Introduction: The Vision of Isaiah
We begin the Book of Yeshayahu, Chapter 1. The first chapter is one of severe rebuke, opening with the calling of heaven and earth as witnesses, continuing with a description of the nation's diseased condition, and arriving at an open rebuke concerning the abundance of sacrifices and the true path of repentance. We will follow the order of the pesukim guided by the commentary of the Malbim, along with the insights of Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Radak, and Chazal.
חֲזוֹן יְשַׁעְיָהוּ בֶן־אָמוֹץ אֲשֶׁר חָזָה עַל־יְהוּדָה וִירוּשָׁלָ͏ִם בִּימֵי עֻזִּיָּהוּ יוֹתָם אָחָז יְחִזְקִיָּהוּ מַלְכֵי יְהוּדָה׃ - The vision of Yeshayahu son of Amoz, which he envisioned concerning Yehudah and Yerushalayim in the days of Uzziah, Yotam, Achaz, and Chizkiyahu, kings of Yehudah.
Rashi cites the words of Chazal: Rabbi Levi said, this is a tradition handed down to us from our ancestors - Amoz and Amatziah were brothers. That is to say, Yeshayahu's father was the brother of Amatziah, king of Yehudah. Ibn Ezra adds an interesting point regarding this: Yirmeyahu the prophet was heavily persecuted, thrown into the court of the guard, and suffered terrible hardships; whereas Yeshayahu did not endure such persecutions. Based on what we noted, this is understandable - Yeshayahu belonged to the royal family and was close to the monarchy, so they did not persecute him.
Why does Scripture use the term "Chazon" (vision) rather than "The prophecy of Yeshayahu"? Rashi explains: since these are words of rebuke and harshness, it calls them a "chazon" - a harsh term. Prophecy is expressed in ten different terms, and "chazon" is the harshest among them, as in the expression "a harsh vision was told to me." Naturally, "chazon" also derives from "chazot" (to see or perceive), as the prophet sees and envisions. Some also say that "chazon" represents one of the highest levels of prophecy, and therefore this expression was chosen - indicating that he reached an elevated degree of prophecy.
However, we must ask: "Which he envisioned concerning Yehudah and Yerushalayim in the days of Uzziah, Yotam, Achaz, and Chizkiyahu" - this was not Yeshayahu's first prophecy. Although it appears first in the book, Rashi notes that this was not the beginning of his prophetic mission. The beginning of his mission took place in the prophecy delivered in the year King Uzziah died: "And I heard the voice of the Lord saying, 'Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?'" to which Yeshayahu replied, "Here am I; send me." When Uzziah became stricken with tzara'at - from that point Hashem began to send him. If so, why does the book open with "The vision of Yeshayahu son of Amoz, which he envisioned"?
The Malbim explains: because he repeated this prophecy during the reign of each and every king. He repeated it in the days of Uzziah, then in the days of Yotam, then in the days of Achaz, and then in the days of Chizkiyahu. One king he did not mention - Menashe - due to his immense wickedness, for it was Menashe who put the prophet Yeshayahu to death, and therefore he did not wish to mention his name at all. Scripture thus informs us that this prophecy was repeated across the reigns of all these kings, as he continually needed to remind them of the matters stated here.
And why does it say "concerning Yehudah and Yerushalayim"? The Malbim explains that the prophecy is divided into two parts: from verse 2 through verse 21 - a prophecy concerning the tribe of Yehudah as a whole; and from verse 21 onward - a prophecy concerning Yerushalayim specifically. Therefore, it mentions both Yehudah and Yerushalayim: "Yehudah" refers to all the dwelling places of the tribe, even outside of Yerushalayim, while "Yerushalayim" refers to those residing within the city itself.
The Malbim's Introduction: "Speak to Us in Judean"
It is worthwhile to quote the conclusion of the Malbim's introduction to Sefer Yeshayahu. His style is poetic and intricate, so we will cite only the concluding passage: "The rock of my heart was almost stirred by the sound of the cherub's wings brushing one against the other, for the spirit of the living creature was in them. And my soul momentarily drifted, flew, soared upon wings of wind, upon the pinnacles of this heavenly maiden who speaks grand things. The spirit of poetry almost began to beat within it, the spirit of eloquence to pluck the lyres; my hands were nearly powerless to hold back this soaring bird that glides through the skies, and before the towering heights of its eloquence I could summon no strength."
The idea is this: he had a desire to write in a lofty, poetic, and elevated style, just like those lines. And why did he refrain from doing so? "And behold, the voice of the great multitudes for whom I dedicated my words throughout this composition" - the voice of the multitude called out in his ears, saying: "Please do not speak to us in lofty terms, do not come to test us with riddles; speak to us in Judean in the hearing of all the people upon the wall" - just as the officers of Chizkiyahu said to the emissaries of Sancheiriv: speak to us in Judean, meaning speak at eye level, do not speak in exalted language. "And in an instant I awoke from these dreams of mine; the harps fell silent, male and female singers were hushed, and like a dream upon waking, the visions of poetic eloquence vanished from before me."
"By evening, behold, the face of the cherub was the face of a man, with the pen and inkhorn of human hands beneath their wings, and all the winged creatures had a mouth, tongue, and lips like ordinary people" - he realized that he had to express himself in a more accessible and less exalted tongue. And he reassures us: "From now on, do not be astonished, do not be dismayed, do not turn back, my dear reader, for from now on I will speak with you as an ordinary person, like a contemporary of your own age. From now on I will speak to you in whatever language you understand. From now on, a language you do not know you will hear no more" - you will not hear from me elevated and poetic language that you cannot comprehend.
