Sefer Yeshayahu chapter 22. "The burden of the valley of vision. What ails you now, that you have all gone up to the rooftops?" "The burden of the valley of vision" - Rashi says this refers to Yerushalayim. "The valley of vision" - the valley concerning which the majority of prophecies were spoken. What is the place regarding which most of the prophecies were transmitted? This is Yerushalayim. "The valley of vision" - all the visions, all the prophecies were transmitted concerning Yerushalayim. "What ails you now, that you have all gone up to the rooftops?"
The Malbim explains that here there is a prophecy about Yerushalayim falling into the hand of Nevuchadnetzar. As we said, "the valley of vision" means that all the seers foresaw their prophecies concerning Yerushalayim. He says to them, "What ails you now, that you have all gone up to the rooftops?" He describes how, as it were, there is one man standing and observing everything that will happen to Yerushalayim from the beginning of the siege until the time the city is captured. And then he stands and wonders, because he sees things that are the opposite of nature, he sees things that are not according to logic. And what do all these things actually prove? That this is from Hashem. When something happens naturally, then you say, ah, listen, that is what happened, what can you do, sometimes a city conquers and sometimes it is conquered. But if I see that things happen unnaturally, that says the hand of Hashem was upon them to confound and destroy them.
And this is what he says here. Someone stands here observing and sees how, at the beginning of the siege, everyone went up to the rooftops. For what purpose? In order to fight. And he wonders, "What ails you now, that you have all gone up to the rooftops?" For the way of warriors is to go out and fight at the gate, not on the roof. A warrior goes out to attack the enemy, he does not climb to the roof and wait to be attacked. Only one who is defending himself goes up to the roof, only someone whom they are coming to evacuate from Gush Katif goes up to the rooftops. What is it for an ordinary person to go up to the roof? Go fight face to face. Only one who is on the defensive goes up to the roof, and about this he wonders. For the way of warriors is to go out and fight - who goes up to the rooftops? Only the women and the weak. And this is what he says: why have you all gone up to the rooftops? What is the emphasis on "all of you"? The women and the weak go up to the roof, thinking, let us save ourselves for a few more hours and we will have some rescue, because inside the houses they will plunder us immediately, but up high we still have a few more minutes of safety. But do the warriors go up to the rooftops? What ails you, all of you? Even the warriors, they too go up to the rooftops? How could that be?
Rashi brings a teaching of Chazal, who expounded this concerning the kohanim. For when Titus came to conquer and burn the Beit HaMikdash, it is written that the kohanim went up to the roof of the Heichal with the keys of the courtyard in their hands, and they threw the keys toward the heavens and said, "Master of the world, we have done our part as far as it was in our hands and in our power, and now You do what is good in Your eyes." And they said, as long as the keys were in our hands and it was within our ability, we took care of the Beit HaMikdash, but from now on, as it were, we return the keys to You. A form of a hand emerged from the heavens and received those keys of the Heichal. And this is said concerning them: "What ails you now, that you have all gone up to the rooftops?" - concerning those sons, those kohanim who went up to the rooftops to hand over the keys.
There is another explanation. A midrash aggadah says these were the arrogant ones. That is, he is now speaking about the arrogant ones who were in Yerushalayim, and concerning them he says, "What ails you now, that you have all gone up to the rooftops?" You have haughtiness of heart, everyone climbs to the roof, as though they had become important people, become great people, and concerning this he, as it were, rebukes them for the arrogance they display toward themselves.
"תְּשֻׁאוֹת מְלֵאָה עִיר הוֹמִיָּה קִרְיָה עַלִּיזָה חֲלָלַיִךְ לֹא חַלְלֵי חֶרֶב וְלֹא מֵתֵי מִלְחָמָה - Full of tumult, a city bustling, a joyous town; your slain are not slain by the sword nor dead in battle." That same seer, as we explained, whom the Malbim understands to be someone standing and observing the downfall of Yerushalayim from beginning to end, describing what he sees. In the first stage he sees the enemy arriving, everyone going up to the rooftops, even the warriors. In the second stage he sees the city at the stage of the siege. The enemy has already besieged Yerushalayim, and a stage comes when there is terrible famine, there is nothing to eat, no one goes out and no one comes in. And he wonders about this: why do they not go out to war? Why did they die of hunger? And he says, behold, "your slain are not slain by the sword nor dead in battle." If they are not slain by the sword nor dead in battle, then from what did they die? They die of hunger. And from what does this stem?
He says, it could be that there is a situation where a city is not capable of withstanding a war. A city is not capable of fighting for its life, and this could be for several reasons. One reason: it could be a city that is naturally quiet, whose people are not accustomed to war, some pastoral town in Switzerland. They come to attack it, there is not even an armory in this city, not even a store of weaponry, nothing. This is a city that was never accustomed to wars. He says, Yerushalayim was not like this. "Full of tumult" means there is always noise in it, "tumult" is noise, for its people are mighty in strength, they are people bitter of soul, people who are always "full of tumult," there is uproar and noise in it, it is not a quiet city, not a pastoral city, it is a city that is accustomed to, experienced in wars.
What will you say? Perhaps its people are few, and when the people are few then there is no one to go out and fight. He says, no, for it is "a bustling city." A bustling city is a city that is always bustling, always with a large populace in it. A third possibility: you might say that this city is one of the open towns, people who toil to bring sustenance to their home, people always struggling for their daily bread. Such a person is not a man of war. Only one who is at ease can afford to be a man of war. But one who struggles every day to bring the slice of bread is not thinking now about battle and war. And perhaps this too is a city of the open towns. Cities of the open towns, as we said, are also quiet cities. "Perazot" is from the language of "peratzot" (breaches), meaning they have no wall, or "perazot" from the language of "pezurot" (scattered), meaning a city scattered without a wall.
