And like a hunted gazelle, and like sheep that none gather in, each will turn to his own people, and each will flee to his own land. The Malbim says: now the prophet turns to detail how their downfall will come, how their harm will play out. He begins to describe their destruction, and at first he speaks of the foreign peoples who were in Bavel. As is well known, Bavel was the pride of kingdoms, a merchant nation, the peddler of the peoples. People came from all over the world to trade in Bavel. As with any country that is regarded as a central power, everyone gathers there to do business with it. So there were many merchants who came to Bavel to conduct their trade there. First, then, the prophet describes them, those who came from other lands. Concerning them he says, and like a hunted gazelle, and like sheep that none gather in. The Malbim explains that there are two metaphors here. There is a metaphor of a gazelle that is hunted, meaning driven away, and there are sheep that no one gathers in. What are these two metaphors? What is the difference between a hunted gazelle and sheep that none gather in? And what is the meaning in the analogy itself? Let us explain. Sheep, says the Malbim, in order for the shepherd to protect them from every danger, must be gathered together. They must be assembled so that the flock is together, and then they are safe, even out in the field, even in the forest. When the sheep are gathered, they have protection. Therefore, in connection with sheep we always find the expression of gathering. In contrast, the gazelle, says the Malbim, there is no way to gather them. Gazelles do not travel in groups, they travel alone. It is not in their nature to gather into flocks. "Be like a gazelle, my beloved, upon the mountains of separation." A solitary gazelle.
Climbing upon the mountains of separation. The one thing it needs is some special place where it can dwell and find protection, on some rocky crag, in some cave or fortress where it can hide from the beasts that pursue it, from the beasts that are stronger than it. When it leaves its lair, the gazelle is no longer safe. A lion or other predators can devour it. This is why he says, the gazelle, when the gazelle is driven from its place, meaning it is not in its lair, it is in a state of danger. When the sheep are scattered, they are in a state of danger. The gazelle needs to be brought back, and therefore the Malbim points out how in so many places the word "driven away" is always accompanied by a verb of returning. "To bring back the one driven away." He is driven off, he must be returned. In contrast, regarding sheep it is written, "I will gather." Because, as we said, they must be assembled. Along these lines, let us now understand the analogy. The Malbim says: the foreigners, the gentiles who were there in Bavel, meaning those who are not locals, people for whom until now Bavel had been like a home, they lived here, they traded here. Now, when this place is captured by the nations, meaning when Bavel is undergoing a process of conquest, when Bavel is conquered and the city is captured, they will be regarded either as a hunted gazelle or as scattered sheep. Meaning, a hunted gazelle seeks its own land. It will want to run swiftly to its own land, just as the gazelle seeks its lair in order to take refuge there. The scattered sheep seek to be gathered, as we explained, they seek to be together with their own people. So corresponding to the hunted gazelle he says, each will flee to his own land, just as the gazelle seeks its lair. And corresponding to the sheep he tells you, that none gather in, that there will be no one there to gather them, so here, each will turn to his own people. Each one will seek out his own nation, just as sheep seek out other sheep in order to be together with them, for this gives them a feeling of security. And all this will bring about the reality that they will flee from Bavel, and this describes how great the downfall will be, like mice fleeing a sinking ship. Whoever can flee and escape from there, flees.
Everyone found will be pierced through, and everyone caught up will fall by the sword. Everyone found will be pierced through, the Malbim explains: what is the reason that each will turn to his own people? Why will they turn, as we said, in a large crowd? Because if they go alone, without gathering together in groups to flee, then whoever is found, meaning found alone, will be pierced through. So in order not to reach this situation, they will gather together to flee, and then when they flee as a group they are protected by this. Why does each flee to his own land? Why not join with the Babylonians to fight against the enemies? You were here, you lived here for a period of time, granted you are not a local, but perhaps you might fight alongside them against the enemies? Concerning this he says, for everyone who is added on to the army of war will fall by the sword. "Nispeh," the Malbim explains, has two meanings. There is the familiar expression, where "nispeh" means an expression like "there is one destroyed without justice," a term of destruction. Like "perished in war" and similar expressions. And there is "nispeh" from the root of addition, "add year upon year." "Add your burnt offerings to your sacrifices," correct? "And eat meat." There is "safu," which is from the root of addition. The Malbim says here that the meaning here is from the root of addition, not from the root of perishing. For indeed there is a bit of a difficulty here: everyone caught up will fall by the sword. He has already perished. "Nispeh," you say, means one who died in war. So what does "will fall by the sword" mean? One could explain that everyone "nispeh": how will he perish? By the falling of the sword. But the Malbim explains that the meaning is: if he wishes to be "nispeh" in the sense of being added on to the Babylonians in order to fight together with them against the enemies, he will fall by the sword. So this is the reason they flee. This is the reason that no one stays here to fight against the enemies.
