Introduction: True Prophecy versus False Dreams
In this part of Chapter 23, Yirmiyahu continues his rebuke of the false prophets. While up to this point they were addressed in general terms, here the tools of their trade are exposed: worthless dreams presented as prophecy, the theft of prophecies from true prophets, and polished speeches crafted to persuade the people. In the process, the prophet teaches us a fundamental principle regarding the difference between a dream and a prophecy. Toward the end of the chapter, the generation's cynical attitude toward the word of Hashem is also revealed, to the point that the word massa (burden/prophecy) became an instrument of mockery on their lips.
"I Have Dreamed, I Have Dreamed" - Vain Dreams Cloaked as Prophecy
שָׁמַעְתִּי אֵת אֲשֶׁר אָמְרוּ הַנְּבִאִים הַנִּבְּאִים בִּשְׁמִי שֶׁקֶר לֵאמֹר חָלַמְתִּי חָלָמְתִּי׃ - "I have heard what the prophets have said, who prophesy lies in My name, saying: 'I have dreamed, I have dreamed.'"
I have heard the falsehoods fabricated by those prophets. They claimed that the Holy One, blessed be He, sent them to prophesy, when in reality they were dreaming vain dreams and coming forward to recount them as if they were prophetic dreams. Radak asks: Why is "I have dreamed, I have dreamed" repeated? He explains that the repetition was intended to reinforce their claim, so that the people would believe them and assume this was no ordinary dream, but one of true substance.
"How Long?" - Can a Prophet Confuse a Dream with Prophecy?
עַד מָתַי הֲיֵשׁ בְּלֵב הַנְּבִאִים נִבְּאֵי הַשָּׁקֶר וּנְבִיאֵי תַּרְמִת לִבָּם׃ - "How long shall this be in the heart of the prophets who prophesy lies, and who are prophets of the deceit of their own heart?"
The Malbim explains: How long will they continue to substitute a dream for true prophecy? How long will they be deluded into thinking that what they dreamed was the word of Hashem? This is an utter mistake, for there is a vast difference between prophecy and an ordinary dream. It is true that prophecy generally came to a prophet through a dream, and only regarding Moshe Rabbeinu was it said, "Mouth to mouth I speak to him, in a clear vision and not in riddles." Nonetheless, a fundamental divide remains: an ordinary dream stems from the imaginative faculty, that is, from a person's own imagination, whereas a prophetic dream is a divine communication from Hashem.
This is what the verse means by "Is it in the heart of the prophets who prophesy lies" - do they truly imagine that what is in their heart is a prophetic dream? In a true prophetic dream, a prophet never harbored the slightest doubt that he was receiving a communication from Hashem. A prophet never woke up in the morning and asked himself: Was this a prophecy or merely an ordinary dream? Such doubt never existed.
The strongest proof of this is from the Akeidah, the binding of Yitzchak. "Take now your son, your only son, whom you love, Yitzchak" was spoken to Avraham Avinu in a prophecy, in a dream. Avraham could have awakened in the morning and said: "Dreams speak falsehood; let us bring three people, perform an hatavat chalom (a dream annulment), and move on." Yet we see that Avraham went to bind his son - to slaughter his son. Imagine if one were mistaken and it was merely a dream! From here it is obvious that such ambiguity does not exist: it was absolutely clear to Avraham that this was the word of Hashem. Had there been even a trace of doubt, he would never have offered his son for slaughter on the one-in-a-hundred chance that it was merely a dream.
Rather, these individuals continue to fabricate falsehoods "from the deceit of their own heart" - out of the deception within their hearts, as their own hearts deceive them.
"To Cause My People to Forget My Name" - Like the Prophets of Baal
הַחֹשְׁבִים לְהַשְׁכִּיחַ אֶת עַמִּי שְׁמִי בַּחֲלוֹמֹתָם אֲשֶׁר יְסַפְּרוּ אִישׁ לְרֵעֵהוּ כַּאֲשֶׁר שָׁכְחוּ אֲבוֹתָם אֶת שְׁמִי בַּבָּעַל׃ - Who scheme to cause My people to forget My Name through their dreams which they tell each man to his neighbor, just as their fathers forgot My Name through the Baal.