He says, it was not so here. "For it is a town." A "kiryah" is a city surrounded by a wall, doors and a bolt. Which cities do they surround with a wall? Cities accustomed to war. Therefore they surround them with a wall to protect them. But by contrast, a city not accustomed to war does not need to be surrounded by a wall. Today this matter is not entirely understood by us, because today war is aerial war. No one goes to surround a city with a wall, unless here in the Land we need a separation barrier. But beyond that, the wall today does not help; we seek a wall, an aerial protective wall, that is what we need today. Yes, we need missiles, correct, missiles against missiles. But by contrast, in their times, the only thing that could stop the enemy was a wall. And the first thing they did to defend against invaders was to build walls for the city. Go look at China, they surrounded the whole of it with a wall.
And so he says, here this city is not a city that lacks a wall, that you would say they are not accustomed to wars, look, they dwell in the open towns. On the contrary, it is a walled city. And not only that, but it is "a joyous town." "Joyous" means it has an abundance of everything. And such people, says the Malbim, war is usually their delight. A person who has an abundance of everything, what does he look to do in his leisure hours? He has no problem fighting against this one and fighting against that one. By contrast, people bitter of soul, people who have some hunger, who always think about their bread, they are not in the mindset to make wars. Therefore he asks, why are "your slain not slain by the sword"?
The Malbim explains: the people who fall during the war on the battlefield are called "those dead in battle." They died on account of the battle, on account of the war. Those who fall because the enemy has already entered the city and killed them here inside the city are called "slain by the sword." The enemy entered and killed them by the sword. So you are not "dead in battle," because you did not go out to fight, you all went up to the rooftops. You are not "slain by the sword," because the enemy has not yet entered here to kill you, but only laid siege. So what kind of slain are you? Slain by hunger. And he says, if so, why is this the situation? For this city is a city accustomed to wars, there are men of war within it, why did they not go out and fight? Why did they go up to the rooftops and in the end die of hunger?
The Malbim explains that there is a difference between "sha'on" (uproar) and "hemyah" (bustle). Here at the beginning he writes "full of tumult, a bustling city." The Malbim says, what is the difference between "teshu'ah" (tumult) and "homiyah" (bustling)? "Sha'on" is a noise that is unusual, not the standard noise. That is called "sha'on," a deafening noise, a noise that is not present continually. By contrast, "hemyah" is the continual noise. A person who goes to the city hears the sound of noise; a person who enters the marketplace, there is the accustomed bustle, the continual noise regularly present there. And "hemyah" is from the language of "hamon" (multitude). From what does the bustle stem? From the fact that there is a multitude of people there, from this there is a bustle. Now he says "a bustling city, a joyous town." What is the difference between "ir" (city) and "kiryah" (town)? The Malbim says, "ir" is a city that is not surrounded by a wall. By contrast, "kiryah" is from the language of "kir" (wall). This city has a "kiryah" - what does "kiryah" mean? There is a wall surrounding it all around. Therefore it is written in the pasuk, "and you shall designate cities for yourselves" ("vehikritem"). This means there is a city, you shall make them a wall around. "Vehikritem lachem arim" means surround the city with a wall. And now he says to them, behold, see, this place was a city that became a town, that they surrounded with a wall because these people are accustomed to wars. Why then did they die of hunger and not go out and fight and be at least like those dead in battle or at least like those slain by the sword?
"כָּל קְצִינַיִךְ נָדְדוּ יַחַד מִקֶּשֶׁת אֻסָּרוּ כָּל נִמְצָאַיִךְ אֻסְּרוּ יַחְדָּו מֵרָחוֹק בָּרָחוּ - All your officers fled together, they were bound without the bow; all who were found in you were bound together, they fled far off." "All your officers" - now he continues and sees. At the beginning he saw, as we said, the start of the siege, the start of the enemy's attack, everyone went up to the rooftops. In the second stage he sees that they are not fighting. In the third stage he sees how, at the end of the days of the siege, the princes, the officers, fled from the city. Who remained here? The lowest of the people. They remain to stand up for their lives, to fight. And this too is something that is the opposite of the usual. Usually the officers, the army commanders, they are usually eager for battle. You know that there is always the perpetual argument between the security kitchen cabinet and the army officers. The army always advocates going out to battle, while the security people and the prime minister and defense minister, the security cabinet, the small kitchen cabinet, they always serve as a brake, in order not to rush out to battle, because they take into account all sorts of diplomatic situations they could enter. But the army, for months and years, warms up its weapons, it already wants to fight for real, it rejoices toward battle. Here he says, I see the opposite situation. These officers, those who always waited for when to put into practice everything they learned, suddenly the battle comes, and they flee like cowards. And this is what he wonders: "all your officers fled together." They all flee, all your officers fled. And they flee from the city and did not help at all.
Rashi explains that this speaks about the princes. Who are those princes who fled? This speaks about Tzidkiyahu and his princes. Tzidkiyahu and his army, they fled and went out of Yerushalayim, and the Kasdim pursued them. How did they flee? Through a tunnel that Tzidkiyahu had from the palace to outside Yerushalayim. And then at that time the Kasdim came, they saw a certain deer running, they pursued and pursued it, they reached some place to catch it, and suddenly whom do they see sprouting up out of the ground? Tzidkiyahu and his company. And then they caught Tzidkiyahu and blinded him, and everything we learned at the end of Sefer Melachim. We see, then, that "your officers," the princes, the important ones, what happened with them? They fled instead of fighting. "Fled together," they did not help at all.
