Skip to main contentSkip to Content

Jeremiah 14

ירמיהו פרק י״ד

Section: נביאים · נביאים אחרונים | Book: Jeremiah | Chapter: 14 of 52 | Day: 227 of 742

Date: September 26, 2026


קלאוד על הנ״ך

Chapter 14 is headed by a superscription unlike any other in the book: asher hayah devar Hashem el Yirmiyahu al divrei habatzarot, the word of the Lord that came to Yirmiyahu concerning the droughts. Radak pauses over the plural and over the root itself. Batzarot, he notes, comes from a verb of withholding - lo yivatzer mehem - and because rain is the thing withheld, the word carries both the dearness of money and the dearness of produce, the whole inflationary spiral of a failed harvest packed into one noun. Rashi records Menachem’s attempt to derive it instead from mivtzar, fortification, which if nothing else registers how strange the word felt to early readers. And Radak adds a detail that governs the entire chapter: the word came to Yirmiyahu before the droughts arrived. He was shown the thirst in advance. That single observation reframes what follows, because it means the magnificent prayers of verses 7 through 9 and 19 through 22 are not the reflex of a man watching his neighbors die but the deliberate act of a prophet who has been given advance notice and has decided to argue. Everything in this chapter happens in the gap between the decree and its execution, which is precisely the space in which intercession lives - and precisely the space that God will spend the chapter trying to close.

The drought itself occupies six verses and it is among the great descriptive passages in Tanakh. Avlah Yehudah ush’areha umlelu kadru la’aretz - Judah mourns, her gates languish, they are black unto the ground - and the cry of Jerusalem goes up. Radak reads the gates in two registers at once: all her gates are desolate, no one going out and no one coming in, or else the elders have ceased from sitting in the gates, zekenim misha’ar shavatu. The gate is where a city does its business and renders its judgments; when the gate darkens, civic life has stopped. Then the scene narrows to a single errand. The nobles send their young men for water; they come to the gevim, the catch-pits, and find none; shavu kleihem reikam, their vessels came back empty. Metzudat David fills in the small human disaster with precision - the servants were ashamed and humiliated and covered their heads out of grief that they had found no water to bring their masters - and Radak points out that the shame is lodged in the returning itself, the long walk home with nothing in the jar. Then the ground: ba’avur ha’adamah chatah, because the earth is cracked, ki lo hayah geshem ba’aretz, and Radak specifies that ba’aretz here means the land of Israel, which matters enormously for the argument to come. The plowmen cover their heads too, and Metzudat David notes the particular bitterness of their shame - ki larik hayah yegi’am, their labor was for nothing.

What lifts this passage above a catalogue of hardship is that Yirmiyahu then hands the chapter over to the animals. Ki gam ayelet basadeh yaldah v’azov ki lo hayah deshe - even the hind in the field gives birth and abandons. Rashi says plainly that she leaves her young to hunt pasture for herself, and Radak presses on the word that makes it unbearable: she did not worry over her offspring af al pi shehi rachmaniyah, even though she is merciful by nature, and she went to keep her own soul alive. The hind is the emblem of tenderness in biblical imagery, and the drought has reached far enough into her to cancel it. Then the wild donkeys, ufra’im amdu al shefayim, standing on the bare heights, sha’afu ruach katanim, gulping air like jackals. Metzudat David explains the posture functionally - they climb the high places to scan for any green thing anywhere - and reads the panting as the gasping of creatures that have been running hard; Radak observes that the gulping of air is all they get, that standing on the heights yields them nothing but wind. Kalu eineihem ki ein esev. Metzudat David gives the idiom its exact force: in Scripture, one who watches for a thing and does not attain it is said to have his eyes consumed. The eyes fail not from blindness but from looking. And then Radak makes the theological point that the whole animal panorama has been building toward: this was in punishment for their sins, in the settled land and in the wilderness, while the other nations had plenty - so that the drought became a sign among the peoples, v’hayu becha l’ot ul’mofet. The animals are not decoration. They are the evidence that this is not weather. Weather does not stop at a border.

That is the hinge into the prayer, and the prayer is one of the supreme passages in the book. Im avoneinu anu vanu, Hashem aseh lema’an shemecha - though our iniquities testify against us, act for Your name’s sake, for our rebellions are many, against You have we sinned. Radak catches what is extraordinary in the grammar: the prophet includes himself in the plural although he himself bore no such guilt, and he compares the move to Moshe Rabbeinu’s v’salachta la’avoneinu ul’chatateinu unchaltanu. He also explains precisely how the iniquities testify - since the withholding of rain is in our land and not in the lands of the nations, the drought itself is the witness against us, which is to say that the confession is drawn directly out of the evidence Radak had already identified in verse 6. This is confession as legal strategy of the most honest kind. Yirmiyahu concedes every count in the indictment and then argues that the verdict should nonetheless go the other way, because the plaintiff has an interest of His own at stake. Metzudat David states that interest bluntly: act for Your name’s sake, that it not be profaned among the nations, lest they say this is because the Lord lacked the power to save His people. Then the two titles. Mikveh Yisrael moshi’o b’et tzarah - Rashi glosses mikveh with one word, tocheles, expectation, and Radak extends it across history: though they have turned from Your ways, it is to You that they hope, and in every generation You are the hope of Israel and its savior in time of trouble, even when the trouble came upon them through their own sin. And then the complaint that gives the prayer its unique daring. Lamah tihyeh k’ger ba’aretz uch’orei’ach natah lalun - why should You be like a stranger in the land, like a wayfarer who turns aside to lodge for a night? Radak unpacks the logic exactly: a ger is not native to the land and takes no interest in what becomes of it, since if he is here today he is gone tomorrow, and the traveler who stops only to sleep cares for neither its good nor its harm - and You resemble them in this, in hiding Your face from the land and not caring for its distress, v’lach ha’aretz va’anachnu gerim bah v’toshavim imach. The argument turns on a verse from Vayikra: we are the sojourners here, not You. The accusation of detachment is an appeal to ownership. Verse 9 sharpens it into something close to impudence - lamah tihyeh k’ish nidham, like a man stunned and bewildered who does not know what to do, or k’gibor lo yuchal l’hoshia, like a warrior who cannot save. Metzudat David draws out the military image with real care: a warrior measures his strength, and when he understands that what has come upon him exceeds it, he withdraws his hand and performs no more feats - and the prophet is asking, is any of this true of You? Radak notes that for a gibor the victory is in his hand, and there are only times he cannot save; for God there are none. Then the turn, and it is the most quoted line in the chapter: v’atah b’kirbeinu Hashem v’shimcha aleinu nikra, al tanicheinu. Rashi’s comment is a single stroke of rhetoric - Your name is called upon us, therefore there is no honor for You in doing this. Radak reports a derash that the divine name is literally compounded into ours in Yisra-El. Al tanicheinu, do not forsake us, which Rashi glosses as the equivalent of ta’azvenu, and which the liturgy took up and never let go, as it took up mikveh Yisrael.