And their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes, their houses will be plundered, and their wives will be ravished. It is written "tishagalnah" but the way it is read, the kri, is "tishachavnah." The Malbim explains: this too refers to the people who came to Bavel from other lands. Their infants, they will not be able to flee with them, they will be dashed to pieces. "Dashed to pieces" means they are thrown against the walls, and "to dash to pieces" always means that one loses the form of his face. That is the meaning of "dashed to pieces." Even today we use this expression, that the corpse is mangled, meaning it cannot be identified. So the enemies will dash their infants to pieces, and plunder their houses, which means from the root of taking spoil, they will take all that they have there in the houses. And their wives will be ravished, which really means even the private and personal possession of a person, namely his wife, even that will not remain with them. The Malbim explains that "dashed to pieces" always applies only to a human corpse. We never find the expression "dashed to pieces" used for an animal, for example, or in borrowed usage for houses or other places, but it always comes as an expression for a human corpse, to say that his death is so gruesome that he cannot be identified. One cannot even recognize his limbs.
Behold, I am stirring up against them Madai, who do not value silver and take no delight in gold. The Holy One, blessed be He, says: whom shall I bring against them to fight against them? It will be Madai. And do not think you can come to terms with these Medes. He tells you, they do not value silver and take no delight in gold. Now the Malbim describes: this verse comes to explain, until now we spoke about those who came to Bavel and what their punishment will be. Now he describes what will happen to the Babylonians themselves, not the merchants who came there, but the people of Bavel. Concerning this he says, the enemy will not come upon them as he came, as we saw earlier, against the foreigners. Why did he come against the foreigners? To take their wives, their property, their silver. That is what he seeks. In contrast, with the Babylonians that is not what he seeks; he wants their lives. And silver will not be able to bribe him. This is what he says here. And note: they do not value silver. The Malbim explains, notice here, the precision of the language is great. They do not value silver. Silver will be worth nothing to them. Tell him, we will give you silver, silver will not be valued. When we speak of silver we do not mean paper money, silver means the metal silver. As for gold, you cannot say "they do not value it." Gold truly has great value that everyone appreciates. You will not find a person who denies the importance of gold. He says, but in any case they will take no delight in it. Meaning, he now takes no delight in gold, he would rather kill the Babylonians than have their gold. The Malbim explains that there is also a difference in the Holy Tongue between "valuing" and "delighting." The Malbim says: a person may value something for its worth, yet take no delight in it. For example, a person may hold a Torah scholar, a ben Torah, in high regard. Do you want your son to be one? No, I am sending my son to high tech. Do you understand? He esteems him, yes, but to desire that his son be one, no, these are two separate things. I can appreciate something, yet my appreciation still does not mean I desire it. And the opposite can also be true. It can be that a person desires something, yet that thing is utterly worthless. The madman of Radin, right? Give me a bit of tobacco, who traveled to a nearby town, three days there, three days back, just for a bit of tobacco, a pinch of tobacco. So it can be that a person desires something, yet it has no real value. Therefore he says, it can be that a person desires but does not value, the thing is not important in his eyes. So it can be important in his eyes yet he does not desire it, and it can be that he desires it yet it is not important in his eyes. Concerning this he says, behold, I am stirring up Madai, who do not value silver, silver will not be important in their eyes, even though it may be that they do desire it. And gold, they will take no delight in it there, meaning gold is surely important in their eyes, but as for delighting in it, I would rather now kill the Babylonians than receive gold, even though it truly is important in their eyes.
