Yeshayahu chapter 7. Our chapter is one that we already learned in Sefer Melachim, and here we simply have an opportunity to review it. There are additions here that are not there, and we will look at things in our usual way with the commentary of the Malbim and other commentators. "And it came to pass in the days of Achaz son of Yotam son of Uziyahu king of Yehudah, that Retzin king of Aram and Pekach son of Remalyahu king of Yisrael went up to Yerushalayim to wage war against it, but he could not fight against it."
"And it came to pass in the days of Achaz son of Yotam son of Uziyahu." We already notice that there is seemingly an excess of words here. If you say Achaz son of Yotam, that is enough. Why does it need to say son of Yotam son of Uziyahu? Since when do we mention the grandfather's name too? The Radak brings that this comes to tell you that both of his forefathers were righteous. Yotam is his father, Uziyahu is his grandfather, and they were righteous. Yet he, nonetheless, was wicked. See what a generation of righteous ancestors you had, so why did you act wickedly and cause Yisrael to sin? Indeed, it is written that Achaz shut the doors of synagogues and study halls and did not allow them to engage in Torah. As a result, Retzin king of Aram and Pekach son of Remalyahu king of Yisrael, the king of the ten tribes, went up to come against Yerushalayim.
Now, the Radak says, know that they already had such a war in the past, when Retzin king of Aram went up against Yisrael and took a great captivity from them. That was a war unto itself. Beyond that, the king of Yisrael killed 120,000 in Yehudah in a single day. That was yet another war. Now the two of them united. The two of them joined together, meaning I still have open wounds from this one, and open wounds from that one, and now the two of them come together against me, against Achaz son of Yotam son of Uziyahu.
"But he could not." The Radak says, why is it written "but he could not"? Seemingly it should have said "but they could not fight against it." And earlier too, "Retzin king of Aram went up" - it should say "Retzin king of Aram and Pekach son of Remalyahu went up." From this the Radak concludes that the main war was that of Retzin king of Aram. As auxiliary force he brought with him Pekach son of Remalyahu king of Yisrael, but he was the primary fighter, and therefore it speaks here in the singular, "Retzin went up... but he could not fight against it."
He could not, why? Perhaps you will say it was because Yehudah was strong? Let us read the next pasuk. "And it was told to the house of David saying, Aram has settled upon Efrayim." What happens with the house of David when they hear this? "And his heart and the heart of his people trembled like the trees of the forest tremble before the wind." They were seized with tremendous panic. So how can you say "but he could not fight against it"? Why could he not fight against it? If the people there are so terrified of the enemy, that means the enemy could easily take them. For if the people trust in their own strength, you would say, listen, a real battle is expected here. But if the people are so terrified, that means we have no chance against them. So why could Retzin king of Aram or Pekach son of Remalyahu not fight against it?
The Radak says, "he could not" because God did not want to give Yerushalayim into the hand of the enemy. And why? Because Achaz was son of Yotam son of Uziyahu. Achaz had the merit of his forefathers, Yotam and Uziyahu. Their merit is what stood by Achaz, even though he himself was wicked. And this is also what Hashem said to Chizkiyahu, "For My sake and for the sake of David My servant." The Holy One, blessed be He, says, there is My merit and that of David My servant; for My sake, for the sake of My name I do this, and also the merit of David. But you yourself, your own merit is not sufficient. So He said to Chizkiyahu, and all the more so to Achaz who was a great wicked man.
The Midrash says, "And it came to pass in the days of Achaz son of Yotam son of Uziyahu," what did Scripture see to trace his lineage? This is the question we asked, why is it necessary to mention the name of the father and grandfather? Rather, the ministering angels said before the Holy One, blessed be He, woe that this wicked one has become king. Woe that such a wicked king reigns, Achaz. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to them, he is the son of Yotam, he is the son of Uziyahu, his forefathers were righteous. And therefore "he could not fight against it" because of the merit of his forefathers. As it were, they were concerned, saying now You will destroy the land, see who this man is, wicked. Woe. He said to them, yes, but he has the merit of his forefathers. The merit of the forefathers is what will protect them.