God’s answer is a refusal, and the refusal arrives in three escalating waves. First the verdict on the people: ken ahavu lanua, so they have loved to wander, their feet they have not restrained. Rashi hears in it the exiles to Mitzrayim and Bavel - they loved to go wandering there to serve distant idols; Radak reads the wandering as the diplomacy of the faithless, running to Mitzrayim and Ashur for help against their enemies instead of trusting Me, and answers a question the reader should be asking - what kind of reply is this to a prayer about rain? His answer is grimly practical: even with the rains withheld, had they been able to go out to neighboring lands to buy grain the famine would not have been so severe, but the enemy was upon them daily and they could not go out. Since they loved to wander, I will make them wander. Then the prohibition: al titpallel b’ad ha’am hazeh l’tovah, do not pray for the good of this people - the third time in the book, after chapters 7 and 11, that the prophet is told to stop. Radak notices the exact wording and reads it against chapter 12, where Yirmiyahu had prayed against a faction of them; hence l’tovah, for their good, do not pray. Ki yatzumu eineni shomea el rinatam - when they fast I will not hear their cry, and Metzudat David adds the condition that explains everything: not so long as they hold fast to their deeds. Fasting without turning is a gesture, and the covenant does not respond to gestures. Then the third wave, the false prophets, and here Yirmiyahu’s protest is a defense brief. Ahah Adonai Hashem, hinei hanevi’im omrim lahem lo tir’u cherev v’ra’av lo yihyeh lachem - Metzudat David renders the plea in full: woe is me, why should they be destroyed when they bear no guilt, for the false prophets mislead them, and it would be fitting to bring the punishment on those prophets alone. The answer is sheker hanevi’im nib’im bishmi, lo shelachtim v’lo tzivitim v’lo dibarti aleihem - a lying vision and divination and an emptiness and the deceit of their own heart. Radak’s comment on tarmit libam is the psychological center of the whole false-prophecy problem in Yirmiyahu: since the people reckon us truthful because they have tested us on a few predictions, we will tell them not to fear Yirmiyahu’s words, and we will make their deeds beautiful to them so that we may be honored in their eyes and beloved to them. Flattery as a career. The sentence is that those prophets will be consumed by the very sword and famine they denied - Radak says they will be struck first, because they caused Israel to sin - and the people they prophesied to will be cast out in the streets of Yerushalayim with none to bury them, which Metzudat David explains with terrible ordinariness: there will be so many that there will not be enough hands to bury them. And Radak, refusing to let the people off, insists they were obliged to discriminate: a true prophet establishes them on the Torah of Moshe while the false one beautifies avodah zarah, and even signs and wonders do not license that, ki menaseh Hashem Elokeichem etchem.

Then the prophet’s own lament, and the structure of the chapter is now unmistakable. Teradnah einai dim’ah lailah v’yomam v’al tidmenah, ki shever gadol nishberah betulat bat ami, makkah nachlah me’od - let my eyes run down with tears night and day and let them not cease, for the virgin daughter of my people is broken with a great breach, a grievous wound. Metzudat David explains why she is called betulah: no king has yet conquered her, as a virgin has not come under a husband’s authority; Radak develops the same figure into the coming exile, in which she will be subdued as a virgin is when she is taken. Rashi notes only that nachlah is a word of sickness, and the diagnosis carries into the next verse: going out to the field, the slain of the sword; coming into the city, the sick of famine. Radak observes that Yirmiyahu names the sick rather than the dead because the sick outnumbered them - the famine is a condition, not an event. And then verse 19, and the chapter does the thing that makes Sefer Yirmiyahu what it is. He has been told twice now not to pray, and he prays. Radak says it in so many words: the prophet returned to pray again, and although God had said to him do not pray for this people, he returned to pray for a portion of the people. Hama’os ma’asta et Yehudah, im b’Tziyon ga’alah nafshecha - have You utterly rejected Judah, has Your soul loathed Zion? Rashi sharpens the conditional: with the intention of never returning to her? For if You intend to return, why have You smitten us with no healing? Madua hikitanu v’ein lanu marpei - Radak keeps the question anchored in the drought, a blow of famine, no healing because there is no rain. Kaveh l’shalom v’ein tov ul’et marpei v’hinei ve’atah. Radak even reads the hope concretely: if we hope for peace from the nations around us so that we might go and buy grain in their land - and no good comes from any side. Then the confession, fuller than the one in verse 7: yadanu Hashem rish’einu avon avoteinu ki chatanu lach, and Radak sorts the three terms with a lawyer’s care - rish’einu the rebellions, avon the willful sins, chatanu the inadvertent ones - the entire taxonomy of guilt laid on the table. And then verse 21, which is where the chapter’s argument finally lands and where the liturgy found its home. Al tin’atz lema’an shimcha, al tenabel kisei chevodecha, zechor al tafer britecha itanu. Rashi reads lema’an shimcha as the name by which You are called compassionate, and kisei chevodecha as the Beit HaMikdash, adding a midrash that the throne of glory means Israel, engraved upon it. Radak takes al tenabel as a plea not to let it fall to the ground - Yerushalayim is the throne of Your glory, do not cast it down and disgrace it by leaving its inhabitants abandoned with none to turn to them - and reads zechor as zechor brit avot, remember the covenant of the fathers, which Targum Yonatan renders as let the memory of our fathers’ covenant come before You. Three imperatives, no argument from merit left, only the plea that God’s name, God’s throne and God’s covenant are all implicated in what happens to this city. The chapter then closes on the only ground that remains. Hayesh b’havlei hagoyim magshimim, v’im hashamayim yitnu revivim - is there any among the vanities of the nations that can give rain, and do the heavens of themselves give showers? Rashi notes the double-question construction, heh and then im, the same form used in verse 19, so that the chapter’s last question is built in the same syntax as its most desperate one. Metzudat David asks it as a practical matter: to whom shall we cry out for rain? And Radak gives the answer that makes this an argument rather than a hymn - the heavens do not give rain of themselves, since You close them when You wish and open them when You wish, and therefore it is upon us to hope in You. Unkaveh lach ki atah asita et kol eleh. Radak insists that kol eleh refers to the drought itself: You made this, You shut up the heavens, You kept the earth from yielding. That is the last word of the chapter, and it is the most theologically vertiginous sentence in it. The prophet who has just been forbidden to intercede ends by telling God that the disaster is His own work and that there is consequently no one else to appeal to. The refusal has not been withdrawn. The prayer has not been retracted either. Chapter 14 leaves them standing side by side, unreconciled, and the rest of the book will be written in that unresolved space.