"They were bound without the bow." This means, because of the archers. And those same archers bound them in chains and took them to Bavel. And because of them everyone flees. "All who were found in you" - who is "all who were found in you"? The Malbim says, this is the masses. Until now we spoke about the officers, now he is about to speak about the whole multitude of the people. This is "all who were found in you," all those found in the city. "Were bound together." They too came and formed an alliance together to fight and stand up for their lives. But in the end, when the hand of the enemy prevailed against them, "were bound together," in the end when they saw the enemy from afar, they fled. They abandoned the weapons and fled. That is to say, when does a person flee? When the fear is terrible and dreadful. When he sees something very frightening, then he throws everything down and flees. So indeed at the beginning "all who were found in you were bound together," they said, come, together let us stand for battle to fight. But when they saw the might of the enemy's forces, everyone fled and left the weapons behind them.
The Malbim explains that the expression written here at the beginning, "they were bound, all who were found in you" - the Malbim says the expression "to bind" is a term relating to war. As it is written in Melachim, "who will bind on the war?" And why is it called "binding"? Who knows? Because they would tie their garments, they would tie them tightly, and tie their sword upon them, and tie the quiver of arrows. Therefore it is called "who will bind." Or there is another possibility, that they would harness and tie the horses to the chariots in order to go out to fight. And concerning this we say, "let not one who girds boast like one who unfastens." "One who girds" is the one who is now tying upon himself all the implements of war; "one who unfastens" is the one who has already finished the battle. So "to bind," "who will bind on the war," means a term of tying. And this is different from "kesher" (binding/alliance). Why is it different from binding, from an alliance? Because "to bind," says the Malbim, comes to say that the officers, the princes, as it were, compel the people to go out to war. And this is also from the language of "leyaser" (to chastise). "Leyaser" means to force, to afflict, it is not something of your own will. So "to bind the battle" means to conscript everyone by mandatory draft to go out to battle even against their will. By contrast, the verb "to bind together" ("likshor"), as it is written, "and they all bound themselves together to fight," is a bond by which the people bind themselves willingly. Not from the language of compulsion, that I chastise and force and compel you to come to battle, but you bind yourself willingly, you say, I must defend myself, you go take the implements of war and go out to fight.
So this is what he tells us here. The officers fled, there was no one to bind on the war. But at any rate, "all who were found in you were bound" means they had no choice and they forced themselves to fight. Therefore it does not come in the expression of an alliance, but in the expression of "to bind." "All who were found in you were bound." Even though there is no chief of staff and no officers here to compel us to enlist, but we, having no choice, were forced to enlist, we were compelled to it. Therefore it is called "all who were found in you were bound." All those who remained here, having no choice, we were compelled to take the weapons in order to go out to fight.
Now it is written here at the beginning "together" ("yachad"), "fled together," and after that it is written "were bound together" ("yachdav"). What is the difference in the Holy Tongue between "yachad" and "yachdav"? The Malbim says, "yachdav" always indicates the joint participation of all the people acting to do something together. Regarding the fleeing he says "yachad." "Yachad" means at one time. That is, we all go out together, but it could be that each one is for a different purpose; we are together, at one time. By contrast, when we go out "yachdav," this means the joining together of all of us for the same purpose, for the same action. And this is what he tells us here. In "fled," the officers fled together. They all fled as one, each to a different place. By contrast, "all who were found in you were bound together" means we were bound together in order to come and fight, all of us against the same enemy for the same purpose, for the same action. For this the expression "yachdav" is far more fitting.
"עַל כֵּן אָמַרְתִּי שְׁעוּ מִנִּי אֲמָרֵר בַּבֶּכִי אַל תָּאִיצוּ לְנַחֲמֵנִי עַל שֹׁד בַּת עַמִּי - Therefore I said, look away from me, I will weep bitterly; do not hasten to comfort me over the destruction of the daughter of my people." After he sees this thing that is very astonishing, as we said, that Yerushalayim is being conquered not in the usual way - at first everyone goes up to the rooftops, then we saw that this city that naturally should not have been conquered, they die in it of hunger instead of dying in war, and after that we see that toward the end of the siege the officers, the princes, the kings, all flee - all these things are not natural. He says, therefore I said, "look away from me." "Look away from me" means, as it were, leave me alone, that I may weep bitterly. Do not hasten to come and comfort me, to come as one comforts a person who is in distress. That is, let me weep bitterly still and give vent to myself further through weeping. Do not press yourselves to comfort me, because the distress is so great, the trouble is so terrible, that it is hard for me to be comforted over the destruction of the daughter of my people.