"And it was told to the house of David saying, Aram has settled upon Efrayim." What is "it was told to the house of David"? Why is it not written "it was told to Achaz"? True, Achaz is from the dynasty of the house of David, fine, but earlier you mentioned him by name, so mention him also now. Rashi says, because he was wicked, his name was not mentioned. So the first time I have no choice, I must mention it, but after that to go and mention his name again? No, I will not mention the name of the wicked one, but rather it speaks in a general way, "it was told to the house of David." The Radak says, why did it mention here "the house of David"? In order to recall his merit. As if it were by the merit of David, as we explained earlier, "For My sake and for the sake of David My servant," that Achaz could not have been saved from the hand of the king of Aram and Pekach son of Remalyahu king of Yisrael. What was the merit that stood by him? The merit is the house of David, that you are from the kingdom of the house of David. Hashem did not want the kingdom of the house of David to cease, and therefore the Holy One, blessed be He, saved you.
"And his heart and the heart of his people trembled like the trees of the forest." Why? The Radak says, because we already saw earlier, he had previous burns. Once already Retzin king of Aram conquered him. Once already Pekach son of Remalyahu struck 120,000 of him. So he was wary, this burns. Now the two of them come united to approach Yerushalayim. For each of them alone could not conquer Yerushalayim, but now they come to approach Yerushalayim, and from this "his heart and the heart of his people trembled like the trees of the forest."
What is "like the trees of the forest tremble"? The Radak says, the trees of the forest move when the wind stirs one tree, so if they are close together, if they are near one another, then one also moves the next. One touches the other and also moves the other. So their movement is greater. So too with people, when there is one who is afraid, he casts terror into the heart of everyone. Woe, what a terrible king. So even if I was not afraid, now I begin to hear his fears, and I too begin to tremble. So it is exactly like the trembling of the trees of the forest. Just as with the trees of the forest there is some domino effect, that one moves and they all begin to move, so too here, some began to fear, and through this they frighten one another, propagating the fear, and consequently, like the trees of the forest that all move before the wind, so too here they are all fearful and terrified.
Chazal say, "like the trees of the forest," what are the trees of the forest? These are barren trees. Barren trees have no fruit upon them. They sway and shake more easily than fruit trees. Fruit trees have heavy fruit upon them, so the fruit weighs them down. So too they were compared at that time, they were like barren trees, without merits. They had no mitzvot. And therefore barren trees, it is no wonder that they move before the wind, "like the trees of the forest tremble." But had they been fruit trees, their merits would have caused them to have no fear of the enemy, and they would have relied on Hashem's salvation in an instant.
"And Hashem said to Yeshayahu, go out now to meet Achaz, you and Shear Yashuv your son, to the end of the conduit of the upper pool, to the highway of the launderer's field." Hashem says to Yeshayahu, go out now to meet Achaz, you and Shear Yashuv your son. Who is Shear Yashuv your son? The Radak says, Yeshayahu had two sons. One was named Shear Yashuv, and the second was named Maher Shalal Chash Baz. That was his name, all this was on his identity card, all of this, Maher Shalal Chash Baz. He needed an extra insert to write out the whole name. Yes. So what actually is the reason for these names?
The name Shear Yashuv, the Radak says, comes to hint, as a sign and a symbol, that the remnant of Yehudah will return after the exile. "Shear," those who remain, who are they? Yehudah, they went out into exile and will return. In contrast, the ten tribes will not return. Only in the future will they return. But after 70 years, at the end of the first Babylonian exile, they did not return. So therefore he says Shear Yashuv. This comes to symbolize, the remnant will yet return, the remnant of Yehudah will yet return. Another matter, Shear Yashuv means there still remains a settlement. Its meaning is, as it were, one can say from the term settlement (yishuv), meaning from the term settlement. That is, the ten tribes were exiled, but Shear Yashuv, there still remained those who are settled here. There remained here still such settled ones. That is, the Holy One, blessed be He, did not make a complete end, He did not exile them all, but there still remained here such who are settled here in the land. So according to the first explanation, it is those who were exiled who will yet return. According to the second explanation, the meaning is that those who are still here, the Holy One, blessed be He, left us a remnant, and there still remains a little of the settlement.