פרק י״ד · Chapter 14

פסוק א׳ · Verse 1

Hebrew:

אֲשֶׁ֨ר הָיָ֤ה דְבַר־יְהֹוָה֙ אֶֽל־יִרְמְיָ֔הוּ עַל־דִּבְרֵ֖י הַבַּצָּרֽוֹת׃

English:

The word of GOD that came to Jeremiah concerning the droughts.

The chapter is headed with a superscription found nowhere else in the book - the word of the Lord that came to Yirmiyahu al divrei habatzarot, concerning the droughts. Radak derives batzarot from a root of withholding, lo yivatzer mehem, and hears the plural as covering both the dearness of money and the dearness of produce, the whole inflationary spiral of a failed harvest; Metzudat David glosses it simply as the matter of the withholding of rains, and Rashi records Menachem's alternative derivation from mivtzar, fortification. Radak adds the detail that governs everything that follows: the word came to Yirmiyahu before the droughts arrived. The prophet is shown the thirst in advance, which is why the prayers of this chapter are a deliberate argument rather than a reflex.
▶Commentaries (1)
רש״יRashi
דברי הבצרות. שיביא עליהם רעב ומנחם חברו ל' מבצר כמו ומבצר משגב חומותיך (ישעיהו כ״ה:י״ב):
concerning the droughts that He would bring famine upon them, and Menahem (Machbereth p. 47) classified it as an expression of fortification (מִבְצָר) like (Isaiah 25:12) "And the fortress of (וּמִבְצַר) the strength of your walls."

פסוק ב׳ · Verse 2

Hebrew:

אָבְלָ֣ה יְהוּדָ֔ה וּשְׁעָרֶ֥יהָ אֻמְלְל֖וּ קָדְר֣וּ לָאָ֑רֶץ וְצִוְחַ֥ת יְרוּשָׁלַ֖͏ִם עָלָֽתָה׃

English:

Judah is in mourning, Her settlements languish. They are bowed to the ground, And the outcry of Jerusalem rises.

The drought is described first as a public mourning: Judah mourns, her gates languish, they are black unto the ground, and the outcry of Yerushalayim goes up. Radak reads the gates in two registers - all her gates desolate, no one going out and no one coming in, or else the elders ceased from sitting in the gates, zekenim misha'ar shavatu - so that the failure of rain shows up first as the collapse of civic life. Rashi takes she'areha as her cities and identifies tzivchat as a cry, and Metzudat David notes the irony that Yerushalayim, great among the provinces, now lacks bread and water. The cry rising upward is the same idiom used when a city's distress reaches heaven.
▶Commentaries (1)
רש״יRashi
ושעריה. עריה: וצוחת ירושלם. צעקת ירושלים כמו מראש הרים יצוחו (שם מב):
and her cities Heb. וּשְעָרֶיהָ, lit., her gates. and the cry of Jerusalem Heb. צִוְחַת, the cry of Jerusalem. Comp. (Isaiah 42:11) "from the mountain peaks they shall shout (יִִִִִצְוָחוּ).

פסוק ג׳ · Verse 3

Hebrew:

וְאַדִּ֣רֵיהֶ֔ם שָׁלְח֥וּ (צעוריהם) [צְעִֽירֵיהֶ֖ם] לַמָּ֑יִם בָּ֣אוּ עַל־גֵּבִ֞ים לֹא־מָ֣צְאוּ מַ֗יִם שָׁ֤בוּ כְלֵיהֶם֙ רֵיקָ֔ם בֹּ֥שׁוּ וְהׇכְלְמ֖וּ וְחָפ֥וּ רֹאשָֽׁם׃

English:

Their nobles sent their servants for water; They came to the cisterns, they found no water. They returned, their vessels empty. They are shamed and humiliated, They cover their heads.

The scene narrows from a whole country to a single errand. The nobles send their young men for water; they come to the gevim, the catch-pits where rainwater collects, and find none; shavu kleihem reikam, their vessels came back empty. Metzudat David fills in the human detail - the servants were ashamed and humiliated and covered their heads out of grief at having no water to bring their masters - while Radak locates the shame in the returning itself, the long walk home with nothing in the jar, and Rashi explains the gevim as pits where water is normally gathered and notes that they were dry because no rain had fallen.
▶Commentaries (1)
רש״יRashi
על גבים. בורות שהמים מתכנסים בהם: שבו כליהם ריקם. שלא ירד מטר: וחפו. ל' כסוי:
upon pits Pits in which the water is usually gathered. their vessels have returned empty for no rain has fallen. and have covered an expression of covering.