"כִּי יוֹם מְהוּמָה וּמְבוּסָה וּמְבוּכָה לַאדֹנָי ה' צְבָאוֹת בְּגֵיא חִזָּיוֹן מְקַרְקַר קִר וְשׁוֹעַ אֶל הָהָר - For it is a day of tumult and trampling and confusion for the Lord Hashem of Hosts in the valley of vision, breaking down the wall and crying to the mountain." "For it is a day of tumult." The Malbim says, even before the conquest Hashem confounded them and they were delivered into the hand of the enemy. "Mevusah" is from the language of "levoses" (to trample). What is "levoses"? To tread. "Mevusah" means the enemy trampled them and trod upon their slain. And "mevuchah" is after the enemy already left them, they went about confused. All sorts of lands in exile, they did not know where to go. This is a state of confusion. All this is a decree from Hashem. "For the Lord Hashem of Hosts." All this is from Hashem of Hosts, by His blessed decree. "Breaking down the wall and crying to the mountain." Now he describes for us how they did not know how to come and fight, they were not wise in war to come and fight a war they could win. For when the enemy arrived, the wall was still strong, there were not yet breaches. What should you have done? Take the weapon now and go out to fight. You have a wall that protects you. You are still at the initial stage, the wall has the power to protect. Instead of this, the enemy came "breaking down the wall." "Breaking down the wall" ("mekarker kir") means uprooting the wall of the fortification. "Mekarker kir" is like "lehashrish" (to take root) and "lesharesh" (to uproot). These are called opposite verbs. "The plant took root in the ground" means it struck roots. And I went and "uprooted" all the weeds - the meaning is the opposite, I uprooted from the root. These are called opposite verbs, where the same expression serves for two opposite things. Like, for example, "lekales." "Lekales" on one hand means to praise and laud and extol, and on the other hand "la'ag vakeles" (mockery and derision). Here too it is one of the opposite verbs, serving both as a term of praise and a term of disgrace. So here too "mekarker" is from the language of making a wall, but he says, no, it is like uprooting. Just as "lehashrish" is to give roots and "lesharesh" is to uproot from the root, so "kir" is to make a wall and "lekarker" the wall means to nullify it from being a wall, to destroy the wall. "Breaking down the wall," that is, the enemy went and destroyed the wall of the fortification. And you, instead of fighting now while you still have the advantage of having the wall, instead of fighting, what did you do? "Crying to the mountain." You turned for salvation - where? On Mount Tzion. You let the enemy destroy the wall. For understand, when I have a fortification wall, I go up on the wall, throw stones, catapult projectiles downward, and the advantage is mine, I have the advantage of height. And he cannot approach the wall, because I am above. But what did they do? "Crying to the mountain." They went, sought some mountain to flee there in order to escape, so that they would have salvation from the mountain. What does this teach us? It shows that everything that happened here was not natural. Everything that happened here is because Hashem decreed that there be a day of tumult and trampling and confusion. Such was the decree from the Lord Hashem of Hosts, for naturally it should not have been so.
The Malbim explains in the Holy Tongue, he says there is a difference, there is "hum," there is "maham," and there is "hamah." And he explains, "hamah" is the ordinary bustle. As we spoke earlier, a person walks in the marketplace, there is ordinary noise, that is called "hamah." "The place is bustling with people," we explained it is from the language of "hamon" (multitude). From the language of "hamon." By contrast, there is "maham," to confound them and nullify them, correct? There is a matter of "maham," Hashem confounded them. From which language is this "maham"? He says the meaning is regarding something that caused terrible fear, to deliver a blow that stunned him, and now pay attention, this too is one of the opposite verbs. If "hemyah" is noise, then "maham" is to silence. He delivered him, he stunned him with such a great blow that he was nullified, silenced, halted. So "maham" is a term both of bustle and of silencing the bustle, a great blow that silences the bustle. And by contrast "hum" indicates the noise where everyone wonders to see a strange thing, something unnatural. "And the whole city was astir" - who arrived? Naomi. "Is this Naomi?" She always used to come in carriages and mules, and suddenly they see her so poor with worn-out garments. "And the whole city was astir." So "hemyah" is the constant, standard noise. "Maham" is the nullification of the noise through a harsh blow. And by contrast "vatehom" (it was astir) means an astonishing thing where people stand and are alarmed. And from this too comes the expression "mehumah" (tumult). When a person is on the battlefield, he sees something alarming, frightening, "and the whole city was astir," people stand stunned like that. From this is the expression "a day of tumult" that was there in Yerushalayim. "Mevusah" means that this thing was trampled and trodden upon until it became repulsive and became loathsome through the trampling, as it is written, "a corpse trampled underfoot." And this is also the expression "tevusah" (rout) in war. What does "tevusah" mean? That they trampled the enemy. It is not a mere loss; we do not say he lost on the battlefield, there was a "tevusah" on the battlefield. This means the enemy really crushed them. The enemy really trampled them, trod upon them. "Mevuchah" is a person who wanders lost without a path. This is what he says, "trampling and confusion." He does not know the way, they are confused in the land.
"וְעֵילָם נָשָׂא אַשְׁפָּה בְּרֶכֶב אָדָם פָּרָשִׁים וְקִיר עֵרָה מָגֵן - And Eilam bore the quiver with chariots of men and horsemen, and Kir uncovered the shield." "And Eilam" - the Malbim says, in the meantime the enemies captured the wall. And there Eilam takes - Eilam is a nation - he takes there the quivers of arrows. They had so many quivers of arrows - "ashpah" means the vessel in which they place the arrows - that they could no longer carry them by hand. How did they carry them? By chariots. They loaded all the arrows onto chariots and horsemen, for chariots and horsemen usually carried a person. But here they carried the quivers of arrows on chariots and horsemen. And this is what he says, "Eilam bore the quiver," the quivers of arrows, "with chariots of men and horsemen." On the chariots that usually carry a person and horsemen, they carried the quivers of arrows. This shows what an enormous quantity of weaponry the enemy brought with him to fight against Yerushalayim. "And Kir uncovered the shield." Now he describes how Eilam was shooting arrows, and this wall that was supposed to be a shield, instead this wall collapsed. "The wall uncovered" - from which language is this "erah"? "Erah" is from the language of uncovering. As it is written, "the nakedness of the land." "The nakedness of the land" means to reveal the hidden places of the land. So the wall that was supposed to be a fortification and supposed to be a shield, "erah," uncovered it. One can also say it is from the language of destroying it, yes? Meaning like "le'ar'er" (to undermine), like when they want to undermine its strength, so this is from that language, this is the language of "erah." Or there is the expression "lay bare, lay it bare down to its foundation," where too the meaning is from the language of undermining the thing, destroying the thing.
