Introduction: From the Rebuke of Israel to the Rebuke of Assyria
In Malbim's view, Chapter 10 of Yeshayahu is divided into two parts. Up to verse 4, the prophet continues describing the evils perpetrated in the Ten Tribes and reproving them for them, and from verse 5 onward, he turns to describe what will happen with Assyria. The prophet had already rebuked the people in the opening chapters: "Your princes are rebellious and companions of thieves; everyone loves a bribe and chases after gifts; they do not judge the orphan, and the cause of the widow does not come before them." Now he comes to rebuke specifically the ministers who legislate - those who enacted laws against orphans and widows, whose entire purpose was to pervert the judgment of the destitute. This is also a direct continuation of the end of the previous chapter: "Therefore the Lord shall have no joy in their young men, neither shall He have compassion on their orphans and widows" - why? Because this is precisely what they themselves did: they robbed the widows and orphans.
"Hoi" - An Expression of Calling and Pathos
הוֹי הַחֹקְקִים חִקְקֵי־אָוֶן וּמְכַתְּבִים עָמָל כִּתֵּבוּ׃ - Woe to those who decree iniquitous decrees, and the scribes who record oppression!
"Hoi" here is not an expression of grief, but an exclamation, a call: Hoi, you who do such and such! It is a rhetorical device full of pathos. Anyone familiar with Arabic rhetoric knows that it is entirely built on pathos: "Hoi to those who rise against the Arab nation, may God strike them!" Menachem Begin of blessed memory also loved to speak with pathos in public squares. And so, l'havdil, countless distinctions aside, such is often the way of the prophet when delivering rebuke - to speak with pathos. "Hoi, you who decree" - an exclamation directed at those who decree decrees of iniquity.
"Those who decree" (hachokekim) are the judges and lawmakers, just as we speak today of the "legislature" (beit hamchokekim). They enacted "decrees of iniquity" (chikkei aven), wicked statutes. And what is the meaning of "and who write out oppressive documents" (umchattvim amal kiteivu)? Malbim explains that mechattvim refers to writing forged legal documents, and amal symbolizes falsehood - fraudulent notes used to expropriate money from someone who never wrote or signed the document. And why does the verse say mechattvim (causing to write) rather than kotevim (writing)? Because not everyone knows how to forge a contract; one needs an expert who can imitate the handwriting and signature. Mechattvim is a causative verb referring to someone else: I do not write it myself, but commission another to write and forge it for me, so that I may fraudulently collect from someone who owes me nothing.
And what is the difference between aven (iniquity) and amal (trouble/falsehood)? Malbim explains: Aven indicates someone who acts unlawfully through force. That is why it shares the same letters as on, which means power and strength - "my strength and the first of my might" (reishit oni). Aven is the unlawful extortion of money through sheer power. By contrast, amal denotes taking money unlawfully not through force, but through deceptive schemes - which is the forging of documents. I do not come with force; rather, through a deceitful scheme I forge a claim that you owe me, and take your money unlawfully. Therefore, "to pervert the judgment of the destitute" is termed aven - for that requires clout and power, as in "To him who has no might (le'ein onim) He increases strength" - whereas forging documents is termed amal.
Perverting the Cause of the Destitute - Under the Cover of Law
לְהַטּוֹת מִדִּין דַּלִּים וְלִגְזֹל מִשְׁפַּט עֲנִיֵּי עַמִּי לִהְיוֹת אַלְמָנוֹת שְׁלָלָם וְאֶת־יְתוֹמִים יָבֹזּוּ׃ - To turn aside the needy from justice, and to rob the poor of My people of their rightful judgment, that widows may be their spoil, and that they may plunder the fatherless.
The clauses here run in parallel: "Those who decree decrees of iniquity" corresponds to "to turn aside the needy from justice"; "and who write out oppressive documents" corresponds to "that widows may be their spoil." They pass laws of iniquity and falsehood, and their entire goal is that, in the end, the destitute person receives nothing of what is rightfully his.
For example, tax discounts are established, but only for those whose income ceiling is fifteen thousand shekels and above. "Sir, that is the law; what do you want?" In practice, they have robbed the poor, but everything is done by the authority of the law. Or threshold requirements in public tenders and job hiring designed so that if you are Charedi, you cannot pass them. "Sir, that is the law; the law requires such and such, what can I do if you do not meet the criteria?" The law does not recognize yeshiva study as higher education. And why is yeshiva study less of an education than studying ancient Chinese, or dance, or physical education? Those are considered higher education, while Torah study is not. "Sir, that is the law." This is precisely "those who decree decrees of iniquity to turn aside the needy from justice": they legislate the law specifically so that you will fail to meet the threshold requirements.
