In this section of the "Prophecy of Babylon", the prophet transitions from the general description of the Day of Hashem and the fierce wrath to the specific details: exactly how Babylon will fall, and what will become of its inhabitants. The Malbim divides this description into two stages: first, the fate of the foreigners who came to Babylon, and then the fate of the native Babylonians themselves. We must remember that Babylon was the "glory of kingdoms", the merchant of nations, a global commercial hub to which merchants streamed from every corner of the earth, as is typical of any central empire where people gather to trade. It is these foreigners whom the prophet describes first.
וְהָיָה כִּצְבִי מֻדָּח וּכְצֹאן וְאֵין מְקַבֵּץ אִישׁ אֶל־עַמּוֹ יִפְנוּ וְאִישׁ אֶל־אַרְצוֹ יָנוּסוּ׃ - And it shall be like a chased gazelle and like sheep with none to gather them; each man will turn to his own people, and each man will flee to his own land.
There are two parables here, and the Malbim explains the distinction between them. In order for a shepherd to protect sheep from harm, he must gather them together. When the flock is assembled together, it is protected both in the field and in the forest. Therefore, the term "gathering" (kibbutz) is consistently used in reference to sheep. A gazelle, by contrast, does not travel in herds; gathering together is not in its nature. "Be like a gazelle, my beloved" - a solitary gazelle, leaping upon the rugged mountains. Instead, the gazelle requires a secure lair: a crag of rock, a cave, or a fortress where it can hide from predators stronger than itself. When it is chased away from its lair, it is in grave danger. Therefore, concerning a displaced creature (nidach), the verb of returning is used, "to bring back the strayed" (lehashiv et hanidachat), for it needs to be returned to its place; whereas regarding sheep, the term of gathering is used, for they need to be brought together.
The application is this: the foreigners dwelling in Babylon, who were not native residents but had come to trade and established their homes there, will be like a hunted gazelle and scattered sheep when the city is conquered by invading nations. The driven gazelle seeks its shelter - and corresponding to this, "each man will flee to his own land", everyone running to his homeland to find refuge there. The scattered sheep seek to gather together - and corresponding to this, "with none to gather them", and therefore "each man will turn to his own people", everyone seeking his fellow countrymen, as being together provides a sense of security. All of this illustrates the magnitude of the collapse: like rats fleeing a sinking ship, whoever can escape escapes.
כׇּל־הַנִּמְצָא יִדָּקֵר וְכׇל־הַנִּסְפֶּה יִפּוֹל בֶּחָרֶב׃ - Everyone who is found will be thrust through, and everyone who joins them will fall by the sword.
The Malbim explains: this verse provides the reason for both parts of the preceding verse. Why do "each man turn to his own people" - why do they flee in a crowd rather than alone? Because whoever is found alone will be thrust through. To prevent this, they assemble together, and fleeing as a group affords them protection. And why do "each man flee to his own land" - why not join the Babylonians to fight the enemy, after having lived there for years? To this the verse responds, "and everyone who joins them will fall by the sword."
In clarifying the word nispeh, the Malbim notes that it has two meanings: destruction, as in "there is that is swept away (nispeh) without justice" (Mishlei 13:23); and addition, as in "add (sefu) year to year" (Yeshayahu 29:1), or "add your burnt offerings to your sacrifices and eat meat" (Yirmeyahu 7:21). Here, the Malbim explains, it means addition. For there is a difficulty in the literal reading: if someone has already perished (nispeh), what does it mean that he "will fall by the sword"? Rather, the meaning is that whoever seeks to attach himself and be added to the Babylonians to join their army will fall by the sword. This is the reason why everyone flees and no one remains to fight.
וְעֹלְלֵיהֶם יְרֻטְּשׁוּ לְעֵינֵיהֶם יִשַּׁסּוּ בָּתֵּיהֶם וּנְשֵׁיהֶם תִּשָּׁכַבְנָה׃ - Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be plundered and their wives ravished.
The written text (*kethiv*) is "ישגלו" / "תשגלנה" and the reading tradition (*qeri*) is tishachavnah ("shall be ravished"). This verse as well, Malbim explains, refers to those foreigners who came to Babylon from other lands. They will not be able to take their infants with them as they flee, and they will be dashed to pieces - thrown against the walls. "To dash to pieces" (*lerateish*) means that the one killed loses all facial form, just as people say today of a mutilated body that cannot be identified. "Their houses shall be plundered" - an expression of looting, taking everything found in the homes. "And their wives ravished" - that even a person's most private and personal possession will not remain his. Malbim notes with precision: the expression ritush (dashing/mutilation) always applies only to a human corpse, never to an animal and never metaphorically to houses or places, indicating a death so unnatural and horrific that the victim cannot be recognized, nor can his limbs be identified.
