Introduction: Jerusalem Conquered Unnaturally
Chapter 22 in Yeshayahu opens with "The burden of the valley of vision," and Rashi explains that this refers to Jerusalem: "The valley of vision" - the valley concerning which most of the prophecies were delivered. What is the place regarding which the majority of the prophets' visions were said? Jerusalem. All the seers prophesied their visions about Jerusalem, and therefore it is called the valley of vision.
The Malbim centers the entire chapter around one core axis: this is a prophecy regarding the fall of Jerusalem into the hands of Nevuchadnezzar, and the prophet describes it as if an observer stands watching everything that Jerusalem will undergo, from the onset of the siege until the city's conquest. This observer stands in utter astonishment, for he witnesses events that run contrary to nature, things that defy logic. And all these phenomena prove one thing: that everything is from Hashem. When something occurs naturally, a person says: that is simply how things happen; sometimes a city conquers, and sometimes it is conquered. But when events unfold unnaturally, it signifies that the hand of Hashem was upon them, to confound them and destroy them.
"That you have gone up, all of you, to the rooftops" - The First Wonder
מַשָּׂא גֵּיא חִזָּיוֹן מַה־לָּךְ אֵפוֹא כִּי־עָלִית כֻּלָּךְ לַגַּגּוֹת׃ - The burden of the valley of vision: What ails you now, that you have gone up, all of you, to the rooftops?
The first stage the observer sees is the onset of the siege: everyone ascends to the roofs to fight. And he wonders: what ails you now, that all of you have gone up to the rooftops? After all, it is the way of warriors to go out and fight at the city gate, not on the roof. A warrior who sets out to engage the enemy does not climb onto a roof and wait to be attacked. Only someone defending himself retreats to the roof. A normal fighter - why would he go up to the roof? Let him go and fight face-to-face.
The primary emphasis lies in the word "all of you." The roofs are where women and the weak go up, attempting to preserve their lives for a few more hours: inside the houses they would be plundered immediately, whereas up above they gain another few moments of respite. But the warriors go up to the rooftops? "All of you" - even the valiant men? How could this be? This is the first wonder over such an unnatural course of events.
Rashi cites a teaching of Chazal regarding the Kohanim. When Titus came to conquer and burn the Beit HaMikdash, the Kohanim went up to the roof of the Heichal with the keys to the Courtyard in hand. They hurled the keys toward heaven and said: Master of the Universe, we have done our part to the best of our ability and strength; from now on, do what is good in Your eyes. As long as the keys were in our hands and it was within our power, we looked after the Beit HaMikdash, but now we return the keys to You. A shape of a hand emerged from the heavens and received those keys of the Heichal. And regarding them it was said, "What ails you now, that you have gone up, all of you, to the rooftops" - referring to those Kohanim who climbed to the roofs in order to surrender the keys.
Another explanation appears in the Midrash Aggadah: this refers to the haughty people who were in Jerusalem, and regarding them the prophet says, "What ails you now, that you have gone up, all of you, to the rooftops" - you possess arrogance; everyone ascends to the roof as if they have become important, distinguished men, and the prophet rebukes them for the haughty posture they assumed.
"Your slain are not slain with the sword" - The Second Wonder
תְּשֻׁאוֹת מְלֵאָה עִיר הוֹמִיָּה קִרְיָה עַלִּיזָה חֲלָלַיִךְ לֹא חַלְלֵי־חֶרֶב וְלֹא מֵתֵי מִלְחָמָה׃ - You that are full of tumult, a bustling city, a joyous town; your slain are not slain with the sword, nor dead in battle.
In the second stage, the observer sees the city in the midst of the siege. The enemy besieges Jerusalem, a terrible famine sets in, there is nothing to eat, and no one goes out or comes in. And he wonders: why do they not go out to battle? Why did they die of hunger? "Your slain are not slain with the sword, nor dead in battle" - if they are neither casualties of the sword nor casualties of war, from what did they die? From famine.