And what is the difference between din (claim/adjudication) and mishpat (verdict/justice)? Malbim explains: Din expresses the claims - the litigants (ba'alei din), each arguing his claims, and the exchange between them is called din. Mishpat is what the judge determines, the final verdict. "To turn aside the needy from justice (din)" occurs at the stage of the claims; "and to rob the poor of My people of their rightful judgment (mishpat)" occurs at the stage of the verdict.
This is what Justice Cheshin once ruled - may his merit protect him and his folly: those parents who sent their children to talmudei Torah knowingly forfeited the benefit established by the state for those who study a long school day and receive a hot meal. Since the parents chose the recognized unofficial education track, they took the initiative to waive their entitlement to the benefit, for the benefit was intended only for those in the general education system. Thus he said, unabashedly and without feeling that there might be a double standard here - for what can be done, these are Haredim and not Arabs; had it been Arabs, they would certainly have said that the state enacted the law for their sake and honor. He even added in his colorful language that not for nothing did the rope follow the bucket, along with other learned legal arguments. And the bottom line: "To deprive the needy of justice, and to rob the judgment of the poor of My people." What can we do, sir? The criteria, the legal counsel will not approve, it is a state of law, one cannot do whatever one pleases.
The Spoil of Widows and the Plunder of Orphans
"That widows may be their spoil" - for this purpose they forged promissory notes. A woman's husband passed away, and suddenly someone arrives and tells her: Madam, perhaps your husband did not disclose all his business dealings to you, but he owes me fifty thousand dollars; here, it is written right here, hand over the apartment. Does she know what her husband owed? She has no idea. "And that they may rob the fatherless" - and then they plunder the orphans and take them as slaves.
Notice that spoil (shalal) and plunder (bizzah) are two different things, as we learned in chapter 8: "Spoil" is what is left behind on its own when the enemy flees - the enemy fled, and whatever remains is called spoil. But from the moment they begin pursuing and each person pockets what he finds - that is already "plunder," what each individual takes for himself. This appears many times in Megillat Esther: "and to plunder their spoil" - what they left behind in their flight, each person went and plundered for himself. So too here: the widows are their spoil, for once he produces the promissory note claiming her husband owed him, everything that remains falls into his hands like ripe fruit. Then he takes action and plunders the widow's child, taking him as a slave - "and the creditor has come to take my two children to be his slaves," since the father still owed money. That is already plunder: each comes and takes for himself.
A Day of Reckoning and a Catastrophe from Afar
וּמַה־תַּעֲשׂוּ לְיוֹם פְּקֻדָּה וּלְשׁוֹאָה מִמֶּרְחָק תָּבוֹא עַל־מִי תָּנוּסוּ לְעֶזְרָה וְאָנָה תַעַזְבוּ כְּבוֹדְכֶם׃ - And what will you do in the day of visitation, and in the desolation which shall come from far? To whom will you flee for help, and where will you leave your glory?
You who commit such terrible acts of wickedness, what will you do on the day the Holy One, Blessed is He, reckons your iniquities? On that day there will be two terrifying things. The first is sho'ah (catastrophe), which is a sudden disaster. When a trouble is expected and one prepares for it, somehow it is possible to get through it; but a disaster that arrives in a single moment is far more difficult. Like the fire in the Carmel forest: had there been small fires over the years, a person killed here and another there, Heaven forbid, people would have prepared and the firefighting apparatus would have been better. But, baruch Hashem, for fifty or sixty years there had been nothing of the sort, and suddenly in one day forty people were killed. That is a catastrophe that strikes all at once, and no one was prepared to know how to cope.
The second thing is "which shall come from far." When a catastrophe comes from a distant place, we do not know its nature, nor do we know where to flee. When trouble comes from nearby, one knows what it entails. For example, during the crisis with Saddam Hussein, what did people do? They taped up windows, grabbed gas masks and atropine injectors - and it was all completely superfluous. Why? Because it was a catastrophe from afar. We know what Egypt has, we know what Hamas and Hezbollah have, but when it comes from afar, one does not know what is being prepared or what surprises are in store - perhaps phosphorus, perhaps poison, perhaps gas. Thus, aside from the surprise itself, there is an additional problem: one does not know what the surprise entails. Therefore: "To whom will you flee for help, and where will you leave your glory?"