"וַיְהִי מִבְחַר עֲמָקַיִךְ מָלְאוּ רָכֶב וְהַפָּרָשִׁים שֹׁת שָׁתוּ הַשָּׁעְרָה - And it came to pass that your choicest valleys were filled with chariots, and the horsemen took position at the gate." He says, until now you did not go to fight, until you suddenly see how your choicest valleys all filled with chariots and horsemen of the enemy who came to conquer the city. And the horsemen have already "taken position at the gate." This means they have already laid the groundwork to reach the gate. This is the meaning of "shatu," from the language of "lehashit," meaning from the language of setting in place. They are already ready to enter the gate.
"וַיְגַל אֵת מָסַךְ יְהוּדָה וַתַּבֵּט בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא אֶל נֶשֶׁק בֵּית הַיָּעַר - And He uncovered the covering of Yehudah, and you looked on that day to the weapons of the House of the Forest." And even though Hashem already uncovered the covering of Yehudah - the enemy breached the wall, this is the covering of Yehudah, this is the place beneath which, as it were, behind which they were defending themselves, this is what shelters them - "and you looked," only then "you looked on that day to the weapons of the House of the Forest." Then you remembered that the early kings left for you in the House of the Forest of Levanon, they left for you in the storehouse there implements of war. That is to say, the awakening came too late. When? After "He uncovered the covering of Yehudah." We said the wall already fell, the covering of Yehudah was revealed, then "you looked on that day." Then you remembered to look that you have weapons in the House of the Forest. And this is already too late. The awakening should have been much earlier, and then you could still have fought.
Rashi explains an additional explanation of "and He uncovered the covering of Yehudah." Chazal expound that "the covering of Yehudah" is the Beit HaMikdash. The Beit HaMikdash was a shield and shelter over them. And Hashem uncovered or exiled, as it were, the Beit HaMikdash, and consequently Israel already became exposed. Because as long as there were sacrifices, we were saved. The moment it was nullified, the daily offering was nullified, the sacrifices were nullified, consequently we became exposed. "And He uncovered the covering of Yehudah," He uncovered the Beit HaMikdash and exiled it, for it sheltered Yehudah.
"וְאֵת בְּקִיעֵי עִיר דָּוִד רְאִיתֶם כִּי רָבּוּ וַתְּקַבְּצוּ אֶת מֵי הַבְּרֵכָה הַתַּחְתּוֹנָה - And you saw the breaches of the City of David, that they were many, and you gathered the waters of the lower pool." And then you noticed that the breaches of the wall were many. As we said, they awakened too late, and they notice that the wall is punctured like a sieve and the enemy begins to try to penetrate through all sorts of breaches in the wall. What did you do? "And you gathered the waters of the lower pool." You gathered the waters of the pool so that from the pool's waters you would have ready at hand to make mortar for building the wall. This is one explanation. The Radak also explains thus, that the gathering of the pool's waters was intended to use these waters to knead mortar in order to seal the breaches. And as we said, this was already too late. Another explanation, which is what Rashi explains according to Targum Yonatan. Rashi says, "and you gathered the waters of the pool" - Yonatan translated, "and you gathered the people to the waters of the lower pool." The meaning is you gathered the people to the waters of the pool. You did not gather the waters of the pool, but you gathered the people to the place where the waters of the pool were, so that the people would go to fight through there. And why specifically through there? Because there was a weak point of Yerushalayim, where the enemy could penetrate through there. Therefore specifically there you gathered the people to the waters of the pool so that they would go to fight from there. There is another explanation, which we will see in two more pesukim.
"וְאֶת בָּתֵּי יְרוּשָׁלִַם סְפַרְתֶּם וַתִּתְצוּ הַבָּתִּים לְבַצֵּר הַחוֹמָה - And you counted the houses of Yerushalayim, and you tore down the houses to fortify the wall." "And you counted the houses of Yerushalayim" means you conducted a census and began to count how many houses there are in Yerushalayim. And through this count you wanted to know who has an extra house, who has an additional house, who has an investment apartment. And what was the purpose? The purpose was in order to tear down that house and use its stones to strengthen the wall of the fortification. And this is "you counted the houses of Yerushalayim, and you tore down the houses." You destroyed those extra houses in order to strengthen the wall of the fortification, because they did not have stones with which they could strengthen the destroyed walls.