פסוק ד׳ · Verse 4

Hebrew:

בַּעֲב֤וּר הָֽאֲדָמָה֙ חַ֔תָּה כִּ֛י לֹא־הָיָ֥ה גֶ֖שֶׁם בָּאָ֑רֶץ בֹּ֥שׁוּ אִכָּרִ֖ים חָפ֥וּ רֹאשָֽׁם׃

English:

Because of the ground there is dismay, For there has been no rain on the earth. The plowers are shamed, They cover their heads.

From the empty vessels the prophet turns to the ground itself: ba'avur ha'adamah chatah, the earth is cracked and broken because there has been no rain in the land, and the ploughmen are shamed and cover their heads. Radak specifies that ba'aretz here means the land of Israel, a point that will become the hinge of the prayer in verse 7, since a drought confined to one country is an argument rather than a season. Metzudat David explains the ploughmen's particular bitterness - ki larik hayah yegi'am, their labor was for nothing - so that the gesture of covering the head passes from the servants of verse 3 to the farmers, the whole society veiling itself.
▶Commentaries (1)
רש״יRashi
אכרים. בובייר"ש בלעז:
farmers bubirs [?] in O.F.

פסוק ה׳ · Verse 5

Hebrew:

כִּ֤י גַם־אַיֶּ֙לֶת֙ בַּשָּׂדֶ֔ה יָלְדָ֖ה וְעָז֑וֹב כִּ֥י לֹֽא־הָיָ֖ה דֶּֽשֶׁא׃

English:

Even the hind in the field Forsakes her newborn fawn, Because there is no grass.

Now the drought reaches the animals, and the passage becomes one of the great descriptive stretches in Tanakh. Even the hind in the field gives birth and abandons her newborn, ki lo hayah deshe, because there is no grass. Rashi says she leaves her young in order to hunt pasture for herself, and Radak presses on the word that makes it unbearable - she did not worry over her offspring af al pi shehi rachmaniyah, even though she is merciful by nature - while Metzudat David has her leave the fawn behind to look for pasture in another land. The hind is the emblem of tenderness in biblical imagery, and the drought has reached far enough into her to cancel it.
▶Commentaries (1)
רש״יRashi
ילדה ועזוב. את ולדה לבקש לה מרעה:
has borne and abandoned her offspring, to hunt for pastureland for herself.

פסוק ו׳ · Verse 6

Hebrew:

וּפְרָאִים֙ עָמְד֣וּ עַל־שְׁפָיִ֔ם שָׁאֲפ֥וּ ר֖וּחַ כַּתַּנִּ֑ים כָּל֥וּ עֵינֵיהֶ֖ם כִּי־אֵ֥ין עֵֽשֶׂב׃

English:

And the wild asses stand on the bare heights, Snuffing the air like jackals; Their eyes pine, Because there is no herbage.

The wild donkeys stand on the bare heights gulping air like jackals, kalu eineihem ki ein esev, their eyes failing because there is no herbage. Metzudat David explains the posture functionally - they climb the high places to scan for any green thing - and gives the idiom its exact force: in Scripture, one who watches for a thing and does not attain it is said to have his eyes consumed. Radak observes that standing on the heights yields them nothing but the gulping of wind, and then makes the theological point the whole animal panorama has been building toward: this came in punishment for their sins while the other nations had plenty, so the drought itself became a sign among the peoples. The animals are not decoration; they are the evidence that this is not weather.
▶Commentaries (1)
רש״יRashi
על שפיים. יבלי מים ריבייר"ש בלעז:
by the rivulets rivulets of water (riveyres in O. F.).

פסוק ז׳ · Verse 7

Hebrew:

אִם־עֲוֺנֵ֙ינוּ֙ עָ֣נוּ בָ֔נוּ יְהֹוָ֕ה עֲשֵׂ֖ה לְמַ֣עַן שְׁמֶ֑ךָ כִּי־רַבּ֥וּ מְשׁוּבֹתֵ֖ינוּ לְךָ֥ חָטָֽאנוּ׃

English:

Though our iniquities testify against us, Act, O ETERNAL One, for the sake of Your name; Though our rebellions are many And we have sinned against You.

The prayer begins, and it is among the most extraordinary in the book: im avoneinu anu vanu, Hashem aseh lema'an shemecha - though our iniquities testify against us, act for Your name's sake, for our rebellions are many, against You have we sinned. Radak catches what is remarkable in the grammar, that the prophet includes himself in the plural although he himself bore no such guilt, and compares the move to Moshe's v'salachta la'avoneinu; he also explains exactly how the iniquities testify - the withholding of rain is in our land and not in the lands of the nations, so the drought is itself the witness. Metzudat David states the argument's leverage bluntly: act for Your name's sake, that it not be profaned among the nations, lest they say the Lord lacked power to save His people. This is confession as legal strategy - every count conceded, and the verdict still contested.
▶Commentaries (1)
רש״יRashi
ענו בנו. העידו בנו: עשה למען שמך. עשה מה שתעשה עמנו למען שם גדול שיצא לך שאתה מושל בכל ואנחנו עמך וצאן מרעיתך ולא נאה שתתן שם נצחונך לאלילים ומדרש אגדה יש למען שמך וכו':
have testified against us Heb. עָנוּ. do for Your name's sake Do what You will do with us for the sake of the great name that has spread about You that You rule over all and that we are Your people and the flock of Your pasture, and it is not fitting that You give Your victorious name to the idols. And the Midrash Aggadah explains: for the sake of Your name that is inherent in our name.