In contrast is the view of the Malbim, that Shear Yashuv means "yashuv" from the term teshuvah (repentance). That is, the Holy One, blessed be He, says, as it were, the remnant of Yisrael will yet return to Hashem. They will yet do teshuvah. This is not in the sense of returning to the land but in the sense of returning to the Creator of the world. And why did He tell him to take him along? In order to hint to the people, Shear Yashuv, the remnant, the people who remained here in Yehudah, return in repentance, before you too are exiled.
The second son, he called Maher Shalal Chash Baz. This came as a sign and symbol regarding the ten tribes, that they would hasten to exile. Their exile would be at an earlier time than the exile of the tribe of Yehudah. In contrast, there is another view, that of Targum Yonatan, and according to this view Rashi also follows him, that Shear Yashuv was not the name of a person at all. So what is the meaning of "you and Shear Yashuv your sons"? "Shear Yashuv your sons" means the small remnant who will return to Me through you, and they are like your sons. The remnant, those who still remained here, they will return, they will yet return in repentance, in this they are your sons, they are like your sons. Since the teacher is like the father of his students. How is it stated there? That one who teaches another Torah, it is considered as if he had given birth to him. So they are like your sons. So He says to him, take your sons; so according to this explanation it comes out that this does not speak at all about his son, but rather about his students. Take your students, those who returned in repentance, and go with them to Achaz. Why? In order to rebuke him. That he should see, look, there are people here who repent, you too should repent. This is the rebuke that he needs to rebuke them.
He approached the conduit of the upper pool. The Malbim says, if we recall, Chizkiyahu had some matter with the conduit, do you remember? What did Chizkiyahu do when the king of Ashur came here? What did Chizkiyahu do? Sancheriv king of Ashur arrived, what did he do? He simply stopped up the waters of Gichon, right? He stopped up the waters of Gichon before the king of Ashur. And then he made the pool and the conduit and brought the water into the city. He did not want this conduit to carry water to the troops of Sancheriv, so that through this they would dry out and not be able to continue the siege. The sages of Yisrael did not agree with him about this. The Malbim says, it is quite possible that this was also the intention of Achaz now. That Achaz went out to that same place in order to repeat that same act, to stop up the waters of Gichon again, so that the enemy would not find water, so that he would have nothing to drink. And Hashem sends Yeshayahu to go and prevent him. That is, just as then with Chizkiyahu there was no agreement to this from Hashem, so too here Hashem sends Yeshayahu to rebuke him and prevent him from stopping up the waters of the conduit.
The place is called the highway of the launderer's field. "The highway of the launderer's field," in its plain meaning, this is indeed a place, a road, where people would launder, spreading out clothes there to dry. This is called the highway of the launderer's field. But there is another interpretation that Chazal say, Achaz submitted before Yeshayahu. That is, even though he was a tyrannical and wicked king, with all this, when Yeshayahu the prophet came to him with the word of Hashem, he submitted before him and placed upon his head the launderer's sieve (ukhla dekatzrei). What is ukhla dekatzrei? It is a perforated vessel of the launderers, with which the launderers would sprinkle water upon the clothes. By the way, the launderer is called katzri. Whoever knows why? He shortens. He shortens your clothes for you. You bring him a garment, what happens to the garment? Alas, it shrinks in the wash. You understand, you say I brought him a garment a meter long, and I get it back at 80 centimeters. That is called katzri, they would shorten the clothes. So he, as it were, forced upon his head this vessel of the launderers, as a sign that I, as it were, humble myself before you and am ready to accept your instructions in the name of Hashem. And therefore it is called the highway of the launderer's field.