The true prophets speak in My Name and remind the people of My Name: Hashem said, Hashem warned, Hashem cautioned. Yet you come along and contradict their words, rejecting them and telling the people not to accept them - the result is that you cause My people to forget My Name. And how do they do this? "Through their dreams which they tell each man to his neighbor": they would dream and go around telling one another, "I dreamed this and I saw that," intending to imply that the words of the true prophets are false.
"Just as their fathers forgot My Name through the Baal" - they are repeating the distortion of their ancestors, who likewise forgot Hashem's Name when they accepted the words of the prophets of Baal. As we saw with Eliyahu on Mount Carmel, where there were four hundred prophets of Baal who delivered messages and purported prophecies to the people in the name of the Baal. Just as those false prophets caused Hashem's Name to be forgotten through the Baal, so too these dreamers convey messages whose purpose is to cause Hashem's Name to be forgotten and prevent the people from believing the true prophets.
"What Has Straw to Do with Grain" - A Mixed Dream, Pure Prophecy
הַנָּבִיא אֲשֶׁר אִתּוֹ חֲלוֹם יְסַפֵּר חֲלוֹם וַאֲשֶׁר דְּבָרִי אִתּוֹ יְדַבֵּר דְּבָרִי אֱמֶת מַה לַתֶּבֶן אֶת הַבָּר נְאֻם ה'׃ - The prophet who has a dream, let him tell a dream; and he who has My word, let him speak My word in truth. What has straw to do with grain? says Hashem.
The Holy One, blessed be He, says to them: How can you compare someone who dreamed something to someone who received prophecy from Hashem? It is entirely possible that a small element of truth may be found in that dream, and yet, "What has straw to do with grain?" Grain (bar) is the edible crop, while straw (teven) consists of the chaff, stalks, and husks that accompany the grain. A dream contains far more straw than grain, whereas one with whom "My word is" - when the prophet receives a prophecy from Hashem, it contains no straw whatsoever, without any mixture of anything that is not the word of God.
In contrast, concerning dreams it is said, "For a dream comes through much business" (Kohelet 5:2), and one of the characteristics of a dream is that it also includes meaningless matters. For this reason, interpreting a dream is a complex task, as one must sift through it to determine what is grain and what is straw. Thus we find regarding the dream of the sun, moon, and stars: Yaakov said this could not be, since Rachel had already passed away, so where was the moon? Our Sages explain that Yaakov did not know that there is no dream without meaningless elements, and the moon was part of the meaningless details in the dream. A second explanation is that it referred to the maidservant who raised him like a mother, Bilhah, and since she raised Yosef, she was in the category of the moon. Either way, we understand that dreams involve an admixture of meaningless matters, whereas prophecy is one hundred percent truth and righteousness.
Radak adds: Straw offers no benefit except as animal fodder or for building work, whereas grain is the clarified essence, separated from the mixture, and is food for human beings. Would you mix grain and straw together and treat them as one? Surely they are two distinct things.
"Let Him Tell a Dream" vs. "Let Him Speak My Word" - A Precision of Language
Notice the precise phrasing of the verse: one who has a dream "tells" (yesaper), while one who has the word of Hashem "speaks" (yedaber). What is the difference between telling and speaking? Radak explains: one who tells a dream is merely relating a narrative, something seen in a dream, like someone reporting something heard. The intellect plays no role in this; it is purely imagination. Rashi similarly notes that yesaper is an expression of trivial narrative, mere storytelling. But "he who has My word," referring to prophetic vision, operates through the power of speech (ko'ach ha-diburi), which in sacred writings refers to the faculty of intellect. Prophecy is communicated through the human intellect, and therefore the prophet's words are truth and not mere tales.
There is another distinction here: "to speak" (ledaber) is always forceful, related to leadership, as in "there is one leader (dabar) for a generation, and not two leaders for a generation" - dabar in the sense of a ruler. In contrast, "saying" (amirah) is gentle, and "telling" (sipur) is gentler still. Prophecy comes with great power: when a person received prophecy, his entire body would tremble, as though struck by high voltage, feeling immense strength and power surge within him while his own bodily faculties grew faint. We saw this with Shaul, where even his clothes felt heavy upon him and he stripped off his garments due to the sheer intensity of the divine speech. Therefore it is called "My word" (devari), because speech conveys power and leadership. A dream, on the other hand, is merely the recounting of events; it involves no overwhelming emotional or physical shock where the body loses its composure, but rather passes through the person like a mere story.