Hear, O Heavens, and Give Ear, O Earth - The Testimony of Heaven and Earth
שִׁמְעוּ שָׁמַיִם וְהַאֲזִינִי אֶרֶץ כִּי יְהֹוָה דִּבֵּר בָּנִים גִּדַּלְתִּי וְרוֹמַמְתִּי וְהֵם פָּשְׁעוּ בִי׃ - Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth, for Hashem has spoken: I have raised and elevated children, yet they have rebelled against Me.
Here we encounter language very similar to Parashat Ha'azinu: "Give ear, O heavens, and I will speak, and let the earth hear the words of my mouth." Yet here it is inverted - "Hear, O heavens" rather than "Give ear, O heavens," and "Give ear, O earth" rather than "Let the earth hear." Chazal already addressed this apparent contradiction, offering numerous explanations (and an explanation has already been seen in the Ohr HaChaim HaKadosh, while nearly every commentator explains it in his own way). Let us examine Rashi's approach as well as another explanation.
Rashi explains: When witnesses come to testify and their testimony is not precisely aligned, their testimony is not accepted. Heaven and earth serve here as two witnesses. Had Yeshayahu not come and attributed hearing to heaven and attentive listening to earth, their testimony would not have been accepted. For if the court were to ask the earth what its testimony was, it would say, "I heard," while the heavens would say, "I gave ear" - each testifying differently. What did Yeshayahu do? He attributed hearing to heaven and giving ear to earth. Now we have an earth that both heard and gave ear, and heavens that both heard and gave ear - one way with Moshe and the other with Yeshayahu. Their testimony is perfectly aligned, giving it full legal validity.
Why specifically heaven and earth? One reason: they are witnesses, as it is written, "and call heaven and earth to witness against them," because they endure forever. That is to say, there is no possibility of searching for the witnesses only to find that they have traveled abroad or died. Furthermore: "The hand of the witnesses shall be upon him first to put him to death" - if we stray from the path, who exacts retribution from us first? The heavens withhold their dew, and the earth withholds its produce. Therefore, Radak explains that they were invoked as witnesses because they are the first to punish us when we fail to act properly.
Radak also offers another reason why Moshe said "Give ear, O heavens, and let the earth hear," while Yeshayahu said the reverse: The term ha'azanah (giving ear) is used for someone close by, whereas shemi'ah (hearing) is used for someone far away (to whom one must raise one's voice). Moshe Rabbeinu was close to heaven, and therefore said "Give ear, O heavens," while the earth was far below him, hence "and let the earth hear." Yeshayahu was not on Moshe's level; he stood below and cried out to the heavens, "Hear, O heavens," while the earth was close to him - "Give ear, O earth." Each spoke from his own vantage point.
The Malbim explains: He calls upon heaven and earth, the renowned witnesses, and tells them, "for Hashem has spoken" - and if Hashem has spoken, who would not listen, and who would not pay heed? Then, "I have raised and elevated children, yet they have rebelled against Me." According to ethical principles, the mere fact that a father raised his son, even without showering him with fortunes, already creates a moral obligation of the son toward his father. This is "I have raised children." How much more so if the father favored this son, gave him bounty beyond all his brothers, and bestowed upon him abundant goodness - all the more so must he show gratitude. This is "and elevated" - I elevated and exalted you above all nations, as in "You elevated us above all tongues." Yet despite all this - "they have rebelled against Me," failing to act as expected of them.
An Ox Knows Its Owner - A Moral Lesson from Animals
יָדַע שׁוֹר קֹנֵהוּ וַחֲמוֹר אֵבוּס בְּעָלָיו יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא יָדַע עַמִּי לֹא הִתְבּוֹנָן׃ - An ox knows its owner, and a donkey its master's trough; Israel does not know, My people does not understand.
Rashi explains: The ox knows who purchased it and fears him. The ox never tells its owner, "Today I am not plowing; I am on strike; you didn't give me enough fodder and straw yesterday." Nor does the donkey ever say, "I am not carrying a load today; I don't have the strength; I'm taking time off; it doesn't suit me." It offers no excuses - it goes about its work dutifully. The Holy One, Blessed be He, says: If these animals, created solely to serve you, who receive no reward if they do well and suffer no punishment if they do poorly, nevertheless do not deviate from their appointed role; then you, who receive reward if you do well and suffer retribution if you sin - "Israel does not know, My people does not understand"? How could you fail to reflect?
The Malbim, in his characteristic approach, parallels this with the preceding verse: There is the concept of "I have raised children" - the mere act of raising them - and there is the concept of "and elevated" - that the Father favored us and elevated us above all other children. Corresponding to these two, he demonstrates that these very traits are found even in animals. For the ox, the mere act of acquisition is enough: "An ox knows its owner." The donkey, whose intelligence is lower, is not satisfied by mere ownership, but if fed well, it recognizes its master: "and a donkey its master's trough." Hashem says: "Israel does not know" - I called you Israel, meaning My portion, My acquisition, My servants, corresponding to "I raised children," and you should have at least recognized your Master like an ox. "My people does not understand" - you are not merely Israel, but "My people," corresponding to "and elevated." What other nation did I take for Myself? Upon whom else did I shower so much personal benevolence? Why, then, do you not reflect?