"And you shall say to him, take heed and be quiet, do not fear and let your heart not be faint from these two tails of smoldering firebrands, from the fierce anger of Retzin and Aram and the son of Remalyahu." "And you shall say to him, take heed and be quiet." Let us note, the word "hishamer" here differs from every "hishamer" written in Tanach. Every "hishamer" written in Tanach is pronounced with the accent on the penultimate syllable, hiSHAmer. "HiSHAmer to you and guard your soul greatly." In contrast, here we read hishaMER, not hiSHAmer. From this the Radak concludes that the "hishamer" here differs from every "hishamer" written everywhere else. And in every place its meaning is guarding, take heed. Here its meaning is dregs (shemarim). What does dregs mean? Dregs always express settling in place, "settling on its dregs." "Take heed and be quiet," settle upon your dregs. So too Rashi explained. In contrast, the Yonatan explains "hishamer" in its plain sense, a term of guarding. So too the Rasag explains, take heed from making war and be quiet, do not worry, you have nothing to fear.
And why? Because they are these two tails of smoldering firebrands. They are called like the tails of smoldering firebrands. What is a firebrand (ud)? And afterward we will understand what its tails are. A firebrand is the tool, the wooden stick with which they would stir the coals. What happens when one stirs the coals with it? Then little by little its tip burns. It burns and gives off smoke. Little by little it burns until it is finished. For each time it grows shorter, each time it grows shorter. This is called the tails of smoldering firebrands. When it is small it can no longer be held in the hand, so they throw it away. That is, it is impossible, it is already, your hand also gets too close to the fire, you cannot use it, so you throw it away. What remains is called the tail of the firebrand. This is what remains of the small stick that is no longer fit for use, and it is smoldering, smoke rises from it, yes, it is already consumed by itself. As it were, it has no power to do anything. So now he comes and says, the tails of smoldering firebrands, why does he call them smoldering? Since this is compared to smoke, as in "the anger of Hashem will smoke." This comes to symbolize fierce anger. Just as the tail of the firebrand cannot ignite anything, but what is in it? Only smoke and distress. Smoke always symbolizes distress, it gets into the eyes, disturbs breathing. So too he says, these kings came with smoke, meaning they came with fierce anger, as we said, "the anger of Hashem smokes," meaning fierce anger. But take into account, they have no power to harm, only to distress. They are like smoke that gets into the eyes, they will not be able to ignite; rather it is like a firebrand that has already burned in its own coals, and from it comes out only smoke, distress, yes, but harm, no.
The Malbim, in contrast, explains that "hishamer" means guarding in its plain sense. If so, why is it written here hishaMER and not hiSHAmer? The Malbim says, this is no difficulty at all. In every place where hiSHAmer is written, it is adjacent to the word "lecha" (to you). And when it is written adjacent like this, there is an expression, a concept in grammar called "nasog achor" (retreating accent). When there is a disjunctive accent, whether between a hyphen (makaf), between two words, the first word is read with the accent on the penultimate syllable. So here too, there is a makaf between them, between the "hishamer" and the "lecha," so it is always read hiSHAmer lecha, not hishaMER lecha, but hiSHAmer lecha. And by the way, this applies everywhere a makaf appears between two words: the first word, if it is more than two letters, if it is three letters, then it is read with the accent on the penultimate syllable. And you can see this, there are many; anyone who begins to follow this rule now will be able to notice that this is correct. Consequently, the Malbim says, here, since the word "lecha" does not appear and there is no makaf in between, it is not read hiSHAmer, because there is no "lecha" after it and no makaf. So it is read hishaMER. So what is the meaning? The same meaning, guarding. Only why is it read here with the accent on the final syllable and not on the penultimate? For an external reason, as we explained, because the word "lecha" is not mentioned and there is no retreating accent here.