"וּמִקְוָה עֲשִׂיתֶם בֵּין הַחֹמֹתַיִם לְמֵי הַבְּרֵכָה הַיְשָׁנָה וְלֹא הִבַּטְתֶּם אֶל עֹשֶׂיהָ וְיֹצְרָהּ מֵרָחוֹק לֹא רְאִיתֶם - And you made a reservoir between the two walls for the waters of the old pool, but you did not look to its Maker, nor did you see its Fashioner from afar." "And a reservoir" - between the two walls that surround the city, you gathered there the waters of the pool in order to make a reservoir there. "Mikveh" is from the language of "mikveh" (gathering), meaning a place where the waters gather. What was the purpose? There were two reasons for this. A reason - one could even say three reasons. One reason: so that the enemy would not find water to drink. If he has available water, then he can continue the siege for a long time. A second reason: so that we, dwelling under siege, would have water to drink. So you gathered the waters, as we saw in the time of Chizkiyahu, you gathered the waters so that the water would enter the city and we would have water to drink during the siege. And there is a third reason: so that these waters would serve as a barrier. These waters would serve as a second wall that the enemy could not cross. As is known and was customary regarding the castles of kings, that they would make a wall and afterward would make a kind of lake of water around it, so that they could not easily come to conquer the castle, could not easily come to conquer that country; that lake of water constitutes an obstacle. And behold, all these things you did - why? Because you wanted to defend Yerushalayim. But the navi says to them about this, "but you did not look to its Maker, nor did you see its Fashioner from afar." "You did not look" - he says to them, what do you need all this toil and labor and these works for? For you should have contemplated with the perception of the intellect that the enemy, on his own, has no power for all this. And how did he do all this, as we explained? This is something supernatural. This success is illogical. Hashem did all these things, Hashem delivered you into the hand of the enemies. And if it is from Hashem, then what place is there to go and fight naturally when you still have a problem with the Creator of the world? You should have solved your problem with the Holy One, blessed be He. You should have understood that Hashem did all this against nature, and returned in teshuvah. But you say, no, no, we have a problem, let us go fight against the enemy. He says to them, this is the deed of Hashem, it will not help you. And also "you did not see its Fashioner from afar." You should have seen with your own eyes that Hashem fashioned this decree from afar. For it is already years that you receive prophecies from the neviim about what will happen to Yerushalayim. And you see that generation after generation and time after time there is no prophecy that is nullified, no prophecy that is not fulfilled. Everything the neviim say, not one word of their words has fallen to the ground. And so you should have understood, if this was already said from afar, that means it is going to happen, that means this is how it is going to be. You should have returned in teshuvah, you had ample time. For from afar you received a warning, long ago you already have notice, behold, this is how it is going to be. And you, instead of returning in teshuvah, go and seek stratagems how to fight, go and seek stratagems how to conquer the enemy, how to defend yourselves. What will avail you? For He said, "and it came to pass." And so there is no place at all to come and fight, for there is no counsel and no understanding against Hashem. What should you have done? To return in teshuvah.
The Malbim says, let us note, there are doubled expressions here. "You did not look to its Maker, nor did you see its Fashioner from afar." So the doubled expression, first of all, is "look" and "see." What is the difference? Second, "you did not look to its Maker" and also "its Fashioner from afar you did not see." What is the difference between its "Maker" and its "Fashioner"? The Malbim says, the "Fashioner" ("yotzer") is one who forms the shape of the thing. By contrast, the "Maker" ("oseh") completes the thing in all its beauty and refinement. If we want to give an analogy, then a person who fashions a statue. At first he took the material, fashioned a figure. This is called "its Fashioner." "Its Maker" is the one who now goes and with the chisel begins to make the precision, the shape of the ears precisely and the eyes, and afterward paints it and coats it and gives it a living hue - this is called "maker." The "Fashioner" is also, when we want to express regarding the creation of the world, then we say that the Holy One, blessed be He, fashioned something from nothing. When? Only on the first day. On the first day something was created from nothing. "Something from nothing" means to fashion a new thing. And afterward, from this the Holy One, blessed be He, went and continued everything He made onward. It is true, indeed, that the expression "created" ("bara") is usually the expression that appears regarding something from nothing, but actually here, if we want to be precise, they do not mean specifically something from nothing, for the fashioner uses material, "like clay in the hand of the fashioner." Only here they want to distinguish between fashioning something, which is the initial fashioning, versus the making, which is the completion of the refinement. As it is written, "and she did not do her nails." So did she go to fashion nails? Today they manufacture nails, but "she did not do her nails" means she did not tend to them. "He did not do his mustache" - did he fashion a mustache? He did not tend to his mustache. So too, always the expression of "doing" is refining the thing, completing it according to its form. But "to fashion" means to manufacture, to make it from the raw material, to turn it into an actual thing. So here the Malbim says, the decree of Hashem, what Hashem decreed this calamity, the early decree that He decreed, this is called that He fashioned the decree. And when He brought it from decree into actuality, this is called that He completed the thing, He made it. And this is what is written here. It is written at the beginning, "you did not look to its Maker, nor did you see its Fashioner from afar." What was from afar? Long ago? It was its Fashioner. This is what is called the raw thing, to fashion a thing here. Already from afar it was fashioned, you did not awaken. What was the Holy One, blessed be He, ultimately compelled to be? Its Maker, the thing He fashioned from afar, to bring it to its conclusion and completion, to the final refinement, to bring the thing into actuality.