From here emerges a fundamental principle: When a father provides for his son in an ordinary manner, their relationship is standard. But when the father provides far above and beyond, the bond is much deeper, and out of gratitude, the son's obligation to his father is far greater. Therefore, our obligation is greater than that of the nations: Hashem did not bestow as much upon them, and seven mitzvot suffice for them; whereas upon us He bestowed abundantly, hence the 613 mitzvot. Who was granted an even higher stature? The Kohanim - and they have more mitzvot than an ordinary Israelite. The Kohen Gadol - his status is higher than that of ordinary Kohanim, and he bears additional responsibilities, such as the daily Minchat Chavitin offering morning and evening. The king - a lofty and exalted level: for an ordinary person, it is enough to have a Sefer Torah in the ark, but the king is commanded to keep it constantly with him, carrying the Sefer Torah wherever he goes. The greater the stature one receives, the more is demanded and expected of him.
The Malbim further explains: within man exist all the faculties of all living creatures. Every power present in creation is also present within man. Therefore, Chazal said that had the Torah not been given, we would have learned modesty from the cat and the avoidance of robbery from the ant, and likewise, "Be swift as a deer, agile as a leopard, mighty as a lion." All the powers given to animals are an indication of what exists in man across all his capacities: he has a bit of the lion, a bit of the rabbit, sometimes a bit of the serpent, and sometimes a bit of the ant. And when one observes animals behaving in a certain moral fashion, it is not because they possess an ethical sense, but rather to teach us and allow us to draw conclusions about how to conduct ourselves, for the Holy One, blessed be He, implanted all of their faculties within you.
Thus, the claim against them is twofold: morally - abundance was showered upon you and you were given so much, so you were obligated to show gratitude; why then did you rebel against Me? Not only that, but this trait was embedded into your very nature. For if the ox and the donkey recognize their master's feeding trough and show them gratitude, it is a sign that gratitude is natural to all creatures - including you. If so, how could you act ungratefully toward the Holy One, blessed be He? After all, this is part of who you are: not merely an ethical rule that obligates one to repay a benefactor, but a natural instinct instilled within you just as it was instilled in the ox and the donkey.
"Alas, Sinful Nation" - The Ladder of Sins and the Ladder of Virtues
הוֹי גּוֹי חֹטֵא עַם כֶּבֶד עָוֺן זֶרַע מְרֵעִים בָּנִים מַשְׁחִיתִים עָזְבוּ אֶת־יְהֹוָה נִאֲצוּ אֶת־קְדוֹשׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל נָזֹרוּ אָחוֹר׃ - Ah, sinful nation, a people heavy with iniquity, seed of evildoers, corrupt children! They have forsaken the Lord, they have provoked the Holy One of Israel, they have turned backward.
What is the meaning of the expression "Hoy"? Rashi explains that every instance of "Hoy" in Scripture denotes lamentation and mourning, like a person groaning from the depths of the heart and crying out in anguish. The Malbim, however, distinguishes between "Hoy" and "Oy": "Hoy" is a form of proclamation, like "Hear, O distinguished people," spoken with dramatic emphasis; whereas "Oy" is a cry of pain, like a person crying out in distress when struck by calamity. According to the Malbim, the term here is a proclamation rather than an expression of sorrow. And what is being proclaimed? "Hoy, sinful nation, a people heavy with iniquity who have forsaken the Lord" - and therefore, I will ask you: "Why should you be stricken further?" What good did it do you to abandon the Lord?
The Malbim notes that the verse is structured step by step, escalating the severity of their transgressions. First, "a sinful nation" (*goy choteh*) - a *chet* (sin) is an unintentional misstep, committed without deliberate intent. Next, "a people heavy with iniquity" (*am keved avon*) - an *avon* (iniquity) is intentional, stemming from a distortion of the intellect. In a *chet*, a person's desire overpowers him; in an *avon*, his intellect is warped, meaning he deliberately chooses wrongdoing, which is graver than a *chet*. Nor was this something done only occasionally; rather, they became a "seed of evildoers" (*zera mere'im*) - "evildoers" is already a defining characterization. This is the difference between telling a child, "You did a bad deed," and saying, "You are a bad child." A "bad deed" means the action was wrong, but you remain a good child; a "bad child" becomes a defining title. "Seed of evildoers" is a description indicating that you commit evil habitually.
And it was not only that you did evil for personal gain or to satisfy a desire, but you became "corrupt children" (*banim mashchitim*). What is a *mashchit*, a destructive corrupter? To illustrate with an example: consider the story of a skier in the Alps. Skiers ride the lift to the top and ski down. One skier arrived late, rode up, and the lift operator below was completely indifferent: the closing hour had arrived, so he shut down the power, and the lift came to a halt. The man was left stranded high in the Alps, without power and without a lift, in freezing conditions. Within a short time, a person can easily freeze to death. He was rescued only after about five hours. What did he do in the meantime? He had money in his pocket, over a thousand euros, and a lighter; he lit bill after bill, warming his hands over the flames. Without that, he would have had no chance of survival. Now, did this man who burned his money commit an act of destruction (*hashchatah*)? No, he saved his own life. But if a person were to take money and simply set it ablaze for no reason, we would say he acted destructively. Both performed the exact same physical act; the difference lies in whether there is utility or not. Destruction (*lehashchit*), explains the Malbim, always implies acting without benefit and without pleasure - breaking or ruining something purely for the sake of destruction. And this is worse than being "evildoers": you act destructively, doing evil without even deriving any personal gain from the sin.