Two Bad Choices
בִּלְתִּי כָרַע תַּחַת אַסִּיר וְתַחַת הֲרוּגִים יִפֹּלוּ בְּכׇל־זֹאת לֹא־שָׁב אַפּוֹ וְעוֹד יָדוֹ נְטוּיָה׃ - Without Me they shall kneel under the prisoners, and they shall fall under the slain. For all this His anger is not turned away, but His hand is stretched out still.
This is a direct continuation of the previous verse, and here too the clauses are parallel: "To whom will you flee for help" corresponds to "they shall kneel under the prisoners"; "where will you leave your glory" corresponds to "and they shall fall under the slain." The Malbim explains: In a situation of catastrophe and widespread slaughter, a person looks for a way out of the predicament, and two paths lie before him. The first is the person who seeks to save his life; he is willing to surrender to the enemy, wave a white flag, and raise his hands, provided he stays alive. The second is the person who says: "My honor is dearer to me than my life; I do not want to fall like sheep to the slaughter; it is better that I be etched in the pages of history as a hero," and he chooses death over life.
And so the prophet tells them: If you seek help to save your lives - to whom will you flee? You have no salvation other than kneeling before the enemy to be taken captive; your lives will indeed be spared, but you will fall into the enemy's hands. And if you seek to preserve your honor - "where will you leave your glory?" - you have no choice but to fall among the slain. Your honor will indeed be preserved, but where is the person? The person is dead. Thus, whichever choice you make is terrible: either your honor will be preserved and you will be dead, or you will remain alive but humiliated, kneeling as prisoners taken captive by the enemy.
Ashur - The Rod of My Anger
From verse 5, the prophet turns to speak about Ashur. Ashur was the empire with which the Kingdom of Israel sought to forge an alliance. When they saw that Aram had fallen and Pekach the son of Remalyahu had fallen, they said: Do not worry - "The bricks have fallen, but we will build with hewn stone; the sycamores have been felled, but we will replace them with cedars." Aram fell? No matter, Ashur will come. But they do not realize that this Ashur is the instrument in the hand of the Holy One, blessed be He, to exact retribution from them. They thought to bring them as partners in war against Yehudah, but in the end, Israel themselves would be exiled by Ashur.
הוֹי אַשּׁוּר שֵׁבֶט אַפִּי וּמַטֶּה־הוּא בְיָדָם זַעְמִי׃ - "Woe to Ashur, the rod of My anger, and the staff in their hand is My fury!"
"Hoy" - once again, an expression of calling out. Ashur presumes that he possesses a kingdom and strength of his own accord, unaware that he is merely the rod, the stick of My anger and wrath. My anger flared against the nations and I wished to strike them, and what is the stick with which I strike? Ashur. Furthermore: "And the staff in their hand is My fury" - his dominion is not unlimited either. The staff in his hand is My fury, and he can strike only where I am indignant, against the one with whom I am angry and whom I curse.
And what is the difference between "My anger" (api) and "My fury" (za'ami)? Af relates to wrath - there is internal and there is external; whereas za'am expresses a curse, as in "How shall I curse whom God has not cursed, and how shall I rage where Hashem has not raged?" and "He with whom Hashem is wrathful shall fall there" - anger that gives rise to a curse. Likewise, both shevet (rod) and mateh (staff) are sticks, yet a blow with a mateh is more painful than a blow with a shevet. Therefore: Ashur is the rod of My anger, but when I am furious and wish to curse, he becomes a staff that strikes harder. Furthermore, the Malbim adds: the rod and the staff also signify authority. Scripture speaks of "a rod of rulers" and also "a strong staff, a rod to rule." What is the difference? "Rod" refers to the king, and the "strong staff" in his hand refers to the officers who administer the blows. Once again you see that the staff represents the harsher blow, and the rod the lighter blow.
The Boundaries of the Mission
בְּגוֹי חָנֵף אֲשַׁלְּחֶנּוּ וְעַל־עַם עֶבְרָתִי אֲצַוֶּנּוּ לִשְׁלֹל שָׁלָל וְלָבֹז בַּז וּלְשׂוּמוֹ מִרְמָס כְּחֹמֶר חוּצוֹת׃ - "Against a hypocritical nation I send him, and against the people of My wrath I command him, to take spoil and to seize booty, and to make them a trampling like the clay of the streets."