הִנְנִי מֵעִיר עֲלֵיהֶם אֶת־מָדַי אֲשֶׁר־כֶּסֶף לֹא יַחְשֹׁבוּ וְזָהָב לֹא יַחְפְּצוּ־בוֹ׃ - "Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, who do not value silver, and as for gold, they do not desire it."
Here the prophet turns to describe the fate of the Babylonians themselves, not the merchants who came there. Who will come against them? Media. And do not imagine that it will be possible to settle with them through money. The enemy will not come upon them as he did upon the foreigners - there, he sought women, property, and silver; here, he seeks lives, and he cannot be bribed with money.
Malbim offers a wonderful insight into the precise wording. "They do not value silver" - silver is considered nothing in their eyes; offer them silver, and it holds no worth to them. Yet regarding gold, one cannot say "they do not value it," for gold possesses great worth that everyone recognizes, and no one would deny its value; therefore Scripture says, "they do not desire it" - it is indeed valued by them, but they do not desire it now, because they prefer killing the Babylonians over receiving their gold.
And this is the distinction between "to value" (*lachshov*) and "to desire" (*lachpotz*): A person may value something because of its inherent worth and yet not desire it. A person respects a *talmid chacham* and a *ben Torah* - but when asked whether he wants his son to become one, he answers: No, I am sending my son into high-tech. There is esteem here, but not desire. The reverse is also possible: a person may desire something that possesses no value whatsoever. Like the famous eccentric of Radin who traveled three days each way to a neighboring town just for a pinch of snuff. Desire - yes; value - none. Therefore it says, "they do not value silver," for even if they were to desire it, it holds no importance in their eyes, and "as for gold, they do not desire it," for even though it is certainly important to them, they do not desire it now.
וּקְשָׁתוֹת נְעָרִים תְּרַטַּשְׁנָה וּפְרִי־בֶטֶן לֹא יְרַחֵמוּ עַל־בָּנִים לֹא־תָחוּס עֵינָם׃ - "And bows shall dash young men to pieces; and they shall have no mercy on the fruit of the womb, nor shall their eye pity children."
Malbim explains that this verse carries over from the previous one: "Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them" - I will stir up against them bows that shall dash young men to pieces. This is similar to what we say in *Aleinu*: "Who has not made our portion like theirs, nor our lot like that of all their multitude," where the opening words "Who has not made" carry over into the next clause as well. Meaning: I will stir up against them bows with which they will dash the youths to pieces. Malbim also cites another explanation, chilling in its cruelty: that they would place the young men into the bows in place of arrows, draw the bowstring, and shoot them, and in this manner "they shall dash them to pieces." There was a horrific incident of this kind, though not with an ancient bow but with its modern equivalent: the story of Rabbi David Abuchatzeira, brother of the Baba Sali, of blessed and righteous memory, may Hashem avenge his blood, whom the authorities placed into a cannon and fired, Heaven spare us. He died a terrible and unnatural death, and the Baba Sali suffered immense grief over it; it is told that he later appeared to him in a dream, and this story has already been recounted at length elsewhere.
"The fruit of the womb" refers to nursing infants, while "children" (*banim*) refers to older youths. And what is the difference between *leracheim* (to have mercy) and *lachus* (to spare)? This is a fundamental principle that Malbim repeats several times, and which was also seen regarding the war against Amalek. Mercy (*rachamim*) applies only to human beings or animals: a person cannot bear to witness their suffering, and so he has compassion on them. "To spare" (*lachus*), by contrast, generally applies to money or property - it would be a shame to let it go to waste. A table that your wife says is no longer needed is not thrown into the trash - not because you pity it and worry it will suffer, but because it is a shame to waste it, as someone might still make use of it. But puppies that one intended to cast out, and then reconsiders, saying, "How will they survive? They will surely die" - that is true mercy, having nothing to do with financial waste.
Now, it is the nature of soldiers to have mercy on young children more than on grown youths. Killing a grown youth presents no difficulty for them, but killing a three-year-old child stirs pangs of conscience (and this is not speaking of the Nazis, but of more civilized people). The reason is simple: the older youth is a combatant - if I do not kill him, he will kill me; but a little child, why kill him? On the other hand, there is the opposite reality, where they spare the older ones rather than the young - when they wish to take them as slaves. A three-year-old is of no use; will one raise him until he is fit for labor? But fifteen-year-old youths can be put to work immediately. Thus, keeping the older youths alive is not mercy at all, but sparing: it would be a shame to destroy them, for they have monetary value. On the little ones, they have mercy; on the older ones, they spare.