Now, notes the Malbim, observe a remarkable parallel. Thus far, the degrees of sin have been detailed: *chet*, *avon*, *mere'im*, *mashchitim*. Yet at the same time, the designation of Israel also shifts: *goy* (nation), *am* (people), *zera* (seed), *banim* (children). Why these changes? Just as the verse escalates the severity of the sin from light to grave, so too it magnifies their guilt based on their station. A nation that sins cannot be compared to a child who sins; the closer you are, the greater your offense against your Father. "Am" is a higher designation than "goy," for *goy* is a very general term while *am* is more specific; "zera" is closer than "am"; and "banim" is the closest of all, for "seed" includes distant descendants, whereas "children" refers only to direct offspring.
Accordingly, the sequence of the verse unfolds as follows: "Alas, sinful nation" - you are a *goy*, a mere nation, and you committed an unintentional sin (*chet*). Not only that, but you are an *am*, a higher status, yet the sin is also graver - "heavy with iniquity" (*keved avon*). And you are *zera*, an even greater status, while the sin is "evildoers" (*mere'im*), worse than iniquity. And you are *banim*, the highest station of all, while the sin is "corrupt children" (*mashchitim*) - the most severe and terrible of them all.
"They Have Forsaken the Lord, Provoked, Turned Backward"
What does "they have forsaken the Lord" add after all this? The Malbim explains: regarding the Samaritans, Scripture states, "They feared the Lord, yet served their own gods" - idolatry practiced through partnership (*shituf*). That mindset can still be understood: a person reasons that there are various forces in creation, and the Creator of the world is an option too, so we will factor Him in as well. But you did not even consider the Creator of the world as an option; not even in your spare moments did you say, "the Creator of the world as well." Rather, they "forsook the Lord" entirely. The Gemara notes that they had 365 forms of pagan deities, worshiping a different god each day, yet the Lord was not included on the list at all. Concerning this, Chazal remarked: "My children did not treat Me even like the lupine that is eaten at the very end of a meal" - to bring God in at least as dessert, if not as the main course; yet they did not do even that.
As has been noted previously, there is a certain defense to be found here, but also a profound indictment. Deep down, the Jewish people know that the Lord is God, that He is the ultimate truth, and that what He demands of them is truly binding, while all idolatry is a lie. Why, then, did they worship idols? As Chazal taught: Israel engaged in idolatry only to permit themselves public immorality. In other words, idols are accommodating and permissive, not demanding like the Holy One, blessed be He: whatever you do is fine; you can go to the pagan priest afterward, confess your misdeeds, obtain two more years of credit, make a generous donation, receive a ritual absolution, and you are done. It is far easier. The prophets, on the other hand, always come with severe and demanding words, and worst of all, their warnings ultimately come to pass. Therefore, a person abandons the Lord entirely and refuses to acknowledge Him - for had he served the Lord for even a single day, it would deal a crushing blow to his idolatrous lifestyle, and he could no longer sustain it. They preferred not to look in God's direction at all, avoiding any troubling questions, so that they could continue on their way without being compelled to believe in the Lord.
"They have spurned the Holy One of Israel" - had you merely abandoned Him, that would be one thing. But to spurn means to kick, to humiliate, to curse, to provoke. "They have turned backward" - had you said, "I left the Holy One, blessed be He, because I want to be free, I do not serve anyone, I do not want anyone telling me what to do, I am an atheist and do nothing" - so be it. But "they have turned backward": you abandoned God in order to embrace whom? Idolatry! "For even their sons and their daughters they burn in the fire to their gods" - that is not burdensome to you, yet what Hashem commanded you is burdensome? Had you said, "I want nothing, I just want rest," fine; but you find it easier to serve idolatry rather than to serve Hashem, whose service is far lighter?
The Malbim highlights another point here: from the very creation of man, he was fashioned to ascend step by step. After the sin of Adam HaRishon, man was like an animal, eating only of the fruit of the ground. In the days of Noach, he reached the level of a speaking, rational being and was permitted to eat meat. In the days of the Patriarchs, he attained the level of Yisrael - the Holy One, blessed be He, spoke with him, and he received directives and was scrupulous with the mitzvos. At Mount Sinai, we became Jews obligated in the 613 mitzvos. From there we arrived in the Holy Land, and afterward the Beis HaMikdash, the Chosen House, was built for us, and we were connected with Hashem. And what should have been the proper continuation? From the era of Shlomo, who ruled over the entire world, we should have attained the "repair of the world under the sovereignty of the Almighty." But instead of rectifying the world, Shlomo married foreign wives, took Pharaoh's daughter, the kingdom was divided, and from that point reality spiraled downward. This is the meaning of "they have turned backward": your role was to advance forward, but instead you began to deteriorate backward - returning from the level of Yisrael to the level of a speaking being, and from that level to the level of an animal, and worse than an animal! For "an ox knows its owner, and a donkey its master's trough," whereas you did not even know that much. Not only did you fail to advance from the point where I left you, but you retreated backward, and sank much lower.