Targum Yonatan translates, as cited by Radak: just as there is a difference between straw and grain, so too there is a difference between the wicked and the righteous. That is to say, how can you confuse the two and accept words from the wicked rather than from the true prophets, who are the righteous? Our Sages also asked: What do grain and straw have to do with dreams? Rabbi Yochanan said, just as it is impossible for grain to be without straw, so too it is impossible for a dream to be without meaningless matters. There is extensive discussion on this topic - whether this rule always applies, whether it applies even to true dreams or only to ordinary dreams - and one who wishes to study it in greater depth may consult the sources in their place.
The Malbim continues along the same line: a prophet is never mistaken, and always knows whether what he received was a dream or a message from Hashem. Here a famous question arises: with Shmuel, we find that he went back several times to Eli to ask if he had called him, implying he did not know it was prophecy! However, it is written in the sefarim that there is a difference between an apprentice in prophecy and an established prophet. That was the first revelation to Shmuel, the first time Hashem spoke with him, and therefore Hashem did not want to frighten him, calling him in Eli's voice like one calling from afar until he was no longer alarmed, and only then did He speak with him. But normally, once the prophet is accustomed to prophecy, there is no possibility that he would be confused and wonder whether the dream he had was a prophecy. Such a mistake simply does not exist.
And this is what the verse means according to the Malbim: if the prophet knows that a dream is with him, let him say, "I dreamed a dream," and if he knows that "My word is with him," let him not mix dreams with the word of Hashem, and thereby he will speak words of truth. He cannot mistakenly imagine that the words of the dream are perhaps words of prophecy. Here the Malbim enumerates three distinguishing signs that separate a dream from prophecy. The first we have already seen: "let him speak My word in truth" - the word of Hashem is pure truth, without any mixture of falsehood.
"Like Fire" and "Like a Hammer" - The Two Additional Signs
הֲלוֹא כֹה דְבָרִי כָּאֵשׁ נְאֻם ה' וּכְפַטִּישׁ יְפֹצֵץ סָלַע׃ - "Is not My word like fire? says Hashem; and like a hammer that shatters a rock?"
Rashi explains: they should not have made the mistake of equating dreams with prophecy, for when the word of prophecy enters the prophet's mouth, it comes with mighty power, like a burning fire. The prophet feels a burning fire in his bones, as stated in Yirmiyahu, "and it was in my heart like a burning fire," and as stated in Yechezkel, "and the hand of Hashem was strong upon me." How, then, can you confuse prophecy with a dream? One who receives prophecy - it is like a hammer within him, and he does not err or become confused.
The Radak explains in a different direction: the words of the dreamers are futile words, for they say, "Peace, peace," when there is no peace, peddling illusions to the people. But "My word" - the prophecy I delivered that there will be war, exile, and distress - is like a fire that will consume everything in its path. Thus, according to the Radak, the verse does not address the subjective experience of prophecy, but the retribution that will strike them for failing to accept the words of prophecy: "like a hammer that shatters a rock" - the retribution will strike with immense power, and nothing will stand against it to nullify it, for what I have spoken and delivered will ultimately be fulfilled.
The Malbim follows Rashi's approach, completing the three characteristics. The first: prophecy is crystal-clear truth, devoid of any admixture of futile matters. The second: "My word is like fire" - just as fire burns and radiates light in the darkness, so too, one who receives prophecy experiences a magnificent light upon his soul, a Divine illumination upon him, a flame of God within the faculties of the soul, radiating the light of the soul with rays streaming forth - rays that shine and illuminate his soul. We cannot fully articulate this as one who has experienced it, but the prophet knows what a magnificent light in the soul feels like. The third, which is easier to comprehend: "like a hammer that shatters a rock" - just as a hammer strikes a rock and shatters it to pieces, so prophecy shatters the body and incapacitates its physical strength, causing his knees to knock together from immense trembling.
From this it is clear that there is no mistaking the word of Hashem. It was for this reason that they used to call a prophet "madman," for at the moment of prophecy he appeared, Heaven forbid, like an epileptic: collapsing to the ground, his faculties overwhelmed, losing his physical strength and trembling violently from the tremendous Divine power shaking his entire body. An onlooker might think he was deranged or suffering from seizures. As we mentioned regarding Shaul, he stripped off his clothes due to the overwhelming weight of prophecy. It follows that one cannot mistake prophecy for a dream, for had you experienced prophecy, you would have felt a hammer shattering a rock, and you would have known beyond any doubt that it was prophecy and not a dream.