"Against a hypocritical nation I send him" - the reason I gave him the rod of rulers was so that I could send him against a hypocritical nation, namely Israel, the Ten Tribes. The Malbim explains: a hypocrite (chaneif) is one whose inside does not match his outside, yet he does not commit evil openly. Like a flatterer: I smile at you, say hello, ask how you are, while in my heart I wish you were dead. This is a chaneif, and it is very grave, for he acts with hypocrisy without displaying evil openly.
And corresponding to "and the staff in their hand is My fury," it says, "and against the people of My wrath I command him" - he does not have the dominion to strike everyone, but only those against whom I hold wrath and anger. The tribe that I cursed and upon whom My fury rested was the tribe of Ephraim, not the tribe of Yehudah, who were righteous. All of Ashur's power was only against Ephraim, not against Yehudah. Indeed, when Ashur came against Yehudah, one hundred and eighty thousand troop commanders fell in a single night. Against whom was the Holy One, blessed be He, angry? Only against Israel. Ashur cannot strike whomever he pleases.
Moreover, even against those with whom Hashem was angry, he was not given permission to destroy, but only "to take spoil and to seize booty" - over their property, not over their lives. "And to make them a trampling like the clay of the streets" - he was not even given permission to harm their bodies, but only to trample them like clay fit for building. The Malbim explains: there is a difference between mud (tit) and clay (chomer). Mud is what collects on riverbanks, seashores, and in pits, and is good for nothing. Clay is earth that softens in water, and later, when placed in an oven, hardens and sets, from which vessels are formed - what we call pottery clay today. As it were, the Holy One, blessed be He, says: I did not grant Ashur permission to destroy them, but to trample them like clay fit for building, such that it is still possible to raise them from their ruins, for from clay one can fashion new vessels. But I did not tell him to trample them like the mud of the streets, obliterating them completely until they are fit for nothing. For the entire purpose of suffering is to bring about repentance: I brought it upon the Ten Tribes so that perhaps they would not need to be exiled, perhaps they would repent, perhaps from this clay new earthenware vessels would be formed - not to consume and destroy them.
"Yet He Does Not Think So" - The Arrogance of Ashur
וְהוּא לֹא־כֵן יְדַמֶּה וּלְבָבוֹ לֹא־כֵן יַחְשֹׁב כִּי לְהַשְׁמִיד בִּלְבָבוֹ וּלְהַכְרִית גּוֹיִם לֹא מְעָט׃ - "Yet he does not think so, nor does his heart imagine so; for it is in his heart to destroy, and to cut off not a few nations."
Here, too, the clauses are parallel. Corresponding to "Assyria, the rod of My anger" and "I send him against an ungodly nation," it says, "Yet he does not imagine so" - he does not sense that he is merely the rod of My wrath; he does not feel that his strength stems from Me, but instead believes he possesses independent power. And corresponding to "and the staff in their hand is My fury" and "against the people of My wrath I command him, to take spoil," it says, "nor does his heart think so" - he does not consider that the purpose of his march is to bring them to repentance; rather, in his mind, his goal is to destroy, eliminate, and annihilate.
The Malbim summarizes: The Holy One, blessed be He, restricted his mission with three conditions. First, not to go out to destroy, but rather to rectify and bring to repentance, so that they become like the clay of the streets and not like the mire of the streets. Second, to exercise control over their property - "to take spoil" - and not over their lives. Third, not to harm the righteous, but only the sinners - "and against the people of My wrath I command him." But he did not think so: First, "for it is in his heart to destroy" - and the Malbim explains, to destroy them from their religion and their God, to sever them from their faith. Second, "and to cut off nations" - not merely to take wealth, but also to kill and cut off the nations themselves. Third, "not a few" - I sent him to cut off only a portion, the wicked, yet he goes after everything, the entire lot; everyone is equal in his eyes, the righteous and the wicked alike.
Imagination and Thought
And what is the difference between yedameh (imagines) and yachshov (thinks)? The Malbim explains: Imagination (dimayon) draws its imagery from the senses. When a person touches an unknown object, he might say, "This is soft like rubber." Immediately, the imagination begins to work - what does rubber bring to mind, boots? A tire? This is the faculty of imagination, which takes from the senses and compares. Because of this, imagination often deceives, since one may compare an object to one thing when in reality it resembles something else entirely. In contrast, the faculty of thought (machshavah) does not take its premises and foundations from the senses, but from the intellect: analyzing based on foundational rational premises and prior knowledge.