It is written here, "you did not look to its Maker, nor did you see its Fashioner from afar." What is the difference between "you looked" and "you saw"? The Malbim says, "seeing" means the tangible sight of the eye. What a person sees. I see with the eye, "for eye to eye they shall see." By contrast, "to look" at something is to contemplate it. This is even a mental looking, this too is called "to look." Even though I am not looking at the thing itself, but rather I am contemplating the thing, thinking about the thing, this too is called "looking." The Malbim says, behold, see, they knew in advance that everything the Holy One, blessed be He, prophesies is truth. They knew of the conquest by the enemy, how he would triumph, they saw everything, all of this was done by Hashem. The enemy is only like an axe in the hand of the woodcutter or in the hand of the hewer, and in fact the Holy One, blessed be He, is the one who did everything. Here you do not need intellectual looking, you see with the eye. You saw unnatural things. You see the conduct of the Holy One, blessed be He. Here one does not need to be a great sage. In the very observation I already see, here unnatural things are happening, the Holy One, blessed be He, is fighting for them. One does not need looking for this, seeing suffices. Now he comes and says, behold, see, these things, you did not "look" to its Maker. "Its Fashioner from afar you did not see." If I inform you from afar that exactly so will every single thing be, and you see that it happened one to one. Does this require contemplation? It does not require contemplation. Already in advance I informed you, and so it happened. Whoever has eyes, eyes of flesh, sees, Hashem said and it happened. He said, and it came to pass. This is "its Fashioner from afar you did not see." And also when it finally happened, where one needs to contemplate more, to see how each thing is according to what Hashem said, here one already needs looking, he says to them about this, "you did not look." The meaning is to understand the essence of the matter, how each and every detail happens, and to see how all this was transmitted in the early prophecy, you should have looked. And this too you did not look at. And had you looked, through this you would have returned in teshuvah. But it was not so, and therefore what did you seek for yourselves? Stratagems of war. How to fight against the enemy. This was not incumbent upon you, but rather to contemplate, and through this you would have returned in teshuvah.
Rashi asks, seemingly what do they want from them, that they went and made a lake of water to serve as reinforcement between the walls so that the enemy could not conquer the city? For it is written, seemingly, also regarding Chizkiyahu, "and he strengthened himself and built up all the broken wall, and raised it up to the towers, and the other wall outside, and strengthened the Millo of the City of David," and so on. There too Chizkiyahu made a wall and also made a pool between the walls to prevent the enemy from reaching. Rashi says there is a great difference. Chizkiyahu trusted in Hashem, the God of Israel. We begin with Hashem, but one must also make a natural effort. But by contrast, with you, in the days of Yehoyakim and Tzidkiyahu, "you did not look to its Maker." That is, you did not contemplate that there is one who is making the war here, and that is Hashem. That is to say, you are permitted to go and fight, and on the contrary, you are required to go and fight, on condition that you fight like David, like Chizkiyahu. You know that the kingship is Hashem's, you know that the war is Hashem's, and with all that you go and say, I need to make an effort. But if you say, "Master of the world, You have abandoned us and do not go out with our armies," we will manage on our own now - ah, that is denial of Hashem. And so then, when you make such a pool, what does that show? "My strength and the might of my hand." Ah, You are not with us? We will manage, Master of the world, we will manage on our own now - ah, that is denial of Hashem. "You did not look to its Maker," there is one who made this. I told you about that fellow who was looking for parking in Tel Aviv. There was one looking for parking...
Well, he goes around and around and around, cannot find any. Well, no choice, Master of the world, if You now provide me with parking, twenty shekels to charity. He did not manage to finish, and suddenly he sees a person pulling out of a parking spot. He says, Master of the world, no need, I have managed. Person! The Holy One, blessed be He, see how He guides you. No, no, no, Master of the world, we will manage on our own. Ah, if so, the very building of the reservoir, the very building of that water channel, shows denial of Hashem. Because you are saying, I do not want to return in teshuvah, I can manage even without the Master of the world.
And this is what he says: "You did not look to its Maker." You should have seen that there is someone who did everything that is happening and returned before Him in teshuvah. "And not only that, but its Fashioner from afar you did not see." For you should have contemplated that the Holy One, blessed be He, fashioned Yerushalayim from afar. What does it mean that He fashioned Yerushalayim from afar? The midrash says, the One who created it, created it before the world was created. It is stated in Chazal that Yerushalayim was created before the world was created. Seven things were created before the world was created, and these are they: Gan Eden, the Torah, the righteous, Israel, the Throne of Glory, Yerushalayim, and Mashiach ben David.
But pay attention, says the Radak, the meaning of this teaching is not as the multitude of students understand it. Rather the explanation is that they stood in potential to be created before the world was created, because these things are the purpose of the creation of the world. That is, do not be foolish and say, ah, Yerushalayim, before... Where did Yerushalayim stand before the world was created? Where did they place it, before the world was created? Mashiach, where was Mashiach? Who gave birth to him? How was it? What, was David HaMelech before the world was created? He says, no, no, the plain meaning is not as the multitude of students understand it. Rather the meaning is, this stood at the foundation of the plan. When Hashem wanted to create the world, what did He have in His plan? What did He foresee, for whose sake He created the world? He saw Yerushalayim, He saw the people of Israel, the Throne of Glory, Mashiach ben David. This is the meaning that they were before the world was created.
And this is what he says: "nor did you see its Fashioner from afar." You did not contemplate that Yerushalayim is not a natural city. Yerushalayim is a city that the Holy One, blessed be He, created even before the world was created, that stood at the foundation of the plan of the creation of the world. And so you should have understood, this city does not go according to nature. This city has a special providence over it, His dwelling is in Tzion, the Holy One, blessed be He, placed His Presence there continually. So how did you think you would manage by bringing here the waters of the pool and manage and it will not be needed? How did you think the Holy One, blessed be He, would let you do as you wish, at the very time that the Holy One, blessed be He, fashioned it from afar?