פסוק ח׳ · Verse 8

Hebrew:

מִקְוֵה֙ יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל מוֹשִׁיע֖וֹ בְּעֵ֣ת צָרָ֑ה לָ֤מָּה תִֽהְיֶה֙ כְּגֵ֣ר בָּאָ֔רֶץ וּכְאֹרֵ֖חַ נָטָ֥ה לָלֽוּן׃

English:

O Hope of Israel, Its deliverer in time of trouble, Why are You like a stranger in the land, Like a traveler who stops only for the night?

Mikveh Yisrael moshi'o b'et tzarah - O Hope of Israel, its Savior in time of trouble - why should You be like a stranger in the land, like a wayfarer who turns aside to lodge for a night? Rashi glosses mikveh with a single word, tocheles, expectation, and Radak extends it across history: though they have turned from Your ways it is to You that they hope, and in every generation You are the hope of Israel, saving even when the trouble came through their own sin. Radak then unpacks the complaint with precision - a ger takes no interest in what becomes of the land since if he is here today he is gone tomorrow, and a traveler who stops only to sleep cares for neither its good nor its harm - and answers with a claim of ownership: v'lach ha'aretz va'anachnu gerim bah, the land is Yours and we are the sojourners in it. The accusation of detachment is really an appeal to title.
▶Commentaries (1)
רש״יRashi
מקוה. תוחלת:
hope מִקְוֵה

פסוק ט׳ · Verse 9

Hebrew:

לָ֤מָּה תִֽהְיֶה֙ כְּאִ֣ישׁ נִדְהָ֔ם כְּגִבּ֖וֹר לֹא־יוּכַ֣ל לְהוֹשִׁ֑יעַ וְאַתָּ֧ה בְקִרְבֵּ֣נוּ יְהֹוָ֗ה וְשִׁמְךָ֛ עָלֵ֥ינוּ נִקְרָ֖א אַל־תַּנִּחֵֽנוּ׃ {ס}         

English:

Why are You like a man who is stunned, Like a warrior who cannot give victory? Yet You are in our midst, O ETERNAL One, And Your name is attached to us— Do not forsake us!

The daring intensifies: why should You be like a man stunned, like a warrior who cannot save? Metzudat David draws the military image out with care - a warrior measures his strength, and when he understands that what has come upon him exceeds it he withdraws his hand and performs no more feats - then asks whether any of that could be true of God; Radak adds that for a gibor victory is in his hand and there are only times he cannot save, while for God there are none. Then the turn that the liturgy took up and never released: v'atah b'kirbeinu Hashem v'shimcha aleinu nikra, al tanicheinu. Rashi's comment is one rhetorical stroke - Your name is called upon us, therefore there is no honor for You in this - and he glosses al tanicheinu as the equivalent of ta'azvenu, do not forsake us, while Radak reports a derash that the divine name is compounded into ours in Yisra-El.
▶Commentaries (1)
רש״יRashi
נדהם. רקרו"ץ בלעז מושך ידו מן המלחמה וי"א רקריאנ"ץ בלעז: ושמך עלינו נקרא. לפיכך אין כבודך בכך: תנחנו. פי' כמו תעזבנו:
overcome (d'cru in O.F.) diminished, waned, who withdraws his hand from the battle, and some say (recroyant in O.F.), tiring out, resigned. and Your name is called upon us Therefore, by doing this, it is no longer honor for you. forsake us Its explanation is like תַעַזְבֵנוּ, forsake us.

פסוק י׳ · Verse 10

Hebrew:

כֹּה־אָמַ֨ר יְהֹוָ֜ה לָעָ֣ם הַזֶּ֗ה כֵּ֤ן אָֽהֲבוּ֙ לָנ֔וּעַ רַגְלֵיהֶ֖ם לֹ֣א חָשָׂ֑כוּ וַֽיהֹוָה֙ לֹ֣א רָצָ֔ם עַתָּה֙ יִזְכֹּ֣ר עֲוֺנָ֔ם וְיִפְקֹ֖ד חַטֹּאתָֽם׃ {פ}

English:

Thus said GOD concerning this people: “Truly, they love to stray, they have not restrained their feet; so GOD has no pleasure in them. Now their iniquity will be recalled—and their sin punished.”

God's answer is a refusal, and it begins by convicting the people of exactly what the prayer had asked Him to overlook: ken ahavu lanua, so they have loved to wander, their feet they have not restrained. Rashi hears the exiles to Mitzrayim and Bavel, where they loved to go wandering to serve distant idols, while Radak reads the wandering as the diplomacy of the faithless, running to Mitzrayim and Ashur for help instead of trusting Him, and Metzudat David links it to the present famine - as they wander now seeking food, so they always loved to wander. Radak also answers the obvious objection, that this is no reply to a prayer about rain: even with the rains withheld they could have bought grain abroad had the enemy not been upon them daily, so the sentence of wandering and the famine are one decree.
▶Commentaries (1)
רש״יRashi
כן אהבו לנוע. כן כמה שגזרתי עליהם גולה במצרים ובבל אהבו שם להיות גולים לעבוד אליליהם הרחוקו':
So have they loved to wander So, just as I have decreed upon them exile (to Egypt and Babylon - Warsaw edition), they loved it there to go into exile to worship distant idols.

פסוק י״א · Verse 11

Hebrew:

וַיֹּ֥אמֶר יְהֹוָ֖ה אֵלָ֑י אַל־תִּתְפַּלֵּ֛ל בְּעַד־הָעָ֥ם הַזֶּ֖ה לְטוֹבָֽה׃

English:

And GOD said to me, “Do not pray for the benefit of this people.

The prohibition returns for the third time in the book, after chapters 7 and 11: al titpallel b'ad ha'am hazeh l'tovah, do not pray for this people for good. Metzudat David glosses l'tovah simply as to do good with them, and Radak notices the exact wording and reads it against chapter 12, where Yirmiyahu had prayed against a faction of the people who sought his death - hence the qualification, for their good do not pray. The prohibition is therefore not a general silencing of the prophet but the closing of one specific channel, the one that had kept the decree suspended.