There is an additional precision here: why does it say "Hashem" at times, and "the Holy One of Israel" at others? The Malbim notes a principle that he will reiterate throughout the book: wherever it mentions "Hashem" or "Elokim," it refers to the intrinsic greatness of Hashem, blessed be He, as the Master of the world and Creator of the universe - a general name. But when it mentions Him in connection with Israel - "the Holy One of Israel," "the God of Israel," "the Exalted One of Israel" - it refers to the Holy One, blessed be He, in His unique bond with the Jewish people, His special love for them, and how, out of that relationship, He did all that He did for us. Therefore, there is a far more terrible disgrace in abandoning the One who is "the Holy One of Israel" than in merely abandoning Hashem in the general sense. The very fact that He is Hashem - Who created the world, created man, and bestowed His bounty upon us just as upon the entire world - is already an obligating reason. Yet they were not content with mere abandonment; they spurned the Holy One of Israel, the God Who specifically showered them with benevolence, Who granted us a unique providence and set us apart from all the nations. That is true spurning, and it is far more severe.
Why Should You Be Stricken Any More - Ineffective Afflictions
עַל מֶה תֻכּוּ עוֹד תּוֹסִיפוּ סָרָה כׇּל־רֹאשׁ לָחֳלִי וְכׇל־לֵבָב דַּוָּי׃ - Why should you be stricken any more, that you continue to rebel? Every head is ailing, and every heart is sick.
Here he completes what he began in the previous verse: after you have sinned so excessively to the ultimate extreme, reaching the point of spurning, I ask you, "Why should you be stricken any more?" If a person receives afflictions and they awaken him to repent and do Hashem's will, there was purpose in them; something good came of it, and the person drew closer. But you receive afflictions and do not repent - what is the benefit, and what is the gain? What has come of the blows you have received? The proof is: "Every head is ailing, and every heart is sick" - your reality is simply that the head aches more and the heart is faint and in greater pain. What purpose, then, is there in striking you?
Wound, Bruise, and Fresh Sore
מִכַּף־רֶגֶל וְעַד־רֹאשׁ אֵין־בּוֹ מְתֹם פֶּצַע וְחַבּוּרָה וּמַכָּה טְרִיָּה לֹא־זֹרוּ וְלֹא חֻבָּשׁוּ וְלֹא רֻכְּכָה בַּשָּׁמֶן׃ - From the sole of the foot to the head there is no sound spot in it; wound and bruise and fresh sore, they have not been dressed, nor bandaged, nor softened with oil.
Now he describes all the limbs of the body. "There is no sound spot in it" - there is no intact, whole limb; there is no limb that retains a human form; all are full of wounds, bruises, and fresh sores. And what is the difference between a wound (petza) and a bruise (chaburah)? The Malbim explains: a wound is a cut from a sword, where the flesh is opened. A bruise is caused when struck with a blunt object, delivering a hard blow to the hand or the body, where the blood is trapped inside and does not flow outward - pus or internal bleeding can develop, but there is no exit wound, whereas with a wound it flows outward.
Their remedies are opposites: the wound must be bandaged until the open cut closes; the bruise requires special ointments that soften and open the area, so that the pus and fluid can drain and the person can heal. A wound needs to be closed, whereas a bruise needs to be opened. And what is one to do if he suffers from both a wound and a bruise simultaneously? As the Gemara says: woe to the person injured by both a wasp and a scorpion - for the remedy of one is hot water, and the remedy of the other is cold water. If he bathes in hot water, he harms the second sting; if he bathes in cold water, he harms the first. When someone is stung by two conflicting afflictions, whatever remedy he applies will aggravate the other wound. This is the meaning of "there is no sound spot in it; wound and bruise": if he closes the wound, he closes the bruise as well, which is harmful; and if he opens the bruise, he opens the wound, and it will continue to bleed.
And a "fresh sore" (makah teriyah) is a sore that constantly oozes pus and fluid, requiring special medications and a unique treatment that dries out and halts the discharge. Yet this treatment is detrimental to both the wound and the bruise, for neither can heal when the flesh dries out, but rather specifically when the flesh remains fresh. It emerges that they suffer from afflictions that are mutually contradictory, making them utterly impossible to heal.
"They have not been dressed (zoru)" - zoru is an expression of healing, from which comes the word mazor (cure). Why? Because the healer would sprinkle medicinal powders onto the wound: they would extract powders from plants, crushing them to create a powder used for treatment - much like how natural remedies and ointments are produced today. Incidentally, this is the origin of the rabbinic prohibition against taking medicine on Shabbos - due to the concern of grinding herbs (shechikas samemanim), for one might approach a healer who tells him, "Take this plant, crush it, and apply it to the wound or drink it," and grinding herbs violates the prohibition of grinding (tochen). "They have not been dressed" - healing powder was not sprinkled over them. "Nor bandaged" - no bandage was wrapped around them. "Nor softened with oil" - for when treating a wound, they would first soften it with oil until it became supple, then bind it with a cloth so that the injury would not spread, and finally sprinkle medicinal herbs to heal it. Yet the verse enumerates them in reverse order, from last to first: "they have not been dressed" - which is the final stage; nor even "bandaged" - which is the preceding stage; nor even "softened with oil" - which is the very first step. In simple terms: you have endured every type of blow, yet you did not even bother to treat yourselves in the slightest. If so, "Why should you be stricken any more?" - what purpose is there in all the blows I strike you with, if they do not bring you to repentance?