And their bows will dash the young men to pieces, they will have no compassion on the fruit of the womb, their eye will not spare the children. The Malbim says: this connects to what we discussed earlier. Behold, I am stirring up Madai, and behold, I am stirring up bows that will dash young men to pieces. Meaning, the phrase "behold, I am stirring up" written earlier applies here as well. It is like "who has not made our portion like theirs and our lot," meaning "and not our lot like all their multitude," so too here. It is as if it were written, behold, I am stirring up against them Madai, behold, I am stirring up against them those whose bows will dash young men to pieces. Bows, I am stirring up here bows with which they will dash the young men to pieces by means of the bow. That is one explanation. The Malbim offers another explanation, one that is somewhat difficult in its cruelty: he says that they placed the young men in the bows in place of the arrows. That is, a bow, you draw the string and it shoots the arrow. They placed the young men in great bows, drew the string, and shot them. That is the meaning of "their bows will dash the young men to pieces." The bows with which they shot the young men, and by this the young men were dashed to pieces. There was a terrible instance of this, though not by a bow but perhaps by a modern kind of launcher, an incident with Rabbi David, the brother of the Baba Sali, may the memory of the righteous be a blessing, may Hashem avenge his blood. There was an incident where they placed him in a cannon and fired him. May the Merciful One spare us. As is known, he died a gruesome death, and the Baba Sali had very, very great grief over this, and there is a story that he came to him in a dream; we once told the story at length. In any case, they will hurl the young men from a bow, just as a person shoots and hurls slingstones.
They will have no compassion on the fruit of the womb. The Malbim says: there is a difference between the fruit of the womb, which refers to nursing infants, and children, who are older. What is the difference between "having compassion" and "sparing"? This is a matter the Malbim mentioned several times, and we learned it as well in connection with the war against Amalek. The Malbim says: compassion applies only to living creatures or human beings, that a person cannot bear to see their distress, so he has compassion on them. He cannot bear to see one suffer, so he has compassion on him. In contrast, says the Malbim, the term "sparing" is generally used for sparing property. I spare something because it is a pity, a pity to throw it away. So, for example, if there is some table, and your wife says we have no more use for it, you do not throw it in the trash, not because you have compassion on it. Oh, poor thing, it will suffer. No, you spare it. You say it is a pity to throw it in the trash, maybe someone will make use of it, you ask, maybe someone wants a working table, and so on. So I would say about the table that I spare it. But in contrast, if for example you have some puppies and you want to throw them out, and you say, wait, how will they survive now? They will die. You have compassion on them. There is no sparing of property there; no, you have compassion on them, how will they survive. So the Malbim says: compassion always applies to living creatures or human beings, and sparing is something that applies to matters of property, I do not have compassion on it, I spare it so that it not go to waste. The Malbim says: it is the nature of soldiers to have compassion on little children. For what harm does a three year old boy do; now take him and kill him? I am not speaking of the Nazis, I am speaking of more humane people. And they have more compassion on them than on the young men. A soldier has no problem killing a young man, but a little one, he would have more pangs of conscience. Why? Because the young man is someone fighting against me. He is a force that, if I do not kill him, will kill me. But a three year old boy, why would you kill him? So it is harder for a person's conscience. So having compassion, one has more compassion on the little ones than on the older ones. But there is another reality, and it can be a reason for the opposite, that they let the older ones live and not the little ones. When? When he wants to take them as slaves. He has no use for a three year old boy; is he going to raise him until he is fit for slavery? He now has young men of fifteen, whom he can put to work today. He can use them today. The Malbim says: now, notice, how do we define the fact that he now keeps the young men alive? Is it compassion? No, he spares them. It is a pity, they are worth money, this one can be taken as a slave. In contrast, regarding the little ones, does he spare them? No. On the little ones he has compassion. He has compassion on him, he says, poor thing, he will die, he will suffer, he has compassion on him. On the older one he has no compassion, but he spares him, for he says this is waste, he is worth money, here are slaves. Therefore the Malbim says, they will have no compassion on the fruit of the womb. When it comes to the fruit of the womb, on whom it is natural to have compassion, they will have no compassion. On children, who are the older ones, they have no compassion, but at any rate they spare them to take them into slavery; "their eye will not spare the children" means that even to this end they will not spare them, they will not care, and these too they will kill.