פסוק י״ב · Verse 12

Hebrew:

כִּ֣י יָצֻ֗מוּ אֵינֶ֤נִּי שֹׁמֵ֙עַ֙ אֶל־רִנָּתָ֔ם וְכִ֧י יַעֲל֛וּ עֹלָ֥ה וּמִנְחָ֖ה אֵינֶ֣נִּי רֹצָ֑ם כִּ֗י בַּחֶ֙רֶב֙ וּבָרָעָ֣ב וּבַדֶּ֔בֶר אָנֹכִ֖י מְכַלֶּ֥ה אוֹתָֽם׃ {ס}         

English:

When they fast, I will not listen to their outcry; and when they present burnt offering and grain offering, I will not accept them. I will exterminate them by war, famine, and disease.”

The refusal is spelled out in its liturgical particulars: when they fast I will not hear their cry, and when they offer olah and minchah I will not accept them, for by sword and famine and pestilence I am consuming them. Metzudat David supplies the condition that explains everything - not so long as they hold fast to their deeds - which makes the point that fasting and sacrifice are not mechanisms but expressions, and expressions of nothing when the life behind them is unchanged. Radak notes that rinah here means their outcry and that the verse mentions only the fast because there is no fast without prayer and crying.

פסוק י״ג · Verse 13

Hebrew:

וָאֹמַ֞ר אֲהָ֣הּ ׀ אֲדֹנָ֣י יֱהֹוִ֗ה הִנֵּ֨ה הַנְּבִאִ֜ים אֹמְרִ֤ים לָהֶם֙ לֹא־תִרְא֣וּ חֶ֔רֶב וְרָעָ֖ב לֹֽא־יִהְיֶ֣ה לָכֶ֑ם כִּֽי־שְׁל֤וֹם אֱמֶת֙ אֶתֵּ֣ן לָכֶ֔ם בַּמָּק֖וֹם הַזֶּֽה׃ {ס}         

English:

I said, “Ah, my Sovereign GOD! The prophets are saying to them, ‘You shall not see the sword, famine shall not come upon you, but I will give you unfailing security in this place.’”

Yirmiyahu's protest is a defense brief for his people: ahah Adonai Hashem, behold the prophets are saying to them you shall not see the sword, and famine shall not be yours, for I will give you true peace in this place. Metzudat David renders the plea in full - woe is me, why should they be destroyed when they bear no guilt, for the false prophets mislead them into thinking their deeds are acceptable, and it would be fitting to bring the punishment on those prophets alone - and Radak puts it as a question: what can Israel do if the prophets deceive them? Both read shalom emet as a lasting, established peace, a promise of permanence that makes the deception total.

פסוק י״ד · Verse 14

Hebrew:

וַיֹּ֨אמֶר יְהֹוָ֜ה אֵלַ֗י שֶׁ֚קֶר הַנְּבִאִים֙ נִבְּאִ֣ים בִּשְׁמִ֔י לֹ֤א שְׁלַחְתִּים֙ וְלֹ֣א צִוִּיתִ֔ים וְלֹ֥א דִבַּ֖רְתִּי אֲלֵיהֶ֑ם חֲז֨וֹן שֶׁ֜קֶר וְקֶ֤סֶם (ואלול ותרמות) [וֶאֱלִיל֙ וְתַרְמִ֣ית] לִבָּ֔ם הֵ֖מָּה מִֽתְנַבְּאִ֥ים לָכֶֽם׃ {ס}         

English:

GOD replied: It is a lie that the prophets utter in My name. I have not sent them or commanded them. I have not spoken to them. A lying vision, an empty divination, the deceit of their own contriving—that is what they prophesy to you!

The answer refuses the excuse absolutely: sheker hanevi'im nib'im bishmi, lo shelachtim v'lo tzivitim v'lo dibarti aleihem - a lying vision, divination, an emptiness and the deceit of their own heart. Metzudat David argues that the people should have seen through them, since men who were never sent can produce no sign or wonder, and Rashi glosses eli'l as a word of negation, a thing that is not. Radak's comment on tarmit libam is the psychological heart of the false-prophecy problem in this book: since the people reckon us truthful because they have tested us on a few predictions, we will tell them not to fear Yirmiyahu's words and we will make their deeds beautiful to them, so that we may be honored in their eyes and beloved to them. Flattery as a career.
▶Commentaries (1)
רש״יRashi
ואליל. ל' אל דבר שאינו:
a thing of naught an expression of אַל, not, a thing which is not.

פסוק ט״ו · Verse 15

Hebrew:

לָכֵ֞ן כֹּה־אָמַ֣ר יְהֹוָ֗ה עַֽל־הַנְּבִאִ֞ים הַנִּבְּאִ֣ים בִּשְׁמִי֮ וַאֲנִ֣י לֹֽא־שְׁלַחְתִּים֒ וְהֵ֙מָּה֙ אֹֽמְרִ֔ים חֶ֣רֶב וְרָעָ֔ב לֹ֥א יִהְיֶ֖ה בָּאָ֣רֶץ הַזֹּ֑את בַּחֶ֤רֶב וּבָֽרָעָב֙ יִתַּ֔מּוּ הַנְּבִאִ֖ים הָהֵֽמָּה׃

English:

Assuredly, thus said GOD concerning the prophets who prophesy in My name though I have not sent them, and who say, “Sword and famine shall not befall this land”; those very prophets shall perish by sword and famine.

The sentence falls first on the prophets themselves, and the punishment is built out of their own denial: those who said sword and famine shall not be in this land shall themselves be consumed by sword and famine. Radak explains the ordering - they will be struck first, because they caused Israel to sin - which makes the verse a piece of exact measure-for-measure justice rather than simple wrath. Metzudat David glosses yitamu as being wiped from the world. The lie is not merely refuted; it is made to consume the men who told it.