The Malbim elaborates further on the precise terminology: A petza (open wound) is related to opening - as in "he opened (patzah) his mouth," or patzach, as in bursting into song or cracking open nuts, where the idea is opening a cover. A petza is a place that was closed, and a knife cut it open. A chaburah (bruise or contusion) is the exact opposite - closing and joining together. We find this root used in three contexts: a chaburah (group) of people, where several individuals join together; a chover chaver (charmer), who gathers animals into one place through incantations; and the chaburah of a wound, where blood is trapped and gathers together in one spot beneath the skin. According to this, one can understand the verse's intent: on the one hand, a petza - an open wound; and on the other hand, a chaburah - a closed wound that needs to be opened, where blood or pus has accumulated beneath the skin.
The Nimshal: "Your Land is Desolate"
אַרְצְכֶם שְׁמָמָה עָרֵיכֶם שְׂרֻפוֹת אֵשׁ אַדְמַתְכֶם לְנֶגְדְּכֶם זָרִים אֹכְלִים אֹתָהּ וּשְׁמָמָה כְּמַהְפֵּכַת זָרִים׃ - Your land is desolate, your cities are burned with fire; as for your soil, strangers devour it before your eyes, and it is desolate, as overthrown by a deluge.
Here the prophet begins to explain the nimshal, corresponding to each detail in the mashal. "Every head is sick" - the head represents the body as a whole, directing its influence throughout the entire body; corresponding to this is the state, which encompasses the entire nation. When there is desolation in the land, the whole nation feels it. Therefore, corresponding to "every head is sick," it says, "your land is desolate."
"Every heart is faint" is already more specific; it is not the overarching head, but a specific organ. Corresponding to this is "your cities are burned with fire" - where each city is visibly set ablaze. The heart is on a level below the head, yet the other organs feel its impact far more than they feel other limbs. When a finger hurts, the pain may be felt throughout, but it does not diminish the functioning of the entire body. But when the heart's output is low, all bodily functions weaken; if the heart does not function properly, the whole body suffers. Similarly, "your cities are burned with fire" - not every single person feels it directly, but the vast majority of the population certainly feels the impact when their cities are burned.
"From the sole of the foot even to the head there is no soundness in it" - every individual limb is damaged; corresponding to this is "your soil, strangers devour it before your eyes" - the private land belonging to each individual, on a completely personal level. A person comes to reap and sees that someone has reaped before him, robbing and plundering him. There is not a single individual limb in the national body that does not feel this.
"They have not been squeezed out, nor bound up" - corresponding to this is "and it is desolate, as overthrown by a deluge (zarim)." Here, according to the Malbim, zarim does not mean strangers, but derives from zerem, a torrent of mighty waters. A flood devastates so completely that nothing remains: when an animal grazes, some vegetation is left behind, but when water sweeps over the land, nothing is left. This corresponds to "they have not been squeezed out, nor bound up" - there is no healing; such a condition cannot be remedied, for the devastation is total and absolute.
Two Conflicting Sorrows: Eaten by Strangers Versus Swept Away
The Malbim demonstrates that these two examples are diametrically opposed, designed to compound the agony, just like an open wound and a bruise where the cure for one harms the other. When a person sees the fruit of his labor in the hands of his enemy, it is agonizing. If he were told that everything he owned was lost in a plague or a fire, it would be less painful. But to see an enemy plunder it - that is far harder to bear.
A vivid example illustrates this flawed trait in human nature: A person's fan broke, so he brought it down to the sidewalk. Suddenly, he looks out the window and sees his neighbor pick it up and carry it upstairs. Two days later, the neighbor tells him, "Thank you! It was just missing a screw. I fixed it, and it works wonderfully." The first person would have felt much calmer had the garbage truck crushed it to pieces! Such is human nature. Outwardly, he might say, "Baruch Hashem, I'm glad, that's wonderful you got it working!" But inside: "Why didn't I keep it? What foolishness; it would have been better if it were destroyed." It is an awful tendency, hard even to admit - say this to someone who does not observe mitzvos and he will vehemently deny it. Yet this is human nature: when someone else takes and enjoys what was once his, it eats away at him.
There is a well-known story of a man who came to a rav with a halachic question. A shochet had slaughtered his animal, and after inspecting it, the rav ruled that it was treif. There was no choice: two thousand shekels went down the drain. The very next day, the same man appeared before the rav for a Din Torah against his neighbor over two hundred shekels. The rav ruled that he had to pay. The man began shouting: "Outrageous! Absolutely not! Where is the justice? This is not true Torah judgment!" The rav said to him: "I do not understand. Yesterday, I told you that two thousand shekels were lost, and you accepted it without protest. Today, you refuse to pay two hundred?" The rav then explained: "It does not hurt you to spend the two hundred; it hurts you that he will receive them. You are willing to throw two thousand into the trash, but for your rival, the one you argued with, to receive them - absolutely not."