The Malbim makes a precise distinction: those who fall on the battlefield are called "the slain of battle" (mete milchamah), for they died in combat. Those who fall after the enemy enters the city and slaughters them within it are called "the slain of the sword" (chalalei cherev). Yet here, you are not the slain of battle, for you did not go out to fight but rather went up to the rooftops; nor are you the slain of the sword, for the enemy has not yet entered to kill you, but is merely besieging you. If so, what kind of casualties are you? Casualties of hunger.
And why is this so astonishing? Because there are situations where a city is simply incapable of withstanding war, and the prophet dismisses them one by one. One possibility: a city that is quiet by nature, whose people are unaccustomed to war - a pastoral town that lacks even an armory and has no weapons infrastructure at all. To this he says: "Full of tumult" - it is always filled with noise and commotion; its people are mighty and fierce, not a quiet city, but one well versed in war.
A second possibility: perhaps its inhabitants are few, and there is no one to go out to battle. To this he says: "A bustling city" - a city constantly bustling with a vast population. A third possibility: perhaps it is an open, unfortified settlement (arei haperazot), whose people toil to bring sustenance to their homes and struggle for their daily bread, and one who struggles day by day for a piece of bread does not think of battle and war; only one who is secure can afford to wage war. Unwalled towns are also quiet places - perazot comes from the word peratzot (breaches), meaning they have no wall, or from pazrut (dispersion), a town spread out without a wall.
To this he says: "Fortified town" (kiryah) - a city enclosed by walls, gates, and bars. And which cities are surrounded by a wall? Cities accustomed to war, which require defense. A city unaccustomed to war does not need to be surrounded by a wall. Today, this is less intuitive to us, since warfare is aerial and no one surrounds a city with a stone wall; instead, we look for an aerial defense shield and anti-missile interceptors. But in those days, the only thing capable of halting an enemy was a wall, and the very first measure taken to defend against invaders was constructing walls. Go and look at China, which enclosed its entire border with a great wall.
Not only this, but it is "jubilant" - possessing an abundance of everything. And for such people, says the Malbim, warfare is their delight: a person who enjoys an abundance of everything has no problem fighting against this enemy or that one; whereas bitter, impoverished people who constantly worry about their bread do not have war on their minds. If so, why are "your slain not slain with the sword"?
In terms of linguistic precision: what is the difference between teshu'ot (tumult) and homiyah (bustling)? Sha'on (tumult) refers to an extraordinary din, a deafening noise that is not constant; whereas hemyah (bustle) is the continuous background hum - when a person enters a city or a market, he hears the familiar hum, the regular noise found there. And hemyah comes from hamon (multitude), as this hum arises from the presence of a multitude of people. And what is the difference between ir (city) and kiryah (fortified town)? An ir is not surrounded by a wall, whereas kiryah derives from kir (wall), meaning there is a wall surrounding it. This is the meaning of "vehikritem lachem arim", meaning, enclose the cities with a wall. Now, this place was an ir that was turned into a kiryah, walled about because its people were experienced in war. If so, why did they die of hunger instead of going out to fight, at least falling as the slain of battle or the slain of the sword?
"All your leaders fled together" - The Third Wonder
כׇּל־קְצִינַיִךְ נָדְדוּ־יַחַד מִקֶּשֶׁת אֻסָּרוּ כׇּל־נִמְצָאַיִךְ אֻסְּרוּ יַחְדָּו מֵרָחוֹק בָּרָחוּ׃ - All your leaders have fled together; they were bound by the bow; all who were found of you were bound together; from afar they fled.
In the third stage, the seer watches how, at the end of the siege, the officers and leaders flee the city, leaving only the poorest of the people to defend their lives and fight. This too is the exact reverse of the norm: officers and military commanders are usually eager for battle. There is always the tension between the political leadership and the military commanders: the military advocates going out to battle, while the political leaders - the prime minister, the defense minister, and the cabinet - serve as a brake, hesitating to rush into war because they weigh the geopolitical ramifications. The army, which spends months and years training and priming weapons, is eager for combat. Yet here the situation is reversed: those who waited constantly for the moment to put their training into practice flee like cowards when the battle arrives. "All your leaders fled together" - they all flee and offer no help at all.