Incidentally, Tosafot in Masechet Shabbat 88a interpret "like a hammer that shatters a rock" in the opposite manner: like a hammer that the rock shatters, akin to "stones wear away water," and there is a textual necessity in the Gemara to explain it this way. If you ask, is it not more logical that the hammer shatters the rock? The answer is that it refers to a rock of sapphire (*sanpirinon*), which is as hard as diamond, so that when it is struck, the iron hammer breaks rather than the rock. That is the meaning of "like a hammer" that the rock is capable of shattering.
Three Groups of False Prophets
לָכֵן הִנְנִי עַל הַנְּבִאִים נְאֻם ה' מְגַנְּבֵי דְבָרַי אִישׁ מֵאֵת רֵעֵהוּ׃ - "Therefore, behold, I am against the prophets, says Hashem, who steal My words, each from his fellow."
"Behold, I am against the prophets" - I promise to destroy those false prophets; and Targum Yonatan translates: Behold, I am sending My wrath. Three times Scripture repeats "Behold, I am against the prophets," and the Radak explains that these statements correspond to three categories of false prophets in their day, who employed cunning methods to make the people believe their fraudulent prophecies.
The first group: prophets who heard the words of the true prophets, primarily the prophecies concerning the nations, such as the prophecy against Damascus and Yirmiyahu's other prophecies regarding the gentiles. They would go and tell the people, "Thus said Hashem to Damascus," "Thus said Hashem to Amon," as if they themselves had received the prophecy. Yirmiyahu would state it in his home to his students, and they would announce it to the people as their own prophecy. Regarding this it is said, "who steal My words, one from his fellow."
And why specifically prophecies concerning the nations? Because with a prophecy against another nation, they had no problem repeating it, but they could not imitate the prophet's words concerning Israel. After all, the prophet spoke harsh words about Israel, while they sought to tell the people pleasant things. Therefore, they would take the prophecies of doom against the nations, which the people were willing to hear, and present them as a prophecy they had received that was fulfilled - implying: believe me now as well, when I bring good tidings for Israel.
Chazal say that this was said regarding one who prophesies what was not spoken to him, yet it is implied that it was spoken to his fellow. They cite an example: such as Chananyah ben Azzur. Yirmiyahu stood in the upper marketplace and said, "Thus said Hashem of Hosts: Behold, I will break the bow of Eilam, the foremost of their strength." Chananyah ben Azzur formulated a kal vachomer (an a fortiori argument) on his own: if regarding Eilam, who came merely to assist Kasdim (the Chaldeans), the Holy One, blessed be He, said, "Behold, I will break the bow of Eilam," then Kasdim themselves, all the more so! Chananyah came to the lower marketplace and announced: I have received a prophecy, "Thus said Hashem, God of Israel, saying: I have broken the yoke of the king of Babylon." Thus, he stole the prophecy from Yirmiyahu.
The Gemara asks: But it was not said to his fellow either, for Yirmiyahu spoke about Eilam and not about Kasdim, and Chananyah derived the kal vachomer on his own! The Gemara answers: Since a kal vachomer was given, it is considered as though it were explicitly said. A person is permitted to deduce a kal vachomer on his own (unlike a gezeirah shavah, which one may deduce only if received from his teacher), and therefore it is considered as if Chananyah heard explicitly from Yirmiyahu that Hashem would break the bow of Kasdim.
הִנְנִי עַל הַנְּבִיאִם נְאֻם ה' הַלֹּקְחִים לְשׁוֹנָם וַיִּנְאֲמוּ נְאֻם׃ - Behold, I am against the prophets, says Hashem, who take their tongues and utter prophetic declarations.
The second group: prophets who were eloquent and possessed sweet speech, what would be called rhetoricians today, whose craft was the art of oratory. They copied nothing from Yirmiyahu, but through the power of their eloquent language and elevated style, they made the impression of true prophets. They would proclaim words of peace to the people in the name of Hashem and put on a favorable face to persuade them to accept their prophecy. People listened and said: "He sounds like a prophet; he seems to know what he is talking about." In this way, they spoke falsehoods that they had never heard at all.