This is the meaning of "strangers devour it" - a stranger, an enemy, is eating it, which is extraordinarily painful. On the other hand, there is a glimmer of hope: if enemies are consuming it, perhaps tomorrow I will overcome them and salvage part of the harvest. But if a torrent of water sweeps everything away, although an enemy does not gain, everything is lost and nothing can ever be recovered. Thus, a conflicting duality emerges: on the one hand, a person would rather have strangers eat it, so that there is still a chance of future salvage; on the other hand, it cuts him to the quick that his enemy enjoys the fruit of his labor, and he would prefer a river to wash it all away just so the enemy gains nothing. A person is left torn, not knowing which fate is preferable - just like an open wound and a bruise: treat the one, and you aggravate the other; treat the other, and you aggravate the first.
In fact, the Malbim explains, this was the progression of destruction and desolation in the land of Judah from the time the king of Assyria arrived. The first time, in the days of Achaz, he exiled the ten tribes - there was desolation, but not across the entire country, and there were still cities dwelling in tranquility, corresponding to "your country is desolate." The second time, in the days of Chizkiyahu, he captured the fortified cities of Judah, and destruction reached every single city, corresponding to "your cities are burned with fire," though there were still individuals living securely. The third time, when he began to besiege Jerusalem, every single person felt it directly, corresponding to "foreigners devour your land in your presence."
"And the Daughter of Zion Is Left" - Three Stages of Decline
וְנוֹתְרָה בַת־צִיּוֹן כְּסֻכָּה בְכָרֶם כִּמְלוּנָה בְמִקְשָׁה כְּעִיר נְצוּרָה׃ - And the daughter of Zion is left like a booth in a vineyard, like a hut in a cucumber field, like a besieged city.
Now the prophet describes the progressive decline of Zion through those three stages. In the first stage, Jerusalem was left isolated and forlorn "like a booth in a vineyard" - where in a vineyard there is nothing but a watchman sitting in a booth, with no one from anywhere else, only the residents of Jerusalem itself, since all the surrounding area had already gone into exile.
The second time, when the Chaldeans arrived - "like a hut in a cucumber field." A melunah is a kind of shelter built in a cucumber patch, called a melunah (lodging place) because it is constructed primarily for overnight lodging. The watchman stays there only at night, since during the day there is no need to guard a cucumber field - the cucumbers are hard and birds do not damage them - and only at night is it necessary to guard against thieves. Similarly, the people of Jerusalem would hide all day in caves and arid places from the enemies, coming into the city to gather their necessities only at night.
And the third time, which was the siege in which they conquered Jerusalem - "like a besieged city": a city under siege, with no one going out and no one coming in, amidst famine and terrible conditions under which life cannot be sustained, until after three years of siege Jerusalem fell.
"Unless the Lord of Hosts Had Left Us a Remnant"
לוּלֵי יְהֹוָה צְבָאוֹת הוֹתִיר לָנוּ שָׂרִיד כִּמְעָט כִּסְדֹם הָיִינוּ לַעֲמֹרָה דָּמִינוּ׃ - Unless the Lord of Hosts had left us a tiny remnant, we would have been like Sodom, we would have resembled Gomorrah.
Had the Lord not left us a tiny remnant, we would have been like Sodom - that is, in our deeds we were like Sodom. The Malbim explains: if you examine the wickedness of Sodom compared to that of Gomorrah, Sodom was worse in its wickedness, which is why the verse mentions the "rulers of Sodom" and Lot came to "dwell in Sodom." The meaning is: since in our deeds we were like Sodom, we consequently deserved a punishment like Gomorrah - "we would have resembled Gomorrah." In sin Sodom was worse, but in punishment Gomorrah suffered more severely, for from Sodom a few souls were spared - Lot and his daughters - whereas from Gomorrah not a single person survived or escaped.
Here the prophet concludes the matter he was addressing, and from the next verse he begins an overt rebuke regarding sacrifices and the path of repentance. But before that, let us examine two linguistic nuances highlighted by the Malbim.
The first nuance: the word sarid (remnant) usually appears with the verb hish'ir ("he left over") - hish'ir sarid - yet here it is written, hotir lanu sarid. What is the difference? The verb hish'ir is used when someone deliberately leaves something behind: "I took this and I left that, because that was my intention." By contrast, notar refers to something that remains on its own, without deliberate intent. Therefore Scripture consistently says, "we left no remnant [lo hish'arnu sarid]" - meaning there was no intention to leave anyone behind; and if someone nevertheless survived, he escaped with his life and was "left over" [notar], not that they intentionally spared him. Here Scripture tells us that the enemies did not purposely leave the remnant that remained; rather, it was left over on its own. Do not think the nations spared a remnant here - from their perspective they would have wiped out everything; rather, a remnant was left over, surviving as if on its own and not through their doing. And why did it truly remain? Because Hashem willed it to remain.
And the second nuance: the word kim'at ("almost" or "a little") in the verse does not mean "we were almost like Sodom," but rather attaches to the remnant - "left us a remnant kim'at," meaning a very small remnant. Furthermore, one should note: it says kisdom hayinu with the letter kaf ("like Sodom"), but it does not say k'amorah daminu; rather, la'amorah daminu with the letter lamed ("resembled Gomorrah"). In the Malbim's approach, every turn of phrase is precise and nothing is written without purpose. The distinction is that the prefix kaf indicates complete and exact likeness, whereas the prefix lamed indicates only an approximation. For example, "my Beloved is like a gazelle [domeh dodi litzvi]" with a lamed - the meaning is not that Hashem is literally like a gazelle, but that His swiftness, as it were, is like that of a gazelle; by contrast, "Hashem became like an enemy [hayah Hashem k'oyev]" with a kaf - truly like an enemy.