Examples of imagination: "Do not imagine in your soul that you will escape in the king's palace" - you see a royal palace with your senses and assume you will be saved within it, but that is a false illusion. "And you imagined that I would be like you" - here, too, a deceptive imagination. From this verb also comes the expression damah: "Man is likened to a breath," as well as "they intended (dimu) to kill me" - said by the Levite in the narrative of the concubine in Gibeah, where they did not actually intend to kill him, but so it appeared to him, and in the end they killed his concubine. Nidmeh means that it is not the actual reality. In contrast, thought is close to the truth, since its premises stem from the intellect. Therefore, it is said in Esther, "who plotted (chashav) against the Jews to destroy them" - his plan was nearly realized; he had the means to carry it out, rational calculations were in his heart, and it was not merely an idle illusion.
According to this: "Yet he does not imagine so" - he does not imagine at all that he is a rod and a staff sent by Hashem, but believes that his power is his own. "Nor does his heart think so" - nor does he reason that even if he was sent, he is permitted to strike only those whom Hashem commanded him to strike.
"Are Not My Princes Altogether Kings?" - Assyria's Arguments
כִּי יֹאמַר הֲלֹא שָׂרַי יַחְדָּו מְלָכִים׃ - "For he says: Are not my princes altogether kings?"
Here the prophet explains why Assyria fails to realize that he is the rod of Hashem's anger and the staff of His fury. Assyria says: How can it be said that my rule does not stem from my own power? My power is so immense that each of my ministers commands a vast army and governs like a king! See how many ministers I have, how much dominion, how many dignitaries in my kingdom. My strength derives from the vastness of my camps and my army, not from anyone else.
הֲלֹא כְּכַרְכְּמִישׁ כַּלְנוֹ אִם־לֹא כְאַרְפַּד חֲמָת אִם־לֹא כְדַמֶּשֶׂק שֹׁמְרוֹן׃ - "Is not Calno like Carchemish? Is not Hamath like Arpad? Is not Samaria like Damascus?"
Assyria continues with his arguments: I do not believe that I am a staff in Hashem's hand, and I can prove it. Just as I conquered Carchemish, so I conquered Calno; likewise Arpad and Hamath, Damascus and Samaria. Could it be that among all these cities there was not even one that was sinless? Surely there was at least one city without wicked people, yet I conquered it as well - a sign that I am not a rod in the hand of Hashem, but rather that I conquered them all through my own might and power. And if you counter that all of them sinned and were therefore punished, meaning I am still a rod in the hand of Hashem - each nation should have been punished according to the severity of its iniquity, yet I conquered them all equally. Even if all of them sinned, surely their sins were not identical. This proves that their sin was not the cause of their downfall, and that I am not a rod in the hand of Hashem, but act of my own free will. Such is Assyria's claim.
A Kal VaChomer from the Idolatrous Kingdoms
כַּאֲשֶׁר מָצְאָה יָדִי לְמַמְלְכֹת הָאֱלִיל וּפְסִילֵיהֶם מִירוּשָׁלַ͏ִם וּמִשֹּׁמְרוֹן׃ - As my hand has reached the kingdoms of the idol, whose carved images were from Jerusalem and from Samaria.
And he continues to argue: If so, it is all the more certain (a kal vachomer) that I will be able to conquer Jerusalem as well. For my hand succeeded in conquering "the kingdoms of the idol" - kingdoms that served idols with devotion; moreover, they dedicated their kingdoms to those idols and named their realms after them: the kingdom of such-and-such an idol, the kingdom of so-and-so an idol. If these idols had any power, they would have stopped me! Yet I conquered specifically those kingdoms that glorified their idols to the highest degree and named their kingdoms after them, where the idols seemingly had every incentive to fight their battle - yet they did not fight. And if these nations, who were devoted and zealous in their idol worship, were conquered by me, how much more so Jerusalem, whose inhabitants are not so constant in the service of their God! For in his eyes, the Creator of the world and all other idols were one and the same - dust to his mouth.