Rashi explains that this refers to Tzidkiyahu and his ministers. Tzidkiyahu and his army fled and left Jerusalem, and the Chaldeans pursued them. And how did they flee? Through a tunnel that Tzidkiyahu had extending from the palace to outside Jerusalem. At that moment, the Chaldeans arrived and saw a deer running; they pursued it to capture it, and suddenly saw Tzidkiyahu and his company emerging from the earth. They seized Tzidkiyahu and blinded him, as recorded at the end of the Book of Kings. It turns out that the officers, the nobles, and the prominent leaders, instead of fighting, fled away and helped not in the least.
"Bound by the bow" - because of the archers; and those archers bound them in chains and took them to Babylon, and everyone flees before them. "All who were found of you" - the Malbim explains that this refers to the masses, all who remained in the city. Until now he spoke of the leaders, and now of the common people. "Were bound together" - they too banded together to fight and defend themselves, but when the enemy gained the upper hand, when they saw the strength of the enemy legions from afar, they fled, threw down their weapons, and ran. A person flees and casts everything aside when overcome by terrifying dread, when beholding an appalling sight.
The Malbim notes a nuance in the word osar ("bound" or "marshaled"): the root asar is used in the context of waging war, as in "Who will marshal the battle?" (mi ye'esor hamilchamah) in Kings. Why is it termed this way? Because warriors would gird their garments tightly and bind the sword and quiver to themselves; or because they would harness and bind the horses to the chariots to set out for battle. Concerning this it is said, "Let not him who girds on his armor boast like him who unties it" - one who girds is binding his weapons upon himself to start the fight, while one who unties has already finished the battle.
And what is the difference between "le'esor" (to bind / draft) and "likshor" (to band together)? "Le'esor" indicates that the officers and ministers obligate the people to go out to battle, and it is also related to "leyaser" - to coerce, afflict, something done against one's will. "To bind the battle" means to conscript everyone involuntarily. By contrast, "likshor", as in "and they banded together to fight", refers to a bond the people enter voluntarily: a person says, "I must defend myself," takes up weapons, and goes out. This is what is meant here: the officers fled, and there was no one to muster ("bind") the army for battle, yet nonetheless "all your found ones were bound" - they had no choice and forced themselves to fight. Even though there was no commander-in-chief or officers to mandate their enlistment, lacking any alternative, they were compelled to mobilize. Therefore it says, "all your found ones were bound": all those who remained here were forced by circumstance to take up arms and go out to fight.
And another fine distinction: regarding the officers it says "wandered together (yachad)", while regarding the masses it says "bound together (yachdov)". What is the difference between "yachad" and "yachdov"? "Yachdov" indicates complete unity of purpose among the people acting together, whereas "yachad" refers merely to concurrency in time - we all depart together, but perhaps each for a different destination or purpose. Therefore, regarding their wandering it says "yachad": the officers all fled at the same time, but each to a different place. In contrast, "all your found ones were bound together (yachdov)" - they bound themselves together to fight against the same enemy, for the same purpose and with the same action, and for this the term "yachdov" is fitting.
"Turn Away from Me, I Will Weep Bitterly"
עַל־כֵּן אָמַרְתִּי שְׁעוּ מִנִּי אֲמָרֵר בַּבֶּכִי אַל־תָּאִיצוּ לְנַחֲמֵנִי עַל־שֹׁד בַּת־עַמִּי׃ - Therefore I said: Turn away from me, I will weep bitterly; do not hasten to comfort me over the destruction of the daughter of my people.
After the prophet saw this entire spectacle - that Jerusalem was being conquered in an abnormal manner: at first everyone went up to the roofs, then a city that naturally should not have fallen had its people dying of famine rather than the sword of war, and finally the officers, ministers, and kings all fled - all these things were completely unnatural. Therefore he says, "Turn away from me", meaning leave me alone, that I may weep bitterly. Do not rush to come and console me as one typically comforts a person in distress; let me embitter myself further with tears, for the affliction is so vast and the distress so terrible that it is impossible for me to be consoled over the ruin of the daughter of my people.