Therefore, Scripture states: "They will have no mercy on the fruit of the womb" - where it is natural to show mercy, they will show no mercy; "their eye will not spare children" - the older ones, toward whom one might not feel tender mercy but would spare out of utility, to take them as slaves - even on them they will not take pity, nor will they care, and they will kill them as well. Malbim brings examples of the root chus (to spare or pity): "You had pity (chasta) on the kikayon plant" - this certainly does not mean emotional mercy, but rather regret that something useful should be destroyed; and likewise, "Do not look with regret (al tachos) upon your vessels," and the like.
Based on this principle, Malbim explains (Yeshayahu 13:18), a fascinating passage in Gemara Berachot 33b is resolved. We learned in the Mishnah: If one says in prayer, "Your mercy extends to a bird's nest," he is silenced. Two Amora'im dispute the reason: One says, because he renders the attributes of the Holy One, blessed be He, as mercy - meaning, one who says this implies that the mitzvah of sending away the mother bird stems from compassion, whereas in truth these are not acts of mercy, but decrees and attributes ordained by the Holy One, blessed be He. And the other says, because he casts jealousy among the works of Creation - for "do not take the mother upon the young" was said regarding a bird's nest, whereas with a cow and other animals there is no such sweeping prohibition, so he makes it seem as though Hashem has mercy on birds but not on other living creatures.
The Gemara then relates an incident: A certain individual descended before the ark as prayer leader before Rabbah and prayed, "You spared a bird's nest; spare and have mercy on us." Rabbah exclaimed, "How well this man knows how to appease his Master!" Abaye objected, "Did we not learn in the Mishnah that he is silenced?" The Gemara replies: Rabbah only did this to sharpen Abaye. For Abaye grew up in the home of Rabbah bar Nachmani (Abaye being an acronym for "Asher becha yerucham yatom" - "for in You the orphan finds mercy"), and Rabbah would say things to sharpen his mind and test his acuity.
Malbim explains the depth of this discussion: The prayer leader deviated from the wording of the Mishnah. In the Mishnah the phrase is "Your mercy extends to a bird's nest," whereas he said, "You spared (chasta) a bird's nest" - using the language of sparing (chisah) rather than mercy (rachamim). According to the reason that "he renders the attributes of the Holy One, blessed be He, as mercy," there is no reason to silence him at all, since he did not mention mercy; that is why Rabbah did not silence him. But according to the reason that "he casts jealousy among the works of Creation," there is still a flaw: even when saying that Hashem spared a bird's nest, as if to say it would be a pity to destroy it, it still implies that He does not mind if other beasts and animals are destroyed - which causes jealousy among the works of Creation. And that was Abaye's objection: the Mishnah did not state which reason was definitive, and since using such phrasing is subject to dispute and hinges on an unspecified reason, one should not pray in this manner at all. A truly profound insight.
וְהָיְתָה בָבֶל צְבִי מַמְלָכוֹת תִּפְאֶרֶת גְּאוֹן כַּשְׂדִּים כְּמַהְפֵּכַת אֱלֹהִים אֶת־סְדֹם וְאֶת־עֲמֹרָה׃ - And Babylon, the splendor of kingdoms, the glorious pride of the Chaldeans, shall be like God's overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah.
The word tzvi denotes desire and longing: Babylon was the coveted jewel of kingdoms, coveted by all or emulated by all. Malbim explains that a capital city is constructed in proportion to the size and pride of its empire. A mighty empire does not build itself a small, simple capital city, but an immense center of fortresses and splendor (consider the Kremlin). This is the meaning of "the glorious pride of the Chaldeans" - they took pride in its magnificence and measured it against the majesty of the Chaldeans. Babylon and Chaldea are essentially synonymous here, two peoples sharing one realm, which is why they are referred to at times as Babylonians and at times as Chaldeans. And now it shall be "like God's overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah."
לֹא־תֵשֵׁב לָנֶצַח וְלֹא תִשְׁכֹּן עַד־דּוֹר וָדוֹר וְלֹא־יַהֵל שָׁם עֲרָבִי וְרֹעִים לֹא־יַרְבִּצוּ שָׁם׃ - It shall never be inhabited, nor shall it be settled from generation to generation; no nomad shall pitch a tent there, nor shall shepherds fold their flocks there.