The Malbim explains in his linguistic analysis that a ne'um is a decisive and structured statement - that is, an exact matter delivered in a precise manner. Those accustomed to such speech are called by Chazal ne'emanim - today we call them orators, as in the phrase "He removes the speech of the eloquent" (mesir safah le-ne'emanim), and from this also comes "the utterance of transgression to the wicked" (ne'um pesha la-rasha), and most often ne'um refers to the words of the prophets. Therefore, "who take their tongue" means that they have a habit in their speech to deliver formal addresses, to speak eloquently and pleasantly, and to present a facade as though only good will come to them.
Radak interprets "who take their tongue" (ha-lokechim leshonam) as related to smoothing their tongue (machlikim leshonam), with an interchange of letters like keves and kesev, kahal and lahak, simlah and salmah. This is similar to "She seduced him with the abundance of her smooth persuasion (lekach)" and "with the smoothness of her lips she enticed him" - with sweet speech. That is, they have a smooth tongue with which they know how to persuade people and create the impression that their prophecy is from Hashem.
הִנְנִי עַל נִבְּאֵי חֲלֹמוֹת שֶׁקֶר נְאֻם ה' וַיְסַפְּרוּם וַיַּתְעוּ אֶת עַמִּי בְּשִׁקְרֵיהֶם וּבְפַחֲזוּתָם וְאָנֹכִי לֹא שְׁלַחְתִּים וְלֹא צִוִּיתִים וְהוֹעֵיל לֹא יוֹעִילוּ לָעָם הַזֶּה נְאֻם ה'׃ - Behold, I am against those who prophesy false dreams, says Hashem, and relate them, and lead My people astray with their falsehoods and their recklessness; yet I did not send them, nor did I command them, and they will bring no benefit to this people, says Hashem.
The third group: those who dreamed dreams and would come and say that their dreams were prophecy, delivering them to the people as if in the name of Hashem. And against all three groups, the Creator says: "Yet I did not send them" - I did not appoint them as messengers to the people; "nor did I command them" - I did not even speak to them as a command for themselves, let alone as a mission to the people.
Furthermore, if one is already concocting lies, at least let there be some benefit in them, and regarding this it is said, "and they will bring no benefit to this people." A person might invent a story, such as claiming to have experienced some vision, in order to inspire the public. Even this is inappropriate, for Judaism is truth, and truth is presented through truth; there is no need to fabricate stories to market the merchandise. There is a story of a certain preacher who opened his sermon by telling the audience: "I asked the Rabbi whether it is permissible to tell stories that never happened in order to bring people closer to teshuvah, and the Rabbi answered that it is permissible. And that is the first story..." We learn from this that the way of Judaism is not to promote itself through falsehood.
However, a distinction must be made: one who fabricated a story and brought people to teshuvah through it, aside from the falsehood itself, one cannot say he caused great harm; on the contrary, perhaps someone was strengthened by it. But one who does this to lead them to avodah zarah (idolatry), his crime is twofold: he both lied by recounting something that never occurred, and he degraded the people in the process. This is what is stated here: not only did I not send them nor command them, but there is also no benefit in their words; on the contrary, they lead the people astray from the path of Hashem, from the right and proper way.
"And by their recklessness" (u-vefachazutam) - the Radak explains that pachazut means rashness or levity, as in "unstable (pachaz) as water, you shall not excel," referring to someone who acts impulsively without deliberation, contemplation, or forethought. Similarly, "empty and reckless men" (reikim u-fochazim). This is the exact opposite of a measured, level-headed person: a reckless person acts in an instant, without reflection.
"What is the Burden of Hashem?" - The Mockery in the Phrase
וְכִי יִשְׁאָלְךָ הָעָם הַזֶּה אוֹ הַנָּבִיא אוֹ כֹהֵן לֵאמֹר מַה מַּשָּׂא ה' וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵיהֶם אֶת מַה מַּשָּׂא וְנָטַשְׁתִּי אֶתְכֶם נְאֻם ה'׃ - "And when this people, or the prophet, or a priest, asks you, saying, 'What is the burden of Hashem?' you shall say to them: 'What burden?! I will cast you off,' says Hashem."
In the following verses, the prophet addresses a specific form of address that the people used toward him, which expressed ridicule and mockery of his prophecy: "What is the burden (massa) of Hashem?" Rashi explains that this was a mocking expression, as his prophecy was seen by them as a burden: What has Hashem loaded onto us today? What new burden do we have? They treated Hashem's prophecy as a heavy load that must be carried upon their backs.