And he warns him and says, do not fear the enemy. "And let your heart not be faint." Now, this is already included in "do not fear." And the Malbim, as is his way, examines every expression precisely. What is "and let your heart not be faint"? A person who suffers many troubles, his heart naturally becomes soft. He becomes tender-hearted, everything causes him to cry, everything causes him distress. So he says, and let your heart not be faint on its own, after all you have gone through and suffered from them. And he says to him, know that both of them are compared to two tails of smoldering firebrands. They are not strong wood, it is only a firebrand whose two ends the fire has consumed. And therefore he says, from these two tails of smoldering firebrands. If this is the firebrand, this is the stick, then he says smoke already rises from here and smoke already rises from there. From both its ends smoke already rises. And it is not like the middle of the firebrand, which can still be grasped, because smoke has not yet risen from it. But rather only like the tails of the firebrand. It is also not a burning firebrand, and a burning firebrand can burn, but rather like a firebrand that has gone out by itself, which, as we explained, can only burn and make smoke in the eyes, but cannot cause harm.
And even their smoke is not smoke of fire, but rather it is smoke of "the fierce anger of Retzin and Aram." That is, it is not smoke from Hashem. Sometimes Ashur is the rod of My anger. Sometimes Retzin and the king of Aram and Pekach son of Remalyahu can be a rod of destruction in the hand of the Creator of the world. Then one truly needs to worry. What do you say, who are they? What are they? True, you are right, they are nothing, but their boss who sent them, He is great and mighty, and if we have a problem with the boss, then we truly have a problem and we need to fear them. But here he says, you have nothing to fear, the fierce anger is not from Hashem, but rather it is from the fierce anger of Retzin and Aram and the son of Remalyahu. Since they possess free will, they rose up and went out against you, but this is not from His blessed will, as it were; they are not messengers of Hashem in this. Well, if so, then what do you need to fear? They are like a fleeting vapor.
"Because Aram has counseled evil against you, Efrayim and the son of Remalyahu saying." He says, since they counseled evil against you, that they joined together with Efrayim and Pekach son of Remalyahu who was king of Yisrael, they counseled evil against you saying, "let us go up against Yehudah and provoke it and breach it to ourselves, and set up a king within it, the son of Tav'al."
What are their plans? "Let us go up against Yehudah and provoke it." "And provoke it," in its plain sense, means we will rouse it, we will stir up battles there. "And breach it," in its plain sense, means to breach the wall, we will breach the wall and enter it. So the Radak explains. In contrast, Rashi explains, "nevki'enah" is like "bik'ah" (valley). A bik'ah symbolizes a plain. Until now it is like a high mountain; we are going to level it, to flatten it, as it were, so that it will be easy to conquer before us. This is "nevki'enah." Another explanation, why is this called like a plain? Because until now there is a separation and division between the ten tribes and Yehudah. Between the kingdom of Shomron and the kingdom of Yehudah. But Pekach son of Remalyahu in his plans now is to reunite the kingdom, but under his own rule. And therefore he says "nevki'enah," we will make it like a flat valley. No divisions, no separations, no Yehudah versus Yisrael, I am going to be king over all of them. Therefore he refers to this in the sense of "nevki'enah."