"It shall never be inhabited (lo teishev)" - there will be no permanent settlement there, as yeshivah indicates an enduring stay; "nor shall it be settled (lo tishkon)" - even a temporary, passing dwelling (shechinah) will not exist there. "No nomad shall pitch a tent there (velo yahel sham aravi)": Rashi explains that an alef is omitted, meaning lo ya'ahel - an Arab or desert nomad will not pitch his tent there. Malbim, however, interprets yahel from the root of light ("cause its light to shine," yahel oro), and aravi from erev (evening, dusk) - a traveler overtaken by nightfall. In those days, people did not travel by night and had to find a place to lodge; even such a traveler will not kindle a light there nor spend the night there. He will fear the snakes, scorpions, and beasts that constantly infest ruins, and will seek another place instead. The site will be so abhorrent that even one looking for a ruin to spend a single night will avoid it. And even shepherds, who fold their flocks during the day and do not fear the terrors of the night, "will not fold their flocks there" - they will not allow their sheep to lie down there, so utterly desolate will the place be.
Malbim notes the distinction between "forever (lanetzach)" and "generation to generation (dor vador)," a principle he reiterates in several places: when referring to time as a whole, from beginning to end in an uninterrupted continuum, Scripture uses lanetzach or le'olam; but when referring to time as divided into distinct periods and designated eras, it uses dor vador. Therefore, corresponding to permanent, continuous settlement, it says "it shall never be inhabited (lo teishev lanetzach)"; and corresponding to temporary dwelling, it says "nor shall it be settled from generation to generation (velo tishkon ad dor vador)" - meaning that in no generation will anyone lodge there even temporarily.
וְרָבְצוּ־שָׁם צִיִּים וּמָלְאוּ בָתֵּיהֶם אֹחִים וְשָׁכְנוּ שָׁם בְּנוֹת יַעֲנָה וּשְׂעִירִים יְרַקְּדוּ־שָׁם׃ - But wild desert beasts shall lie there, and their houses shall be full of ferrets; ostriches shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there.
The Malbim explains that the prophet is depicting an inhabited land and its total inversion. In an inhabited country there are people living in homes, livestock resting in the fields, birds nesting in the trees, and young children dancing in the streets - and now he shows how all of this has vanished. In place of resting livestock: "Wild desert beasts [tziyim] shall lie there" - which, according to Rashi and the Radak, are mongooses, animals that dwell in ruins, named *tziyim* after *tziyah*, an arid, desolate place. In place of the people dwelling in homes: "And their houses shall be filled with *ochim*" - which according to the Malbim is a species of monkey; instead of human beings in the homes, monkeys will be there (others interpret *o'ach* as a type of owl, but according to the Malbim it is a monkey). In place of birds, for which the customary verb is dwelling or nesting: "And ostriches shall dwell there", for they too are an emblem of a desolate ruin. And in place of the children dancing in the streets: "And satyrs [*se'irim*] shall dance there", where *se'irim* refers to demons.
וְעָנָה אִיִּים בְּאַלְמְנוֹתָיו וְתַנִּים בְּהֵיכְלֵי עֹנֶג וְקָרוֹב לָבוֹא עִתָּהּ וְיָמֶיהָ לֹא יִמָּשֵׁכוּ׃ - And island-beasts shall cry out in its castles, and jackals in the palaces of delight; her time is near to come, and her days shall not be prolonged.
In the palaces of princes there were two types of spaces: the grand hall where everyone gathered to revel in celebration and song, and small, private chambers for anyone wishing to be alone. *Iyim* are beasts that come from the islands of the sea and cannot integrate with other animals - therefore, this creature will cry out "in its castles [*be-almenotav*]", which does not derive from the word for widow (*almanah*) but from *ulam* (hall or chamber), in the smaller halls and private rooms. Meanwhile, *tanim* (jackals), which are creatures that band together with others, will howl "in the palaces of delight", in the spacious banqueting halls where crowds once gathered in revelry.