The Malbim explains that prophetic oracles were often termed a "burden" (massa), such as "the burden of Damascus" or "the burden of Ammon," signifying the prophecy that the prophet carries and delivers. But the people used "massa" in the sense of a parable (mashal), as if saying: You, the prophet, merely come along to tell parables and spin stories. What story do you have today? What did Hashem tell you this time? Now, Yirmiyahu himself never prophesied using the term "massa," and we do not find such phrasing in his prophecies, because his prophecies concerned the destruction, and regarding the destruction he did not use riddles and poetic allegory, but rather a precise description of what was to come. A prophecy that is a rhetorical "burden" and allegory might speak of a bubbling pot, a flask, and the like, which are allegories. With Yirmiyahu there are no allegories: he speaks of the destruction just as it is, describing harsh realities without sugarcoating. Yet the generation, whenever approaching the prophet, would ask mockingly: "What is the burden of Hashem?" meaning, what parable did He tell this time? Likewise, when repeating the prophet's words to one another, they would dismiss them as if they were mere allegories and metaphors.
And what is the answer? Rashi explains: "You shall say to them: 'What burden?!'" - you yourselves are the burden upon the Holy One, blessed be He. You ask what He is loading and placing upon us? You are the heavy load weighing down upon the Holy One, blessed be He! And when a person carries a heavy burden, what does he do? He unloads it. "I will cast you off, says Hashem" - this burden Hashem is about to cast off and unload from Himself. This is the divine retort to their mockery.
The Malbim adds that their mockery carried an additional implication: as if the prophecy Hashem imparts to the prophet is a burden to Hashem Himself, that He carries a weight He needs to unload. In response to this, tell them: "I will cast you off" - it is you, this very burden, that Hashem will unload.
וְהַנָּבִיא וְהַכֹּהֵן וְהָעָם אֲשֶׁר יֹאמַר מַשָּׂא ה' וּפָקַדְתִּי עַל הָאִישׁ הַהוּא וְעַל בֵּיתוֹ׃ - "And as for the prophet, the priest, and the people who say, 'The burden of Hashem,' I will punish that man and his house."
Likewise, if they say to one another with this phrasing, "the burden of Hashem," turning the entire prophecy into a parable and figure of speech - "I will punish that man," and he will receive his retribution.
The Proper Phrasing: "What Has Hashem Answered, and What Has Hashem Spoken?"
כֹּה תֹאמְרוּ אִישׁ עַל רֵעֵהוּ וְאִישׁ אֶל אָחִיו מֶה עָנָה ה' וּמַה דִּבֶּר ה'׃ - "Thus shall each of you say to his fellow, and each to his brother: 'What has Hashem answered, and what has Hashem spoken?'"
Not "What is the burden of Hashem?" but "What has Hashem answered, and what has Hashem spoken?" And what is the difference between "answered" and "spoken"? The Malbim explains: when the prophet asks, Hashem answers; and when Hashem initiates the communication, Hashem speaks. Therefore, ask what Hashem answered to the prophet's inquiry, and what Hashem spoke when He initiated the discourse.
וּמַשָּׂא ה' לֹא תִזְכְּרוּ עוֹד כִּי הַמַּשָּׂא יִהְיֶה לְאִישׁ דְּבָרוֹ וַהֲפַכְתֶּם אֶת דִּבְרֵי אֱלֹהִים חַיִּים ה' צְבָאוֹת אֱלֹהֵינוּ׃ - And the burden of the Lord you shall mention no more, for every man's burden shall be his own word; and you have perverted the words of the living God, the Lord of hosts our God.
Do not mention the term "burden" (massa) in your speech anymore. According to the Malbim: do not regard the prophet's words as mere parable and poetic rhetoric. "For every man's burden shall be his own word" - when a person wishes to express his own words, mundane matters, and wants to present them in a stylized form, he speaks in the language of poetry and rhetoric (massa). But you "have perverted the words of the living God" - you took the words of the living God and turned them into mere parable and figure of speech, transforming the words of the Lord of hosts, the living God, into empty rhetoric.