And Rashi explains something startling here: "From here we learn that the wicked of Israel supplied images of their idol worship to all the surrounding nations." And once the worshippers of the idols of Samaria and Jerusalem fell into my hands and their idols did not save them, so too Samaria and Jerusalem will not be saved. It is dreadful to contemplate: the Land of Israel had become a manufacturing center for carved idols and pagan worship! Who supplied foreign worship to the kingdoms of the idol? Jerusalem and Samaria. The factories were right here, not in China. From here, idols were exported to all the other nations. And Assyria argues: "Whom can you possibly rely upon? You say you are the manufacturing hub - my friend, I have already seen how your merchandise works! Where did you export to? To all those lands. Did your idols work? Did they save the kingdoms that purchased them from you? If so, I will conquer you as well, even though you are the manufacturers."
"So Will I Do to Jerusalem" - And Assyria's Fatal Error
הֲלֹא כַּאֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתִי לְשֹׁמְרוֹן וְלֶאֱלִילֶיהָ כֵּן אֶעֱשֶׂה לִירוּשָׁלַ͏ִם וְלַעֲצַבֶּיהָ׃ - Shall I not, as I have done to Samaria and her idols, so do to Jerusalem and her images?
And if you should say: Can one really compare these idols - where elil is related to al, meaning "not" or "nothing", having no power whatsoever - to the God of heaven and earth? To this he brings another proof: "Look at what I have already done to Samaria and her idols!" And Samaria was part of the people of Israel. We are standing here before the conquest of Judah, during the siege, years after he had already conquered Samaria. "If I succeeded in conquering Samaria, which is the kingdom of the Holy One, blessed be He, the kingdom of Israel, and the God of Israel did not save them - so too I will succeed in conquering Judah, and the God of Israel will not save them."
Yet where was his mistake? His own words reveal it: "as I have done to Samaria and her idols." Samaria had abandoned Hashem and adopted idols, and that is why you succeeded in conquering them! He assumed that neither their God nor their idols could save them, but he was mistaken: from the moment they adopted idols, they abandoned their God, and the Holy One, blessed be He, no longer willed to protect them; on the contrary, you yourself were their punishment. But Judah was still righteous; this was the generation of Hezekiah, and as we will see further on, how righteous the people of that generation were! And their God has every will and desire to protect His people.
"Elilim" and "Atzabim"
And what is the distinction between elilim and atzabim? The Malbim explains: Atzabim are named for the craftmanship, as in "a despised vessel (etzeb)" - the work of forming them, the manner in which they are made, and after this craftsmanship they are called atzabim. Our Sages also expound that they are called atzabim because they cause grief (ma'atzivim) to their worshippers: a person slaughters sacrifices to them, burns incense to them, bows down and prays to them - and reaps only sorrow (itzavon), for that deity gives him nothing in return. By contrast, elilim means that they have no substance at all, as in "you are all worthless physicians (rof'ei elil)" which Iyov said to his companions - you offer me trivial, insubstantial remedies, all sorts of empty explanations for why I am suffering.
According to this: Samaria's idols he had already conquered, and he already knew that there was no substance to them; therefore, he referred to them as "her elilim" - it was proven that this was al, a "nothing", an utter void. But as for Jerusalem, he had not yet conquered it, so he referred to its objects of worship as "her atzabim" - that crafted work which you serve. He had not yet tested whether he could conquer it; he believed he could, but he could not yet label it an elil of zero substance, since he had not yet put it to the test. Therefore, he categorized it as atzabim.
In summary:
The opening of the chapter is a piercing rebuke of the corruption of lawmakers and judges: iniquitous decrees that subvert the justice due to the poor, and fraudulent records of exploitation that rob widows and orphans - and the prophet asks them what they will do on the day of reckoning and during the sudden catastrophe coming from afar, when all options are grim: either captivity or death. From verse 5 onward, the prophet turns to Assyria and teaches a great principle: Assyria is nothing more than the rod of the wrath and the staff of indignation of the Holy One, blessed be He, and his mission is restricted by three boundaries - to discipline rather than destroy, to seize property rather than lives, and to strike the sinners rather than the righteous. Yet Assyria does not imagine or think so: he attributes all power to himself, to the multitude of his officers and armies, bringing proof from the conquests of Carchemish and Calno, Arpad and Hamath, Damascus and Samaria, and from a kal vachomer of the kingdoms of the idol - until he proclaims, "So will I do to Jerusalem and her images." And here lies his mistake: Samaria fell because she abandoned her God and adopted idols, but Judah in the generation of Hezekiah was righteous, and the God of Israel has the will and desire to protect His people.