And whom shall we crown? "We will set up within it the son of Tav'al." What is the son of Tav'al? Rashi explains, based on Targum Yonatan, one who is good to us. The son, the fitting one, the son who is good to us. The meaning is the one fitting in our eyes. So if so, ben Tav'al is not the name of a person, but rather means the one who is proper in our eyes, "tav el," two words, it is like an acronym, "tav el," good to us. Rashi brings another explanation, and one can explain "tav" as good, "el" meaning one who is not good in the eyes of the Omnipresent. "El" is like "lo" (not). Like "al ta'aseh," do not do. So the one who is not good in the eyes of the Omnipresent, him we will crown. Rashi says another explanation, that by gematria, if there is, you know, there are several kinds of gematriot. When one means gematriot, one does not necessarily mean numbers, but there are several kinds of readings, like "tashrak." Yes? Like there is "albam," like there is "atbash," there are several kinds of readings. "Tashrak" is not, that is not a good example, "tashrak" means one begins to read from end to beginning. But the meaning is with letters exchanged. For example, atbash, instead of writing the letter alef, one writes the letter tav. Instead of writing the letter bet, one writes the letter shin. Letters exchanged, yes, there is an expression, this is called atbash. And there is also albam. Rashi says, if we write "Tav'al" in albam, then we exchange the letter tet, and the letter opposite it comes out as reish. We exchange the letter bet, the letter opposite it comes out as mem. So instead of "tav," we get "ram." This is the first part. The first part of Tav'al, "tav," comes out as "ram." Now the "el," we transform. This is by another method, we do not continue with the albam method, but rather "el" is the letters "lo." So it comes out, if so, that instead of "tav el," we get "ram lo." What is "ram lo"? This is ben Remalyahu. It comes to hint that who wants to take the kingship here and rule also over the portion of Yehudah? Ben Remalyahu, Pekach son of Remalyahu who was king over all the ten tribes, and now he has aspirations to expand his kingdom and to reign over the entire people of Yisrael.
The Radak explains that "nekitzenah" means from the term "we will rouse it." That they should awaken and open up for us, we will breach its walls, and we will crown the son of Tav'al. Who is ben Tav'al? The Radak says, a man from the children of Efrayim, whom they were thinking of crowning in Yerushalayim. The Radak goes according to the plain meaning of Scripture, ben Tav'al is the name of a person. A man whose name was ben Tav'al, and this is not like Targum Yonatan nor like the two explanations that Rashi mentioned. The Malbim says, what is "nekitzenah"? We saw the explanation "we will rouse it in war," but the Malbim has a novel explanation. The Malbim says, they described Yerushalayim as if Yerushalayim were some abscess, some wound full of pus, and this wound, how is it healed? One needs to puncture it. By puncturing, one drains from it the pus that is within it, and through this the wound dries out and thus it comes to be healed. Like one who lances an abscess. So "nekitzenah" is from the term "kotz" (thorn). "A festering thorn and brier." We will, as it were, stick a thorn into it, and by sticking in a thorn we will draw out from it the pus, which is the government, as it were, that rules there today, Achaz, and through this the place will become healthy. What is "will become healthy"? It will belong to us, we will be able to take all that is there, all of this will belong to us.
"Thus says Hashem Elokim, it shall not stand and it shall not come to pass." He says, this is what they say. Since Aram counseled evil against you, Efrayim and the son of Remalyahu saying, let us go up against Yehudah, provoke it, breach it, this is their plan. But come, hear what the plan of the Creator of the world is. Thus says Hashem Elokim, it shall not stand and it shall not come to pass. What is the doubling, "it shall not stand and it shall not come to pass"? "It shall not stand," the meaning is to carry out the matter. This matter shall not stand. Afterward, "it shall come to pass" is from the term existence (havayah). To establish (lehakim) a thing means until now it was lying down, and I set it up. This is called establishing. Establishing means the action of setting up. "It shall be" (yihyeh), now I say, it will now stand in its place. This speaks of the future existence, that it will remain standing. So he says, the matter shall not stand at its beginning, and it shall not come to pass, and also it will not have continuity afterward. You have nothing to worry about.
"For the head of Aram is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Retzin, and in another 65 years Efrayim will be shattered from being a people." "The head of Aram" means the capital city of Aram is Damascus. And Damascus, the Malbim says, was in his time a place whose evil was open and famous. It was known as a place of wicked people. And based on the place, you can also infer the evil of the entire people and the state. And he says, if this is the head of Aram, this is Damascus, where there are such wicked and corrupt ones, then the entire state you can infer from this, they are all wicked and corrupt like them. And the head of Damascus, who is he? Retzin. And Retzin too is famous for his wickedness and famous for his corruption. So if he is corrupt, then certainly all his servants and all his helpers and all the people of his state, certainly they too are scoundrels. How would such wicked and such corrupt ones rule over Yerushalayim? For the head of Aram is Damascus and the head of Damascus is Retzin. Such wicked ones, Hashem will not deliver Yerushalayim into their hand.
