honor of the deceased, caring for their dignity by delivering a eulogy for them. "And do not grieve" - nodding one's head toward him and sharing in his sorrow, comforting the mourner out of compassion.
Corresponding to all three, the Holy One, blessed be He, declares: Corresponding to "do not enter a house of mourning" - "I have withdrawn My peace," for there is no longer any reason to inquire after the welfare of the living. Corresponding to "do not go to eulogize" - since a eulogy is, according to one view in Chazal, an act of lovingkindness with the dead - "the lovingkindness," I have withdrawn kindness from the dead. And corresponding to "do not grieve for them," which stems from compassion - "and the mercy." In simple terms, Hashem says: There is no point in going and trying to speak to their hearts, for I have no pity or mercy on them for the terrible deeds they have committed. This is the meaning of "asafeti" (I have withdrawn / gathered up), as the Radak explains: whatever compassion and mercy I had for them until now, I have withdrawn from them. And if I do not seek their welfare and well-being, you must not do so either.
Death Without Burial and Without Eulogy
וּמֵתוּ גְדֹלִים וּקְטַנִּים בָּאָרֶץ הַזֹּאת לֹא יִקָּבֵרוּ וְלֹא־יִסְפְּדוּ לָהֶם וְלֹא יִתְגֹּדַד וְלֹא יִקָּרֵחַ לָהֶם׃ - Both great and small shall die in this land; they shall not be buried, neither shall anyone eulogize them, nor cut themselves, nor make themselves bald for them.
Rashi explains: After everyone dies, who will be left to deliver a eulogy? And as for what is stated, "nor cut themselves, nor make themselves bald" - laceration and making oneself bald are forbidden by Torah law, so why are they mentioned here? Rashi explains that they are mentioned merely as examples of mourning practices, to indicate that no mourning rites will be performed at all, and not, Heaven forbid, that these practices are permissible, for they are forbidden in their own right in any case.
Radak explains differently: they used to follow the customs of the gentiles in these matters - forbidden practices - and the prophet is speaking here to those wicked people. In other words: you are accustomed to gashing yourselves and making yourselves bald like the nations, contrary to the Torah - yet I tell you that the mourning will be so overwhelming that no one will bury or eulogize, and even you, whose practices are corrupt, will not even be able to gash yourselves or tear your hair. But Heaven forbid to think this is permitted; the prophet is merely describing their negative deeds.
The Malbim emphasizes that "Both great and small shall die in this land" refers to the entire land of Judah, not only Anatot. Furthermore, he analyzes the sequence: people were accustomed to performing three things for the deceased - first, the mourners would gash themselves and tear out their hair, then they would eulogize, and finally they would bury. Here, Scripture reverses the order to teach that burial is primary: "they shall not be buried" - and not only will they not be buried, but "neither shall men lament for them"; and not only will they not lament, but "nor shall anyone gash himself or make himself bald for them" - there will not even be the initial stage of mourning.
The Meal of Consolation and the Cup of Comfort
וְלֹא־יִפְרְסוּ לָהֶם עַל־אֵבֶל לְנַחֲמוֹ עַל־מֵת וְלֹא־יַשְׁקוּ אוֹתָם כּוֹס תַּנְחוּמִים עַל־אָבִיו וְעַל־אִמּוֹ׃ - "Nor shall they break bread for them in mourning to comfort him for the dead, nor shall they give them the cup of consolation to drink for one's father or mother."
There are two interpretations here, both based on the verse "Zion spreads out her hands" (Peirshah Tziyon beyadeha). Radak explains that they would stretch their hands to heaven and clap them together as a sign of mourning, which corresponds to "Zion spreads out her hands." The prophet means to say that they will not observe any mourning practices, and even this practice of spreading hands and clapping will not be done; there will be no gashing over the dead, nor any consolation for the living.
The second interpretation, cited by Rashi and explained likewise by the Malbim and others, is that "yifresu" (break or divide) refers to the seudat havra'ah (the meal of consolation) traditionally prepared for the mourner: they break bread for him, where someone else recites the blessing, breaks the bread, and hands it to him. That is to say, there will not even be anyone to provide them with a seudat havra'ah, which serves "to comfort him for the dead." The root paras denotes breaking, as Rashi cites from "Mene, Mene, Tekel, u-Farsin" - your kingdom is divided, from the concept of breaking.