פסוק ט״ז · Verse 16

Hebrew:

וְהָעָ֣ם אֲשֶׁר־הֵ֣מָּה נִבְּאִ֣ים לָהֶ֡ם יִהְי֣וּ מֻשְׁלָכִים֩ בְּחֻצ֨וֹת יְרוּשָׁלַ֜͏ִם מִפְּנֵ֣י ׀ הָרָעָ֣ב וְהַחֶ֗רֶב וְאֵ֤ין מְקַבֵּר֙ לָהֵ֔מָּה הֵ֣מָּה נְשֵׁיהֶ֔ם וּבְנֵיהֶ֖ם וּבְנֹתֵיהֶ֑ם וְשָׁפַכְתִּ֥י עֲלֵיהֶ֖ם אֶת־רָעָתָֽם׃

English:

And the assembly to whom they prophesy shall be left lying in the streets of Jerusalem because of the famine and the sword, with none to bury them—they, their wives, their sons, and their daughters. I will pour out upon them [the requital of] their wickedness.

The people who listened are not spared either: they will be cast out in the streets of Yerushalayim from famine and sword with none to bury them - they, their wives, their sons and their daughters. Metzudat David explains the absence of burial with terrible ordinariness - there will be so many dead that there will not be enough hands to bury them - while Radak treats it as a punishment added on top of the suffering and the death itself. Radak also refuses to let the people off on the grounds of verse 13: they were obliged to discriminate, since a true prophet establishes them upon the Torah of Moshe while the false one beautifies avodah zarah, and even signs and wonders do not license that, ki menaseh Hashem Elokeichem etchem.

פסוק י״ז · Verse 17

Hebrew:

וְאָמַרְתָּ֤ אֲלֵיהֶם֙ אֶת־הַדָּבָ֣ר הַזֶּ֔ה תֵּרַ֨דְנָה עֵינַ֥י דִּמְעָ֛ה לַ֥יְלָה וְיוֹמָ֖ם וְאַל־תִּדְמֶ֑ינָה כִּי֩ שֶׁ֨בֶר גָּד֜וֹל נִשְׁבְּרָ֗ה בְּתוּלַת֙ בַּת־עַמִּ֔י מַכָּ֖ה נַחְלָ֥ה מְאֹֽד׃

English:

And do you speak to them thus: Let my eyes run with tears, Day and night let them not cease, For my hapless people has suffered A grievous injury, a very painful wound.

The prophet is commanded to deliver his own grief as the message: teradnah einai dim'ah lailah v'yomam v'al tidmenah, let my eyes run with tears night and day and not cease, for the virgin daughter of my people is broken with a great breach, a grievous wound. Metzudat David explains why she is called betulah - no king has yet conquered her, as a virgin has not come under a husband's authority - and Radak develops the same figure into the coming exile, when she will be subdued as a virgin is when taken. Rashi notes that nachlah is a word of sickness, so the wound is not a blow but an illness, something that works from within. Radak adds that the lament is itself intended to frighten them, in the hope that their hearts might break and they submit.
▶Commentaries (1)
רש״יRashi
נחלה מאד. ל' חולי:
very grievous an expression of illness (חֹלִי).

פסוק י״ח · Verse 18

Hebrew:

אִם־יָצָ֣אתִי הַשָּׂדֶ֗ה וְהִנֵּה֙ חַלְלֵי־חֶ֔רֶב וְאִם֙ בָּ֣אתִי הָעִ֔יר וְהִנֵּ֖ה תַּחֲלוּאֵ֣י רָעָ֑ב כִּֽי־גַם־נָבִ֧יא גַם־כֹּהֵ֛ן סָחֲר֥וּ אֶל־אֶ֖רֶץ וְלֹ֥א יָדָֽעוּ׃ {ס}         

English:

If I go out to the country— Lo, the slain of the sword. If I enter the city— Lo, those who are sick with famine. Both priest and prophet roam the land, They know not where.

The lament becomes a walk through the country: going out to the field, the slain of the sword; coming into the city, the sick of famine. Radak observes that Yirmiyahu names the sick rather than the dead because the sick outnumbered them, which catches exactly what a famine is - a condition rather than an event. The closing clause about prophet and kohen roaming to a land they did not know is read by Rashi as going around seeking rescue in a land they had never known before, by Metzudat David as false prophets and Baal priests circulating from city to city to prophesy without knowing what the Lord had spoken, and by Radak as their going into exile without having perceived it coming until it had happened.
▶Commentaries (1)
רש״יRashi
סחרו. סבבו לבקש הצל': אל ארץ ולא ידעו. אל ארץ אחרת ולא היו יודעין בה עד הנה:
have gone around They have gone around to seek rescue. to a land [which] they had not known To another land about which they did not know until then.

פסוק י״ט · Verse 19

Hebrew:

הֲמָאֹ֨ס מָאַ֜סְתָּ אֶת־יְהוּדָ֗ה אִם־בְּצִיּוֹן֙ גָּעֲלָ֣ה נַפְשֶׁ֔ךָ מַדּ֙וּעַ֙ הִכִּיתָ֔נוּ וְאֵ֥ין לָ֖נוּ מַרְפֵּ֑א קַוֵּ֤ה לְשָׁלוֹם֙ וְאֵ֣ין ט֔וֹב וּלְעֵ֥ת מַרְפֵּ֖א וְהִנֵּ֥ה בְעָתָֽה׃

English:

Have You, then, rejected Judah? Have You spurned Zion? Why have You smitten us So that there is no cure? Why do we hope for happiness, But find no good; For a time of healing, And meet terror instead?