According to this, there is an anomaly here: the way of poets and writers is always to begin with the smaller matter and build upward. A person never says, "He owes a million dollars and also two shekels to the grocery store," but rather, "He owes two shekels to the grocery store, and a thousand shekels to this person, and two hundred thousand to that person, and a million dollars to another" - constantly building and increasing. Yet here, the verse opens with "we would have been like Sodom" (k'Sedom) with the letter kaf, which denotes an absolute comparison, and then steps down to "we would have resembled Gomorrah" (la'Amorah daminu), which is not fully like Gomorrah. It should have been the reverse! From this arises the compelling necessity for the explanation we presented: "we would have been like Sodom" refers to the actions, which were truly like Sodom; "we would have resembled Gomorrah" refers to the punishment, that the punishment due to us resembled the punishment of Gomorrah, and therefore it is phrased with the letter lamed - for it was not a completely identical punishment. This makes our interpretation unavoidable, says the Malbim.
The Leaders of Sodom - One Should Never Open His Mouth to the Satan
שִׁמְעוּ דְבַר־יְהֹוָה קְצִינֵי סְדֹם הַאֲזִינוּ תּוֹרַת אֱלֹהֵינוּ עַם עֲמֹרָה׃ - Hear the word of Hashem, rulers of Sodom; give ear to the teaching of our God, people of Gomorrah.
"Ketzinim" (rulers or leaders) are the distinguished individuals, the heads of the camp, the ministers. And Chazal say: From here we learn that one should never open his mouth to the Satan. For you yourselves said, "we would have been like Sodom," and immediately the Holy One, Blessed be He, comes and says, "Hear the word of Hashem, rulers of Sodom." You opened your mouth to the Satan, you spoke of yourselves as Sodom - and already Heaven treats you as Sodom and addresses you as Sodom.
"Hear the word of Hashem" - this refers to the word of prophecy that Hashem is now delivering through Yeshayahu. "Rulers of Sodom" - the ministers who resemble the leaders of Sodom in their wickedness, for it is known that in Sodom the wickedness of the judges was far worse than in Gomorrah; that was the central place where the laws were legislated, where their "parliament" and "supreme court" sat, and the judges of Sodom were the greatest evildoers. "Give ear to the teaching of our God" - this refers to the Torah that Moshe placed before them, as the rebuke he is about to deliver regarding the multiplicity of sacrifices is already written in the Torah: that bringing a sacrifice requires repentance, "and they shall confess their iniquity and the iniquity of their fathers," which is the very essence of the sacrifice. "People of Gomorrah" - just as he previously compared them to Sodom and Gomorrah, so too he compares them now.
Hearing and Giving Ear
What is the difference between "hear" (shemu) and "give ear" (ha'azinu)? The Malbim explains something contrary to what we normally assume. People usually think that ha'azanah (giving ear) implies deep attentiveness, while shemi'ah (hearing) is in one ear and out the other. But the Malbim proves from numerous sources that shemi'ah indicates meticulous listening and deep comprehension of the matter, whereas ha'azanah denotes a more superficial hearing. When the two verbs appear together, the verb shema is attached to the more weighty matter, while the verb ha'azin is attached to the less profound matter, something that does not require deep contemplation and for which mere listening suffices.
Therefore, to the rulers, who are the leaders of the people, he says "hear" (shemu); while to the common people, who are on a lower level, he says "give ear" (ha'azinu), for mere listening is sufficient for them. Furthermore, "the word of Hashem" refers to prophecy, while "the teaching of our God" is what is explicitly stated in the Torah. The words of prophecy are cryptic and sealed, requiring deep contemplation to discern their meaning; therefore, "Hear the word of Hashem" - analyze closely, delve deeply, and seek to understand. And who can do that? Only the leaders. In contrast, when he turns to the common folk, they can grasp simpler matters, so he addresses them with the verb of listening (ha'azanah). And regarding what? Regarding "the teaching of our God" - for even a child can understand the plain meaning of Hashem's Torah; with a Chumash and Rashi, even a child understands. Therefore, the verb ha'azinu is far more fitting there.
In Summary:
Chapter 1 of Yeshayahu opens with a vision reiterated by the prophet throughout the reigns of each successive king, and continues with a twofold claim: from the perspective of morality - "Children have I raised and exalted," and from the perspective of nature - "An ox knows its owner." From there, it ascends the ladder of sins (chet, avon, evildoers, corrupters) corresponding to the ladder of elevated levels (nation, people, seed, children), leading all the way to abandoning Hashem, spurning the Holy One of Israel, and retreating backward instead of advancing toward the rectification of the world. The prophet depicts a nation diseased from the sole of the foot to the head, with wounds, bruises, and fresh sores that find no healing, and points to the reality it symbolizes: a desolate land, burned cities, and soil consumed by strangers before the eyes of its owners, across the three stages of destruction. Only Hashem's kindness left a tiny remnant - surviving on its own and not through the enemy's mercy - for otherwise we would have been like Sodom in deeds and like Gomorrah in punishment. From here, the prophet turns to the rulers of Sodom and the people of Gomorrah: calling upon the ministers to hear and delve into the word of Hashem, and the people to give ear to the Torah of our God - setting the stage for the overt rebuke concerning the sacrifices and the path of repentance.