Metzudat David explains in a different vein: the words of prophecy are like a burden upon the prophet. As noted several times, when God spoke with the prophet, the prophecy was like a burning fire within him, as Yirmiyahu says in chapter 20: "I will not speak in His name anymore, but it was in my heart like a burning fire, and I grew weary of holding it in." Prophecy is an immense force dwelling within him, and he feels an irresistible urge and necessity to unload it and speak the words. In that sense, it is indeed a burden - a burden upon the prophet's heart. But you invert matters, claiming that the burden is upon you, as though his words are heavy upon you, as if his prophecies were tons weighing down on you. "For every man's burden shall be his own word" - for the prophet who speaks, it is truly a burden, but not for you. Yet you perverted the words of the living God, defining as a burden upon yourselves what is truly a burden upon the prophet.
כֹּה תֹאמַר אֶל הַנָּבִיא מֶה עָנָךְ ה' וּמַה דִּבֶּר ה'׃ - Thus shall you say to the prophet: What has the Lord answered you? and: What has the Lord spoken?
Even if you wish to ask the prophet himself, when he prophesies and cannot conceal it, do not use the term "burden," but rather: "What has the Lord answered you? and: What has the Lord spoken?" Now, ostensibly, a difficulty arises: Why is this repeated, when verse 35 already stated: "Thus shall you say every one to his neighbor"? If the expression was already forbidden toward one's fellow, all the more so toward the prophet! But according to the Metzudot, this is explained beautifully: for the prophet it is indeed a burden, something he is compelled to unload, and one might have thought that toward him it would be permissible to say "What is the burden of the Lord?" - meaning not a burden on me, but on you. Therefore, the verse emphasizes that even when addressing the prophet, this expression must not be used, because it has become an abhorrent phrase, since it was used to imply that prophecy was a burden upon them. The Malbim explains similarly, and this is the simple meaning of the verse resolving the apparent redundancy.
וְאִם מַשָּׂא ה' תֹּאמֵרוּ לָכֵן כֹּה אָמַר ה' יַעַן אֲמׇרְכֶם אֶת הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה מַשָּׂא ה' וָאֶשְׁלַח אֲלֵיכֶם לֵאמֹר לֹא תֹאמְרוּ מַשָּׂא ה'׃ - And if you say: 'The burden of the Lord,' therefore thus says the Lord: Because you say this word: 'The burden of the Lord,' and I have sent to you, saying: 'You shall not say: The burden of the Lord;'
This is a unique verse; the Minchat Shai notes that throughout Tanach there are only four verses in which the Name of Hashem appears four times, and this is one of them. The message here is: even if you do not alter the words of the prophet, but merely say "the burden of the Lord," you will be punished for the speech itself. "And I have sent to you" - I send and warn you even before the punishment not to say "the burden of the Lord." Henceforth, having already warned you, it is clear that if you persist in this manner, it can only be out of mockery - as if the divine utterance were merely a burden, that is, a poetic riddle, or as in the Malbim's second explanation, as though the Holy One, blessed be He, has a burden that He needs to unload, Heaven forbid. Therefore, you shall certainly be punished.
"I will utterly forget you" - The Punishment
לָכֵן הִנְנִי וְנָשִׁיתִי אֶתְכֶם נָשֹׁא וְנָטַשְׁתִּי אֶתְכֶם וְאֶת הָעִיר אֲשֶׁר נָתַתִּי לָכֶם וְלַאֲבוֹתֵיכֶם מֵעַל פָּנָי׃ - Therefore, behold, I will utterly forget you, and I will cast you off, and the city that I gave you and your fathers, away from My presence.
What does "venashiti etchem naso" mean? Rashi explains that it is related to gid hanasheh (the displaced sinew), and like "their strength has failed" (nashtah gevuratam) - something that jerks and moves about from place to place, as the sinew slipped and displaced from its location. Radak explains it as an expression of forgetting (shechichah), as in "You forgot (teshi) the Rock that begot you" and like the abyss of oblivion (tehom haneshiyah). By the way, some explain that this is the difference between zachar (male) and nashim (women): a man is called zachar because his role is to remember (lizkor) the Torah, whereas nashim is related to forgetting, as they are not subject to the same obligation incumbent upon the male to remember the Torah.