The prophet has now twice been told not to pray, and he prays. Radak says it plainly: he returned to pray again, and although God had told him not to pray for this people, he prayed on behalf of a portion of them. Hama'os ma'asta et Yehudah, im b'Tziyon ga'alah nafshecha - and Rashi sharpens the conditional to its point, with the intention of never returning to her, for if You mean to return, why have You smitten us with no cure? Radak keeps the questions anchored in the drought, a blow of famine with no healing because there is no rain, and even reads the hope concretely - if we hope for peace from the nations around us so that we might go and buy grain in their land - and no good comes from any side.
▶Commentaries (1)
רש״יRashi
אם בציון געלה נפשך. על מנת שלא לשוב עליה כי אם דעתך לשוב מדוע הכיתה באין מרפא:
or has Your soul despised Zion with the intention of never returning, for, if You have in mind to return, why have You smitten us without a cure?

פסוק כ׳ · Verse 20

Hebrew:

יָדַ֧עְנוּ יְהֹוָ֛ה רִשְׁעֵ֖נוּ עֲוֺ֣ן אֲבוֹתֵ֑ינוּ כִּ֥י חָטָ֖אנוּ לָֽךְ׃

English:

We acknowledge our wickedness, O ETERNAL One— The iniquity of our ancestors— For we have sinned against You.

The confession is fuller than the one in verse 7 and moves from argument to acknowledgment: yadanu Hashem rish'einu avon avoteinu ki chatanu lach, we know our wickedness, the iniquity of our fathers, for we have sinned against You. Radak sorts the three terms with a lawyer's precision - rish'einu the rebellions, avon the willful sins, chatanu the inadvertent ones - so that the entire taxonomy of guilt is laid on the table at once. Metzudat David stresses the continuity across generations: we recognize our own wickedness and our fathers' iniquity alike, for all of us have sinned, we as they did. Nothing is withheld, which is what makes the plea of the next verse possible.

פסוק כ״א · Verse 21

Hebrew:

אַל־תִּנְאַץ֙ לְמַ֣עַן שִׁמְךָ֔ אַל־תְּנַבֵּ֖ל כִּסֵּ֣א כְבוֹדֶ֑ךָ זְכֹ֕ר אַל־תָּפֵ֥ר בְּרִיתְךָ֖ אִתָּֽנוּ׃

English:

For Your name’s sake, do not disown us; Do not dishonor Your glorious throne. Remember, do not annul Your covenant with us.

This is where the chapter's argument lands, and where the liturgy found its home: al tin'atz lema'an shimcha, al tenabel kisei chevodecha, zechor al tafer britecha itanu. Rashi reads lema'an shimcha as the name by which You are called compassionate and kisei chevodecha as the Beit HaMikdash, adding a midrash that the throne of glory means Israel, engraved upon it; Radak takes al tenabel as a plea not to let it fall to the ground, since Yerushalayim is the throne of His glory, and reads zechor as zechor brit avot, remember the covenant of the fathers, as Targum Yonatan renders it. Metzudat David has the same logic as verse 7 - do not despise us, lest Your name be profaned among the peoples who will say He abandoned His people for want of power. Three imperatives, no claim of merit left, only the argument that God's name, God's throne and God's covenant are all bound up in what happens to this city.
▶Commentaries (1)
רש״יRashi
למען שמך. שנקראת רחום: כסא כבודך. בה"מ, ומדרש אגדה ישראל החקוקים בכסא כבודך:
for Your name's sake that you are called merciful. the throne of Your glory The Temple. And according to Midrash Aggadah, Israel who is engraved on the throne of Your glory.

פסוק כ״ב · Verse 22

Hebrew:

הֲיֵ֨שׁ בְּהַבְלֵ֤י הַגּוֹיִם֙ מַגְשִׁמִ֔ים וְאִם־הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם יִתְּנ֣וּ רְבִבִ֑ים הֲלֹ֨א אַתָּה־ה֜וּא יְהֹוָ֤ה אֱלֹהֵ֙ינוּ֙ וּנְקַוֶּה־לָּ֔ךְ כִּֽי־אַתָּ֥ה עָשִׂ֖יתָ אֶת־כׇּל־אֵֽלֶּה׃ {פ}

English:

Can any of the false gods of the nations give rain? Can the skies of themselves give showers? Only You can, O ETERNAL One our God! So we hope in You, For only You made all these things.

The chapter closes on the one ground that remains: is there any among the vanities of the nations that can bring rain, and do the heavens of themselves give showers? Rashi notes the double-question construction, heh followed by im, the same syntax used in verse 19, so the last question is built in the form of the most desperate one. Metzudat David asks it as a practical matter - to whom shall we cry out for rain? - and Radak supplies the argument: the heavens do not give rain of themselves, since You close them when You wish and open them when You wish, and therefore it is upon us to hope in You. Unkaveh lach ki atah asita et kol eleh, and Radak insists that kol eleh means the drought itself, that You shut up the heavens and kept the earth from yielding. The prophet's last word is that the disaster is God's own work and that there is consequently no one else to appeal to.
▶Commentaries (1)
רש״יRashi
ואם השמים יתנו רביבים. מאיליהם אם לא על פיך בתמיה כל תמיהה הכפולה הראשונה בה"א והשנייה באם כגון הבמחנים אם במבצרים (במדבר י״ג:י״ט) הטובה היא אם רעה (שם) המאוס מאסת אם בציון געלה נפשך (כאן) אף כאן היש בהבלי הגוים ואם השמים:
Does the heaven give raindrops? by itself, except by Your command? This is the interrogative form. In every double question, the first question is preceded by a 'heh' and the second one with אִם, like (Num. 13:19) "Are they in open cities (הַבְּמַחֲנִים) or in fortresses (אִם בְּמִבְצָרִים)?"(Ibid. 13:19) "It is good (הֲטוֹבָה) or bad (אִם רָעָה)?" (verse 19) "Have You indeed rejected (הֲמָאֹס) Judah, or has Your soul despised (אִם...גָּעֲלָה) Zion?" Here, too, "are there among the vanities of the nations those who give rain? Does the heaven...?"

← Jeremiah 13 | Jeremiah 15 →

Back to Jeremiah | Back to Nach Yomi