The Malbim gives examples of the matter of sparing. The Malbim says, like "you spared the kikayon plant"; did he have compassion on it? Surely there "sparing" means in the sense that it is a pity for this thing to be destroyed. "Do not spare your vessels," and so on. In light of this, hear how wonderful; the Malbim says, a Gemara becomes clear to us. A Gemara in Tractate Berachot, on page 33. Malbim, Sefer Yeshayahu, chapter 13, verse 18. The Malbim says: one who says over a bird's nest "may Your mercy reach," we silence him. Two Amoraim disagree about this. One says: because he makes the attributes of the Holy One, blessed be He, into mercy. One says, when you say Master of the Universe You have mercy on the bird's nest, you are as if saying that the attributes of the Holy One, blessed be He, are mercy. That is, that these are not deliberate decrees from Him, blessed be He, but rather Hashem has mercy on it, in the sense that it is not out of mercy, it is out of a decree. The Holy One, blessed be He, established the law this way. When you say, no, Hashem said "you shall surely send away the mother," it is out of mercy, no, it is by the decree of the Omnipresent, and these are decrees, not out of mercy. One says: because he introduces envy into the works of creation. The other says, no, it is because you introduce envy into the works of creation. That is, the Holy One, blessed be He, said do not take the mother with the young, where? At a bird's nest. But if I want to take a cow, mother along with young? That is no problem for you. With all other creatures, mother along with young, no problem. You introduce envy into the works of creation. Hashem has mercy on the birds and not on the other creatures. That is the reason we do not say "may Your mercy reach over a bird's nest," that Hashem, Your mercy is upon a bird's nest. Well, the Gemara brings an incident. A certain man went down before Rabbah and said: You spared the bird's nest, spare us and have mercy on us. Rabbah said: how well this man knows to appease his Master. Rabbah heard this and said, oh, how wonderful, how he knows to appease his Master, what a special prayer. Abaye said to him: but did we not learn in the Mishnah that we silence him? Abaye is astonished: over a bird's nest we silence him. The Gemara says: and Rabbah was only sharpening Abaye's mind. Abaye grew up in Rabbah's house, "as for the orphan, mercy is shown," an acronym of Abaye's name; he grew up with Rabbah bar Nachmani, and since that was so, Rabbah would sometimes say things to him in order to sharpen him, to see his keenness. The Gemara says he did this to sharpen him. The Malbim explains: the one praying here changed the wording. He said, You spared the bird's nest. Notice, how is it written in the Mishnah? One who says over a bird's nest "may Your mercy reach," we silence him. Here he did not say "Your mercy"; what did he say? You spared the bird's nest. According to the reason that he makes the attributes of the Holy One, blessed be He, into mercy, it is not fitting to silence him, since he did not say mercy, he said "spared." He did not mention the matter of mercy, he mentioned "spared." And so indeed Rabbah did not silence him. In the Mishnah it is written that we silence him, yet Rabbah did not silence him. But in contrast, according to the reason that he introduces envy into the works of creation, what does that mean? Even if you say You spared the bird's nest, you still introduce envy. Hashem spared the bird's nest, as it were, it is a pity to destroy it, but a raven, other creatures, other domestic and wild animals, it is no great matter if they are destroyed. So you still introduce envy into the works of creation. Even if you say it is not because I have mercy on it, but because it is a pity to destroy it, you still introduce envy into the works of creation. And so, it turns out that according to this his prayer was not a good prayer. You are as if saying to the Holy One, blessed be He, that He does not care that some be destroyed and some survive. That is not a proper prayer. After Rabbah praises him, Abaye says to him, but we learned that we silence him. What does this mean? Notice, this was not merely a superficial discussion. The Malbim explains: the Mishnah did not state the reason. The Mishnah did not explain to us whether it is because of introducing envy into the works of creation or because he makes the attributes of the Holy One, blessed be He, into mercy. Abaye comes and argues, it was not fitting to pray with such wording, since this wording, as we now explained, is not agreed upon. Even if you say "spared," from the aspect of introducing envy, it still introduces envy. Granted that saying "may Your mercy reach over a bird's nest" relates to the mercy of the Holy One, blessed be He, and he did not say mercy, he said "spared." But from the aspect of envy in the works of creation, it does apply. This was Abaye's argument. So it was not fitting to pray with such wording, since this wording actually creates a problem, whether it is proper or improper, depending on which reason in the Mishnah. The Mishnah does not state a reason. And if no reason is stated, then one should avoid such wording altogether. So the Malbim explains, very wonderful.