"וַיִּקְרָא אֲדֹנָי ה' צְבָאוֹת בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא לִבְכִי וּלְמִסְפֵּד וּלְקָרְחָה וְלַחֲגֹר שָׂק - And the Lord Hashem of Hosts called on that day for weeping and for mourning and for baldness and for girding sackcloth." He says, behold, see, Hashem called out this prophecy through the neviim even before it came. Why? For what purpose? For weeping and for mourning and for baldness. Hashem wants them to return in teshuvah and to weep and mourn, and then Hashem will relent from the evil. But they did not do so. What did they do instead? "And behold joy and gladness, slaying cattle and slaughtering sheep, eating meat and drinking wine: let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die." Instead of this, joy and gladness, slaying cattle in order to eat meat. What do they say? Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die. Since tomorrow we die, then come, let us at least seize the moment. Come, let us make the most of the moment, come, let us enjoy life. Better that we take pleasure today, since at any rate tomorrow we are supposed to die.
And Rashi explains: "for tomorrow we die" means in the World to Come. For the neviim inform us that we will have no portion in the World to Come. Well, the World to Come, fine, well, let us at least enjoy this world. Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die to the World to Come. The Malbim says, what is "joy and gladness" ("sason and simchah")? "Simchah" is the joy of the heart, it is inner joy. By contrast, "sason" is usually that a person rejoices, he has outer joy, he already begins to dance from the abundance of joy. This is what he says, at the beginning they had joy and gladness. "Sason," which begins with outer rejoicing, until it becomes inner joy. And consequently, slaying cattle and slaughtering sheep, they seek only the cravings and pleasures of this world, let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.
So pay attention to what happened here. When he came and told them in advance, know that a trouble is destined to come, a harsh war is destined to come, many will die and perish - what does a person naturally need? To awaken. What did they do with this? Ah, we are about to die? Wonderful, come, let us make celebrations. Behold, we also heard, the navi said we are going to die. See what a distortion, what a perversion. What was supposed to awaken them, instead of awakening them, on the contrary developed in them the sense of, come, enjoy what is left, we still have a little time to live, enjoy it properly.
"וְנִגְלָה בְאָזְנָי ה' צְבָאוֹת אִם יְכֻפַּר הֶעָוֹן הַזֶּה לָכֶם עַד תְּמֻתוּן אָמַר אֲדֹנָי ה' צְבָאוֹת - And it was revealed in my ears by Hashem of Hosts: This iniquity shall not be forgiven you until you die, said the Lord Hashem of Hosts." And then He swore in the name of Hashem that Hashem would not forgive them until in the end they truly die, as they themselves said, "let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die." He says, truly, it shall not be forgiven until they die. Another explanation, says the Malbim: "until you die" is like "forever you shall die." Hashem says, and it was revealed in the ears of Hashem of Hosts, Hashem will hear this, and this iniquity shall not be forgiven you, and not only shall it not be forgiven you, but forever you shall die. You shall die in this world and you shall also die to the World to Come. What is "and it was revealed"? Hashem says, revealed and known before Me is what they say, and therefore I swear, if this iniquity shall be forgiven you until you die.
Seemingly, why specifically this iniquity? "This iniquity shall not be forgiven you until you die" implies that the last iniquity is greater than the first. Why is this iniquity harsher than all the iniquities they did? For in the Yerushalayim of the destruction there was idolatry, there was illicit relations, there was bloodshed - this is the destruction of the First Beit HaMikdash. All the transgressions were in it. So why is this iniquity of "let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die" greater than all of them? And this iniquity shall not be forgiven, not by sword, not by hunger, not by exile, nothing shall atone for it. What shall atone for it? Death. What is the reason for this? Because as long as there are blows and the person awakens to teshuvah, there is still hope, there is still a reason to leave him here. But the moment a person, on the contrary, the blows not only do not awaken him, but on the contrary bring him down further into the pit of destruction, because what does he say? So bad? Ah, if so, come, let us enjoy ourselves more, because everything is about to end. If so, in fact the Holy One, blessed be He, says, then there is no point in the blows. If so, the blows do not awaken you. And so the Holy One, blessed be He, says, this iniquity shall not be forgiven you until you die. For this there is no atonement. Because a person's entire chance for rectification is when they strike him and he returns in teshuvah, they awaken him and he awakens. But if it only puts him to sleep further and tells him to enjoy this world more, about this He says there is already no atonement at all.
And this is what is written, "and it was revealed in the ears of Hashem of Hosts." The navi says, according to what we explained now, the Holy One, blessed be He, says, your thoughts are revealed before Me, and therefore I will give you such a punishment that there will be no atonement for it at all. There is another explanation: "and it was revealed in the ears of Hashem of Hosts, if this iniquity shall be forgiven you until you die." The meaning is "until you die" - a second death, meaning an additional death in the World to Come. What until now was only death in this world that I promised you, now I promise you also death in the World to Come. And "it was revealed in my ears" means, according to Targum Yonatan, that the navi is speaking. "And it was revealed in my ears," says the navi, I, with my ears, heard when the decree was decreed by Hashem. So it is not "revealed in the ears of Hashem," as it were, but the navi says, in my ears it was revealed. The meaning is, I reveal to you matters from the chamber, I reveal to you matters from behind the curtain. What did I hear? That Hashem of Hosts swore that this iniquity shall not be forgiven until you die.
And why is this so severe? Chazal say, anyone who has in his hand the iniquity of desecrating Hashem's Name, teshuvah has no power to suspend, nor Yom Kippur to atone, nor sufferings to scour, but rather all of these suspend and death is what scours. And this is what is written, "if this iniquity shall be forgiven you until you die," that there must be death and only then will there be scouring for this terrible iniquity of desecrating Hashem's Name. There are decrees, there are troubles, and what do you say? Come, let us make a celebration, let us make a party. This is a terrible desecration of Hashem's Name. About this he says, there will be no atonement for it except until you die.