A profound cycle of cause and effect unfolds when divine anger leads to a withdrawal of presence, plunging the Israelites into the harsh realities of exile, and culminating in a complex moment of self-reflection. This withdrawal of the divine presence is understood in two distinct ways. One perspective [ספורנו, רלב״ג, מלבי״ם, שד״ל] views it as the removal of personal divine providence. God abandons the nation to the whims of chance and the unforgiving laws of nature. Stripped of their spiritual shield, they become easy prey and are left completely vulnerable to their enemies [אבן עזרא, ספורנו, נתינה לגר]. In contrast, other commentators offer a deeply emotional explanation rooted in God's enduring love for His people [דעת זקנים, הרא״ש, פענח רזא, בכור שור, חזקוני]. In this view, the withdrawal is an act of affection. Much like a father who must order a punishment for his wayward son but cannot bear the agony of watching him suffer, God hides His face simply to avoid witnessing the pain of the Israelites [רש״י, מזרחי].
The resulting suffering is not merely vast in quantity, but uniquely agonizing in its quality. The primary approach among commentators [כלי יקר, דעת זקנים, הרא״ש, הכתב והקבלה, תורה תמימה, בכור שור] notes that the afflictions are inherently contradictory, acting as rivals to one another. This is compared to a person stung simultaneously by a bee and a scorpion: the hot water needed to cure one sting will fatally aggravate the other, while cold water will do the reverse. This illustrates the impossible, no-win reality of the Israelites in exile. If they complain to foreign authorities about an oppressor, they risk provoking further hatred and violence; if they remain silent, the oppressor only grows emboldened to continue the abuse [הרא״ש, פענח רזא]. Alternatively, the [כלי יקר] suggests this rivalry describes internal social fracturing. Without peace and unity, the Israelites turn against one another, disagreeing endlessly and taking joy in each other's downfalls.
Eventually, the crushing weight of these experiences forces the nation to acknowledge their situation, attributing their suffering to God's absence among them. However, commentators debate the true depth and sincerity of this realization. According to the [רמב״ן וביאור יש״ר], this is not a genuine, complete repentance, but merely a fleeting pang of regret and a basic admission of guilt. The [כלי יקר] expands on this, explaining that it is a deeply flawed response driven entirely by the panic and pressure of their suffering, rather than a sincere love for God. They recognize that their hearts are empty of divine focus, but the moment the crisis passes, they are bound to return to their destructive ways. The [ספורנו] adds that this stark realization of God's absence actually plunges the people into absolute despair, paralyzing them and preventing them from praying or attempting to repent at all.
Other scholars view the people's reaction as a misplaced complaint or a fundamental misunderstanding. The [שד״ל והרש״ר הירש] explain that the nation is actually protesting against God for failing to protect them, conveniently forgetting that they themselves severed the relationship by turning to idolatry. The [מלבי״ם] suggests the people mistakenly believe they are being punished merely for improper thoughts, completely ignoring the severity of their actual physical deeds. Finally, the [אם למקרא] proposes that the nation falsely attributes their vulnerability to the physical absence of the Ark of the Covenant and the Temple. They operate under the misguided assumption that the sanctuary serves as a magical talisman that guarantees protection from all harm, completely independent of their moral conduct.