What will you say? But there is here also another king who came, and who is he? The king of Yisrael, Pekach son of Remalyahu. He tells you, know, that Pekach son of Remalyahu too is far from being a man fit to rule over Yerushalayim. For the head of Efrayim is Shomron, and the head of Shomron is the son of Remalyahu. If you will not believe, surely you will not be confirmed. He tells you, they too are not small wicked ones. Both Remalyahu and the kingdom, and Shomron as a whole. And why do I determine that they are wicked? Because in another 65 years Efrayim will be shattered from being a people. There was a prophecy that was known to them from the time of Amos. And Amos prophesied in his prophecy and said, in another 65 years Efrayim will be shattered from being a people. The meaning is that Efrayim and their kingdom are destined to be exiled. And Efrayim symbolizes the ten tribes. And why are they called Efrayim? Because the first king who was there, who was he? Yeravam son of Nevat. And from which tribe was he? Efrayim. And therefore this kingdom is attributed to Efrayim, the ten tribes are called Efrayim. And if already long ago Amos prophesied that Efrayim are destined to be exiled in another 65 years, and with all this you see that they still remained in their evil. With all this you see that they did not repent. What does this show about Efrayim? What does this show about their character traits? What does this show about their nature? It shows that they are wicked. See that they are still, the head of Efrayim is Shomron and the head of Shomron is the son of Remalyahu, the son of Remalyahu is the king, this shows the evil of the people. So as I said earlier, if the head of Aram is Damascus and the head of Damascus is Retzin, and all this shows their corruption, will they rule over Yerushalayim? So how could it be also now that I say, that Pekach son of Remalyahu will come and rule over Yerushalayim? For they too are wicked and corrupt, because there was a prophecy that they are destined to be exiled and they still have not repented and they continue in their evil.
"If you will not believe, surely you will not be confirmed." The prophet sees that Achaz does not believe his words, and therefore the prophet is angry with him. What is "does not believe the words"? He still fears and dreads Retzin and Pekach son of Remalyahu, still worries that they will come to conquer him, and we will later see a concrete expression of this, that he went and paid money to Ashur so that it would come and help and save him. And he did not listen to the voice of the prophet, who told him not to fear them. And the prophet senses this, the prophet feels this, and says to them, if you will not believe, I see that you do not believe what I say, so this is what he is angry about. Do you not believe the words of Hashem? Why do you not believe? "For you will not be confirmed." Now, who is the kind of person who always thinks the other is scheming against him, lying to him, deceiving him? Who is that? One who himself is like that. One who himself, this is his nature. Always constantly a schemer, deceiving, taking advantage of others, so always when someone tells him something, ah, where, where is he trying to deceive me here? Whom is it easiest to deceive? The innocent. Why, why is it easy to deceive them? Because the innocent one deceives no one, so why should he think that someone comes to deceive him? He does not even entertain such a thought. Until he is burned a few times and then he too becomes suspicious. But naturally, a person who is not honest thinks everyone is dishonest and everyone is trying to deceive him. This is what he comes and says to them, do you not believe? Is this because you yourselves are not honest and do not believe anyone, because there is no trust in you? So you think that Hashem too has no trustworthiness in His words? If you will not believe, surely you will not be confirmed, you think that because you are not people of faith, you are not proper, so it is also impossible to believe the words of Hashem? Indeed, the deficiency is in you. Rashi explains that he said this to them as a declaration. That is, I know that you are wicked and therefore you will not be confirmed, there is no trustworthiness in you, so all that I say to you I know will not help you.