"A Day of Tumult, Trampling, and Confusion"
כִּי יוֹם מְהוּמָה וּמְבוּסָה וּמְבוּכָה לַאדֹנָי יְהֹוִה צְבָאוֹת בְּגֵי חִזָּיוֹן מְקַרְקַר קִר וְשׁוֹעַ אֶל־הָהָר׃ - For it is a day of tumult, trampling, and confusion for the Lord God of Hosts in the Valley of Vision, breaking down the wall and crying to the mountain.
"A day of tumult (mehumah)" - even before the conquest, Hashem threw them into panic and confounded them, delivering them into the hand of the enemy. "Trampling (mevusah)" is from the language of trampling and treading down - the enemy trod upon them and trampled over their corpses. "And confusion (mevuchah)" - after the enemy left them, they wandered bewildered across all kinds of lands in exile, not knowing where to turn. And all this was a decree from Hashem: "for the Lord God of Hosts" - everything stemmed from Hashem, God of Hosts, through His blessed decree.
"Breaking down the wall and crying to the mountain" - here the prophet describes how they utterly failed to wage a war they could have won. When the enemy arrived, the wall was still strong and had no breaches, and that was when they should have taken up arms and fought while the wall still protected them. Consider the tactical advantage: when a wall stands, defenders ascend it and cast stones and catapult missiles downward, commanding the high ground while the enemy cannot draw near. Instead, the enemy came "breaking down the wall" - tearing down the fortification, while they were "crying to the mountain": turning to seek salvation on Mount Zion or searching for a mountain retreat to flee to, leaving the enemy unimpeded to demolish the wall.
Furthermore, "mekarker" is a contronym (an auto-antonym), where the same root is used for two opposite meanings: just as "lehashrish" means to take root and "leshares" means to uproot - a plant takes root in the ground, yet one uproots weeds; or like "lekalles", which in rabbinic Hebrew can mean to praise and laud, but in biblical usage denotes mockery and scorn. In the same way, "kir" (wall) gives rise to the idea of building a wall, while "le'karker" the wall means to undo it from being a wall and destroy it. "Breaking down the wall (mekarker kir)" - the enemy advanced and demolished the fortification. All of this teaches that what transpired here was completely unnatural; rather, Hashem decreed that it be a day of tumult, trampling, and confusion. Such was the decree from the Lord God of Hosts, for under natural conditions it never should have unfolded this way.
In Lashon HaKodesh, the Malbim distinguishes between three closely related roots: "H-M-H" - normal commotion, like a person walking through a marketplace hearing the usual background hum, also related to "hamon" (a multitude, as in "the place is teeming with people"). "H-M-M" - something that strikes terrible fear, a blow that stuns and disorients; this too is an opposing concept, for if "hemya" is noise, "hamam" brings stunned silence, delivering such a staggering blow that one is immobilized and rendered speechless. And "H-W-M" denotes the uproar when people marvel at an extraordinary, unnatural sight, as in "and all the city was stirred (vatehom)" - who had arrived? Naomi! "Is this Naomi?" She who once traveled with litters and mules suddenly appears destitute in tattered garments, "and all the city was stirred." From this comes the term "mehumah": a soldier on the battlefield witnessing something terrifying and monstrous, where men stand shell-shocked - and this was the "day of tumult" in Jerusalem. "Mevusah" (trampling) - that they were trampled upon and trodden down until they became revolting from the sheer stomping, like a "trampled corpse", from which the modern Hebrew word "tevusah" (rout / crushing defeat) derives: not merely losing on the battlefield, but a crushing rout where the enemy utterly grinds, tramples, and stomps them into the dust. "Mevuchah" (confusion) - a person wandering without direction, as in "they are entangled (nevuchim) in the land."