"Behold, I" (Hineni) - Radak points out that this denotes swiftness of action, for wherever "Hineni" appears, it signifies alacrity: with swift readiness I am prepared to bring calamity upon you. And why the repetition "nashiti... naso"? This is a general rule: wherever the infinitive absolute is doubled and placed at the end, it serves to intensify the action. "I will forget you" (nashiti etchem) - I have forgotten, "naso" - I will forget with full force and intensity. Just as you forget My words and the signs I perform through the prophets, scorning them and despising the words of prophecy, so I will forget you. And even though I acquired you and made a covenant with you, says Radak, I will forget even the covenant. Why? Because you broke it first with your mockery of the prophets.
"And I will cast you off, and the city" - I will abandon you, and from the city I will remove My Shechinah and exile you from it. And "venatashti" with a tet is like "venatashti" with a tav, as these letters interchange, just like ta'ah with a tet and ta'ah with a tav: although we usually interpret the first as straying or erring in an idea and the second as losing one's way on a road, both stem from the same root concept; so too here, both forms convey abandonment.
The Malbim explains: "I will utterly forget you [or cast you away] (venashiti etchem naso)" - I will forget you and abandon you so that you will no longer be a burden upon Me. This is a direct continuation of his earlier words: You said, "What is the burden of Hashem?", as if delivering prophecy to us is burdensome for Hashem. Tell them: The burden is you yourselves, and I will cast you off so that you will not be a burden to Me. The Malbim adds a third interpretation of the word "venashiti", derived from Targum Yonatan, who translates it as "I will shatter you completely", an expression of devastation, related to the word *sho'ah* (ruin). Thus, there are three interpretations: from the root of *gid hanasheh*, denoting displacement and movement from place to place; from *neshiyah*, meaning forgetfulness; and from the language of catastrophe - I will bring ruin and devastation upon you.
וְנָתַתִּי עֲלֵיכֶם חֶרְפַּת עוֹלָם וּכְלִמּוּת עוֹלָם אֲשֶׁר לֹא תִשָּׁכֵחַ׃ - "And I will bring upon you everlasting reproach, and perpetual shame, which shall not be forgotten."
"Everlasting reproach" - the disgrace and exile at the hands of the Chaldeans will last a long time. It does not mean literally forever, but for an extended period, similar to "and he shall serve him forever (le'olam)" which our Sages interpret as fifty years (until the Yovel). So too here: for a prolonged period, this reproach and disgrace will endure while you are captives in the hands of the enemies.
The reason for this, says the Malbim, is measure for measure: you intended to insult the prophet and degrade the words of prophecy, claiming they were mere parables and a burden upon Hashem; therefore, your punishment is everlasting reproach and perpetual shame. However, the Malbim asks: it would have been more fitting to mention shame (*kelimah*) before reproach (*cherpah*), for reproach is greater than shame. Generally, shame is felt within oneself, whereas reproach comes from others insulting him, and being humiliated by others is a greater disgrace than feeling inner shame. Furthermore, a speaker's typical pattern is to escalate: when describing an impending affliction, one does not begin with the severe and end with the lesser, but rather builds progressively. If so, why was reproach mentioned first and shame second?
The Malbim answers: reproach comes as a result of something specific, when a person did something improper and is scorned for it - and this, at least, one can somewhat endure, recognizing that it is deserved. Shame, however, can be inflicted without any justification or reason. Moreover, reproach can occur behind one's back, whereas shame is experienced specifically to one's face. Thus, shame is actually more severe, which is why it appears last: they will humiliate you to your face and without any cause or reason, and this will be a shame and reproach that shall not be forgotten.
In summary:
In these verses, Yirmiyahu exposes the falsehood of the false prophets and the fundamental difference between a dream and a prophecy: a dream stems from the faculty of imagination and is mixed with useless chaff, like straw amidst grain, whereas prophecy is entirely pure truth, entering like a burning fire in the soul and like a hammer that shatters rock, and the prophet can never mistake it, as demonstrated by the Binding of Yitzchak. The text enumerated three factions of false prophets: those who steal prophecies from the true prophets, oratorical charlatans with smooth tongues, and dreamers of false dreams; none of them were sent or commanded, and their words offer no benefit, only misleading the people. Finally, the prophet rebuked the generation that turned the word of Hashem into an object of derision with the phrase "the burden of Hashem", teaching them instead to ask, "What has Hashem answered, and what has Hashem spoken?" And because they sought to reproach prophecy, it was decreed upon them measure for measure: abandonment, oblivion, and devastation, alongside everlasting reproach and perpetual shame that will never be forgotten.