"Her time is near to come, and her days shall not be prolonged": The Malbim explains that an empire falls for one of two reasons. First, its measure of guilt has become full and the time has arrived for the Holy One, blessed be He, to exact retribution from it, as in the verse, "for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full" - once its iniquity is full, the wrath of Hashem descends upon it. Second, even if its own measure of sin is not yet full, the time has arrived for the reign of another nation that has earned the mantle and reward, and thus the first empire must fall. In Babylon, both reasons converged: "Her time is near to come" - from the standpoint of retribution, for the time had arrived to punish them for mistreating and afflicting Israel; "and her days shall not be prolonged" - because the time for Israel's sovereignty had arrived, as at the conclusion of seventy years of exile Israel would depart and build the Second Temple, and Babylon's rule had to end beforehand. Babylon's seventy years were fixed in advance and did not depend on their worthiness: whether they were worthy or not, Israel would go free and Babylon would fall, because our redemption had already been set.
Having concluded the chapter, an additional observation is in order. This is one of those prophecies whose fulfillment down to our day is nothing short of wondrous. Isaiah prophesies concerning Babylon - the jewel of kingdoms, the glory of the Chaldeans' pride - that it will become like the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah: "It shall never be inhabited, neither shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation." Jeremiah prophesies similarly: "For you shall be desolate forever, says Hashem." And what do we see? Dr. Pinchas Biberfeld writes in his book *Ancient Jewish History*: After the reign of Cyrus, Babylon continued for a time to be an important city, one of the capitals of the Persian Empire; but gradually the city fell into irreparable ruin. Eventually, Babylon vanished from the stage of history, remaining a mound of ruins to our day, and its ruins stand as a silent, perpetual testimony to the truth of Hebrew prophecy. In the *Encyclopaedia Biblica*, under the entry "Babylon": a city that served throughout the second and first millennia BCE as the capital of various empires, of which nothing remains today but an expansive field of ruins on the eastern bank of the Euphrates River. It is also well known that one of the grandiose schemes of Saddam Hussein, who fancied himself a modern Nebuchadnezzar, was to rebuild the ruins of Babylon - and Hashem took him from the world out of a hole in the ground before he could realize it. All such schemes are meaningless when there is a Divine prophecy decreeing that Babylon will never be rebuilt.
Consider how wondrous this is: could anyone have anticipated this naturally? If someone were to say today that Washington would be completely destroyed, lie in ruins for thousands of years, and never be rebuilt, it would sound absurd, especially seeing it at the height of its power. Had they spoken of a declining city, that would be one thing; but this was a metropolis at the zenith of its splendor. Furthermore, in those days it was exceedingly rare for a destroyed city never to be rebuilt. First, because they built with stones rather than modern cinder blocks: today, when a building is demolished, one must cart the rubble to a landfill; back then, if a city was ruined, people took its stones and rebuilt immediately. Second, because of infrastructure: a city already possessed roads, wells, and foundations, so conquerors or survivors would readily rebuild on the very same site, just as Jericho was rebuilt by Chiel of Beit-El. The incentive to rebuild on a ruined site was enormous. Yet here the prophet declares that this royal metropolis, built to the highest standard, would be destroyed and no one would ever take interest in its stones, its location, or its infrastructure, and the site would remain desolate forever. What human logic could dictate such a claim? How could Isaiah and Jeremiah take such an enormous risk of being proven wrong - unless the prophecy came directly from Heaven? This is one of the clear testimonies to authentic prophecy.
There are many such testimonies: the prophecy that the Western Wall would never be destroyed - Jerusalem was devastated twelve times, and at times plowed over entirely, "Zion shall be plowed as a field", yet the Western Wall still stands; anyone who wishes can descend and see the excavations many meters deep into the earth, and the Western Wall endures. So too with the many prophecies regarding the Jewish people and its eternal survival. These facts demonstrate that only one nation in the world and throughout history ever dared to make such definitive prophecies, because only one nation received direct communication from Hashem. Although the nations once had prophets, Moshe Rabbeinu asked, "that we may be distinguished, I and Your people", and the Holy One, blessed be He, agreed with him that prophecy would no longer be given among the nations; from that time on, there has been no prophecy among the nations at all.
Therefore, when we see a Book where a vast percentage has already been fulfilled, there is no doubt that the remainder will be fulfilled as well. And here we stand in the midst of this very process: "And you, mountains of Israel, shall shoot forth your branches and yield your fruit to My people Israel, for they are near to come." Chazal taught that when the Land begins to yield its fruit, there is no more explicit sign of the End of Days than this. There is a prophecy that the Jewish people will return to their Land - and indeed, the return has begun. We also see the beginnings of peace with surrounding nations, echoing the prophecies that all will eventually serve Hashem shoulder to shoulder; suddenly, accords are named after Avraham Avinu, and one hears Muslims acknowledging that the Jewish people were here first. It is a clear sign that we are in the midst of a process drawing ever closer to everything written in the books of the prophets.