From here is the source that when someone passes away, Heaven spare us, a seudat havra'ah is prepared, and another person slices, blesses, and places the bread directly into the hands of the mourners, as in the phrase "Zion spreads out her hands." For this reason, we are meticulous not to act this way when distributing the bread at the Shabbat meal and the like: the slice is not handed directly into a person's hand, but placed on the table for them to take. For "the ways of Zion mourn," and this is a custom of mourners; we do not wish to adopt the ways of mourning, as this could act as an ominous sign, like an unwitting error that proceeds from a ruler, Heaven forbid.
The Malbim adds: it was customary to provide the mourner with a seudat havra'ah from the food of others - yet this will not be done. Not only that, but "nor shall they give them the cup of consolation to drink." People used to soothe the mourner's grief with a cup of wine, as it says, "Give strong drink to him who is perishing, and wine to those of bitter heart." And even one undergoing profound mourning for his father or his mother - they will not even bring him a cup of consolation.
Nor Enter a House of Feasting
וּבֵית־מִשְׁתֶּה לֹא־תָבוֹא לָשֶׁבֶת אוֹתָם לֶאֱכֹל וְלִשְׁתּוֹת׃ - "And into a house of feasting you shall not enter, to sit with them to eat and to drink."
Until now, he was forbidden to mourn and eulogize; now he is also forbidden to participate in celebrations. The Malbim notes with precision: "to sit with them" - even sitting together with them to honor them is forbidden, not just eating and drinking with them. That is to say: do not go to be with them in a house of feasting and joyous celebration, and certainly do not eat or drink there. Rashi explains that the reason for this is clarified in the next verse.
Silencing the Voice of Joy and the Voice of Gladness
כִּי כֹה אָמַר יְהֹוָה צְבָאוֹת אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל הִנְנִי מַשְׁבִּית מִן־הַמָּקוֹם הַזֶּה לְעֵינֵיכֶם וּבִימֵיכֶם קוֹל שָׂשׂוֹן וְקוֹל שִׂמְחָה קוֹל חָתָן וְקוֹל כַּלָּה׃ - "For so said the Lord of Hosts, the God of Israel: Behold, I am putting an end in this place, before your eyes and in your days, to the voice of joy and the voice of gladness, the voice of the groom and the voice of the bride."
Rashi explains that this is the reason for the previous prohibition: Why did I tell you not to enter a house of feasting? Quite simply, because there will be no celebrations and there will be no feasts.
"Before your eyes and in your days" - this cessation will take place right before your eyes and will already begin in your days, and it will continue for many days. The Malbim explains: all the days of that generation, until the seventy years pass and they return from exile, the voice of joy will be silenced. And not only the voice of joy, but even "the voice of the groom and the voice of the bride" - even without joy and gladness, even that will not be heard.
And what is the difference between sason (joy) and simchah (gladness)? The Malbim explains: simchah is internal, in the heart, while sason is when a person brings it outward, when it is visible that he is joyful and exultant.
And what is "the voice of the groom and the voice of the bride"? This connects to the famous vort shared at Sheva Berachot: as long as the bride and groom are engaged, everything is spoken with gentle sweetness - "thank you," "please," and "excuse me" - and it is a pleasure to hear their voices. But after a week, a month, or a year, each according to the pace of their household, the tones change and the style becomes different. As someone once remarked, after getting married he started believing in flying saucers. But in the beginning, there is the voice of joy and the voice of gladness, the voice of the groom and the voice of the bride.
This is based on the verse, "the voice of the jubilation of grooms from their canopy," etc., from which Chazal derived that one who gladdens a bride and groom merits five "voices" (kolot). And in a humorous vein, people use this to explain why politicians frequent weddings: with every wedding comes another five votes (kolot)!
In summary:
In this chapter, Yirmiyahu was commanded to make his personal life a sign: not to take a wife and not to father children in Anatot, because of a collective decree against the people of that place, from which an individual righteous person cannot save even himself (Radak) - and according to the Malbim, the decree against the children applied specifically to those born in Anatot, which explains why men of Anatot born in other cities returned from the exile. The description of the calamity unfolds in an orderly progression: a plague, which causes there to be no eulogizing and no burial, followed by sword and famine, and finally the birds of the sky and the beasts of the earth. Furthermore, the prophet was commanded not to enter a house of mourning, not to eulogize, and not to lament - corresponding to the three attributes that the Holy One, Blessed be He, withdrew from the people: peace, lovingkindness, and mercy; and also not to enter a house of feasting, for in any event, the voice of joy and the voice of gladness, the voice of the groom and the voice of the bride, were destined to be silenced from this place.