And Bavel, the pride of kingdoms, the glory of the majesty of the Chaldeans, will be like God's overthrow of Sedom and Amorah. And Bavel will be the pride of kingdoms. What is "tzvi" here? It means the desire of the kingdoms. "Tzvi" always denotes will, denotes desire. So Bavel was the desire of the kingdoms. Their desire and wish was Bavel, or to be like Bavel. The Malbim says: according to the grandeur and greatness of a kingdom's majesty, correspondingly they would build its capital city. The greater the kingdom, they would not make it some small capital, I mean, some Shlomi. A center, they build something with fortresses, something mighty. Go look at the Kremlin. A great kingdom builds itself a great royal city, for glory and full of beauty. Concerning this he says, Bavel was the glory of the majesty of the Chaldeans. Meaning, they took pride there in Bavel, it was in its beauty compared to the majesty of the Chaldeans, meaning they measured it against the Chaldeans. Bavel and the Chaldeans are one and the same. These are two peoples who lived in the same place, so at times they are called Babylonians and at times Chaldeans. And now it will be like God's overthrow of Sedom and Amorah. Just as Hashem overturned Sedom and Amorah, so will Bavel be. It will never be settled, nor dwelt in from generation to generation, no Arab will pitch a tent there, and shepherds will not make their flocks rest there. It will never be settled, meaning there will be no permanent settlement there. And not only that, it will not even be dwelt in from generation to generation. The Malbim explains that there is a difference between "to be settled" and "to dwell." "To be settled" means a prolonged dwelling. In contrast, "to dwell" is even temporary. Staying temporarily is called "dwelling." It will never be settled, and it will not even be dwelt in temporarily. And no Arab will pitch a tent there. "Yahel," the Malbim explains, is from the root of "his light shone." Though the more familiar plain meaning is what Rashi explains, no Arab will pitch a tent there, as if the letter aleph fell out. An Arab will not build a tent there. That is the meaning of no Arab will pitch a tent there. But the Malbim explains that "yahel" is in the sense of "his light shone." The Malbim explains that "aravi" here is not in the sense of Arabs, as Rashi explains, and "yahel" is not in the sense of pitching a tent, as Rashi explains, but rather "aravi" is from the root of evening and twilight. "No light will shine there," meaning, a person for whom night falls, who is now traveling in the evening, must go find a place to rest. They would not travel at night, so he must have a place where he can lodge. He says, there he will not kindle a light, and he will have nothing there to lie down and sleep in; on the contrary, he will be afraid of the snakes and scorpions and beasts that always infest ruined places. So he will have no light there in this place, no light will shine, and "aravi" means at evening time, he will seek out another place. That is, this place will be so repugnant that even one seeking some place, even a ruin, to lodge in for a single night, will not go to lodge in this place. And even the shepherds, who would have their flocks rest by day, not at night, which you would say is a time of fear, even they, shepherds, will not have their flocks rest there. This place will be so desolate that they will not have their flocks rest there. "They will not make them rest there" means they will not let the sheep lie down there. The Malbim explains that there is a difference between "generation to generation" and "forever." This is an explanation the Malbim gives in several places. When we speak of time from its beginning to its end, over the entire span of time, we speak of "forever" or "for eternity." We are speaking of the whole span of time. In contrast, when he wants to speak of time as it divides into periods and eras, when he wants to speak with you about long periods but divides them into set portions, then he says "generation to generation." The expression is "generation to generation," and not "forever," which means from the beginning of time to its end. Here, corresponding to permanent settlement, "it will not be settled," he says "forever." Permanent settlement is without interruption, it is forever. He says here, forever it will not be settled. Dwelling, as we said "yishkon," is temporary. So he says, they will not even dwell there temporarily, this is "from generation to generation." Meaning, in no generation will they dwell there temporarily. That is the meaning of "from generation to generation."
Wild beasts of the desert will lie there, and their houses will be full of howling creatures, and ostriches will dwell there, and satyrs will dance there. Wild beasts of the desert will lie there. The Malbim explains: here he describes for us something like an inhabited country, where there are people living in houses, cattle lying in the field, birds in the trees, little children dancing in the streets. Now he will show you how all this has vanished, what the Holy One, blessed be He, brought upon them. Corresponding to the cattle that lie down when there is an inhabited country, he says wild desert beasts will lie there. "Tziyim," as Rashi and the Radak explain, means weasels. These are creatures found in ruined places. Corresponding to the people who dwell in the houses, he says, and their houses will be full of howling creatures. The Malbim explains that this is a kind of monkey. So instead of people being in the houses, here their houses will have monkeys there. By the way, today "oach," "oach" as it is said, is a term for a bird of the owl family. Yes, that is another interpretation of the word "oach," but according to the Malbim it is a monkey. And corresponding to the birds, which dwell, for the term generally used regarding them is "to dwell," "a bird will dwell there," right? Concerning this he says, there will be ostriches there. Ostriches too are an expression for a ruined place; these are the ones who dwell there, ostriches. And the dancers, these are the satyrs. Satyrs will dance there. And "satyrs" means demons. They are the ones who will dance there in those places; in place of children dancing in the streets, satyrs will dance there. The "tziyim," the Malbim says, as we explained, are creatures found in a place of drought, and therefore they are called "tziyim." A place of drought is a place that is desert and desolate.
And jackals will cry in their palaces, and wild dogs in the halls of delight, and its time is near to come, and its days will not be prolonged. And jackals will cry in their palaces. The Malbim says: in the palaces of the nobles, that was the place where everyone would gather, and there were places there like rooms, we would define them as more private rooms. So the great hall, where everyone gathers to take delight in joy, in songs, and there are small rooms, for whoever wants to be more alone with himself. Concerning this he says, the "iyim," which is a creature that comes from an island of the sea, is called "iyim." It cannot join with the other creatures. They will cry in "almenotav." "Almenotav," the Malbim explains, is not from the root of "widow," but from the root of "hall," like "his halls." That is "almenotav." They will cry in the small halls, in the small rooms. In contrast, the wild dogs, which are creatures that do join with other creatures, will cry in the halls of delight, meaning in the great halls where they gather together and take delight. And its time is near to come. "Its time is near to come" means, the Malbim says, when a kingdom falls, when its reign ceases, it is for one of two reasons. Either its measure has been filled. The time has come for the Holy One, blessed be He, to exact retribution from it, "for the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet complete." Once its iniquity is complete, the fierce anger of Hashem comes upon it. The second possibility is that it may well be that in their own right their iniquity is not complete, but the place is now due to someone else. That is, there is a reward due to someone else, and therefore this nation must fall, because now the time has come for another nation's reign, even if the first nation does not deserve to fall. Concerning this he says, the kingdom of Bavel will come to an end for both of these reasons. First, its time is near to come, this is from the aspect of punishment. The time has come to punish it for the harm and distress it caused Israel. Second, the time has come for the reign of Israel. The time has come for Israel to go out from the exile, seventy years of exile, for the people of Israel to leave the exile and build the Second Temple. And then, first of all, the kingdom of Bavel must come to an end, and therefore Bavel's days are set at seventy years. It was set in advance. And whether they be worthy, it does not depend on that. It does not depend on that. Our redemption is in another seventy years. So whether the Babylonians be deserving or not deserving, we will go out in any case, and there will be a downfall for Bavel. Concerning this he says, and its days, which are set for it, will not be prolonged. They will end at the close of seventy years, even if in their own right they had no iniquity, its days will not be prolonged because our time has come. Beyond that its time is near to come, since they truly do have iniquity, and then their time has come, and this, as we said, is from the aspect of the punishment due to them for their evil deeds.
The remarkable thing here about this prophecy: we have in fact finished the chapter here, but we want to add one small addition. The remarkable thing about this prophecy is that it is one of the prophecies whose fulfillment, wondrously, is visible before our eyes to this very day. First, what the prophet Yeshayahu describes here, that Bavel, the pride of kingdoms, the glory of the majesty of the Chaldeans, like God's overthrow of Sedom and Amorah, will never be settled, will not be dwelt in from generation to generation, he prophesies about them a very harsh prophecy. So too Yirmiyahu says, for it will be eternal desolations, says Hashem. The prophets prophesy that Bavel will be destroyed, that it will have no lasting existence. What do we see afterward? Dr. Pinchas Biberfeld, in his book Ancient Jewish History, meaning ancient Jewish history, says: after the reign of Koresh, Bavel continued for a while to be an important city, one of the capitals of the Persian Empire. But little by little the city fell into irreparable ruin. Finally Bavel vanished from the stage of history. It became a mound of ruins down to our own time. And its ruins serve as a silent, constant testimony to the truth of Hebrew prophecy. There are photographs of Bavel, photographs meaning of Bavel, referring to the royal city. One sees ruins. You know that Saddam Hussein, one of his grandiose plans, as part of the notion he held that he was the modern Nebuchadnezzar, he planned to rebuild the ruins of Bavel. But Hashem took him even before he emerged from some hole there, even before he carried it out. So I say, all your plans have no meaning, for we have a prophecy that says Bavel will never be rebuilt. Bavel will never be rebuilt, forever it will be desolations. In the language of the Biblical Encyclopedia, under the entry Bavel, it writes: a city that during the second and first millennia BCE was the capital of various empires, of which nothing remains today but a vast field of ruins on the bank of the Euphrates River, on its eastern side. Now think, could such a thing have been foreseen in advance? If someone today told you, listen, Washington will be utterly destroyed, and for years, thousands of years, it will not be rebuilt, it will all be ruins, the thing would sound illogical to us. It sounds illogical to us, especially since we see it today at its full strength. Now if you were speaking about a city in its decline, I would listen. But you are speaking here about a city at the height of its glory. What is the logic that this would happen? And especially since you should know that in their times it was very, very rare for a city to be destroyed and not rebuilt. What is the simple reason? They built with stones. Not concrete blocks. Today, when you have blocks, you demolish, you have to look for a landfill. In their times they built with stones. A city was destroyed, they take the stones, they build again. That is one thing. Second, there was infrastructure. There is a city, so there in that city there are roads, there are wells, there is infrastructure. So when they demolished a city, destroyed it for whatever reason, they would immediately go and build in the same place. That is why they went and rebuilt Yericho anew. Chiel of Beit HaEli. There is a great temptation to build in a place that was destroyed. And here the prophet testifies, this is the royal city, built to the highest standard, and it will be destroyed, and no one will care about its stones, or the location, or the infrastructure, nothing. The place will remain a ruined place, a place that will never be rebuilt. What is the logic in saying such a thing? How could Yeshayahu, how could Yirmiyahu, two prophets, make such a prophecy, taking such an enormous risk that perhaps their words would not come true? Unless prophecy is from Heaven. And this is one of the testimonies to prophecy from Heaven. We have many more such testimonies, that there is a prophecy that the Western Wall will never be destroyed. Twelve times Yerushalayim was destroyed. In some cases it was even plowed over completely, "Zion will be plowed as a field." And the Western Wall remained standing. The Wall still exists. And whoever wants, goes to see excavations deep in the ground, many meters, and the Western Wall remained standing. So we have many more such prophecies about the people of Israel, about its eternal existence, and more. These things teach that there is only one nation in the world, one nation in the world, and in all of history, that dared to utter any prophecy. Because there is only one nation that receives a message directly from Hashem. And once there was some prophet to the nations, as Moshe Rabbeinu requested, that there be no more prophecy among the nations. And since then there is no prophecy among the nations at all. "And we shall be distinguished, I and Your people," and the Holy One, blessed be He, told him that you will receive this too, there will be no more prophet among the nations. Therefore, when we see a prophecy, even if the prophecy has not yet been fulfilled, when you have a book of which eighty percent has already been fulfilled, and they tell you there is another twenty percent, no one has any doubt that it will be fulfilled. And if we see that the people of Israel, the redemption, we are already in the midst of the process, and "you, O mountains of Israel, will give forth your branches and bear your fruit for My people Israel, for they are soon to come." Our Sages say that when the Land begins to give forth its fruits, you have no clearer sign of the end than this. And behold, there is a prophecy that the people of Israel will return to their land, and they are beginning to return to their land. And we see that peace is beginning with the surrounding nations as well, like the prophecies that say they will all in the future serve with one shoulder, and suddenly someone recalls the Abraham Accords. Someone recalls Avraham Avinu. Suddenly you hear from Muslims who tell you, what do you want, they were here before them. They were here before the Palestinians. Muslims tell you this today. That is, we are in some process, and this process is drawing near to all that is written in the books of prophecy, that with Hashem's help there will be a complete redemption, and Mashiach will come, and we will merit to see, eye to eye, Hashem's return to Zion, speedily, amen.