The Might of the Enemy and the Collapse of the Wall
וְעֵילָם נָשָׂא אַשְׁפָּה בְּרֶכֶב אָדָם פָּרָשִׁים וְקִיר עֵרָה מָגֵן׃ - And Elam bore the quiver with chariots of men and horsemen, and Kir uncovered the shield.
In the meantime, the enemies captured the wall. Elam is a nation, and it carried quivers of arrows there - an ashpah is the quiver in which arrows are placed. They had so many quivers of arrows that they could not carry them by hand, so they loaded them onto chariots and cavalry mounts, which usually carry men, but here were used to carry quivers of arrows. "And Elam bore the quiver with chariots of men and horsemen" - an immense quantity of weaponry brought by the enemy to wage war against Yerushalayim. "And Kir uncovered the shield" - Elam shot arrows, and the wall that was supposed to serve as a protective shield collapsed. Erah ("uncovered") denotes exposure, as in ervat ha'aretz ("the nakedness of the land"), the exposure of the land's secrets: the wall that was supposed to serve as a rampart and shield was laid bare and exposed. Alternatively, it can mean demolition, like le'ar'er, to undermine the stability of something, as in "Raze it, raze it (aru aru) down to its foundation" - to undermine and destroy.
וַיְהִי מִבְחַר־עֲמָקַיִךְ מָלְאוּ רָכֶב וְהַפָּרָשִׁים שֹׁת שָׁתוּ הַשָּׁעְרָה׃ - And it came to pass that your choicest valleys were full of chariots, and the horsemen set themselves in array at the gate.
Until now you did not go out to fight, until suddenly you see how all of your choicest valleys have filled with the chariots and cavalry of the enemy coming to conquer the city. "And the horsemen set themselves in array (shot shatu) at the gate" - they have already laid the groundwork to reach the gate; shatu is from the root of lashit, to place or position. They are already poised to enter through the gate.
"And He uncovered the screen of Yehudah" - A Belated Awakening
וַיְגַל אֵת מָסַךְ יְהוּדָה וַתַּבֵּט בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא אֶל־נֶשֶׁק בֵּית הַיָּעַר׃ - And He uncovered the screen of Yehudah, and you looked on that day toward the armor of the House of the Forest.
After the enemy breached the wall, which was the "screen of Yehudah" - the barrier behind which they sheltered, which shielded them - only then, "and you looked on that day toward the armor of the House of the Forest": you remembered that the former kings had left weaponry for you in the armory at the House of the Forest of the Levanon. In other words, the awakening came too late. Only after the wall fell and the screen of Yehudah was exposed did you remember that you had weapons in the House of the Forest, and by then it was too late. The awakening should have occurred long before, when there was still time to fight.
Rashi brings an additional explanation based on the Midrash of Chazal: The "screen of Yehudah" is the Beis HaMikdash, which protected and shielded them. Hashem uncovered, or as it were exiled, the Beis HaMikdash, and the people of Yisrael were immediately left exposed. For as long as the sacrifices were offered, we were saved; but once the daily tamid offering ceased and the sacrifices ceased, we were left vulnerable. "And He uncovered the screen of Yehudah" - He exposed and exiled the Beis HaMikdash, which had shielded Yehudah.
Tactics Instead of Repentance
וְאֵת בְּקִיעֵי עִיר־דָּוִד רְאִיתֶם כִּי־רָבּוּ וַתְּקַבְּצוּ אֶת־מֵי הַבְּרֵכָה הַתַּחְתּוֹנָה׃ - And you saw that the breaches of the City of David were many, and you gathered together the waters of the lower pool.
Only then did you notice that the breaches in the wall had multiplied: they woke up late and realized that the wall was riddled like a sieve, with the enemy attempting to penetrate through all the cracks. And what did you do? "And you gathered together the waters of the lower pool" - you collected the pool's water so it would be ready at hand to mix mortar for rebuilding the wall. The Radak explains similarly: gathering the pool's waters was meant for kneading mortar to seal the breaches, but of course it was already too late.
Rashi cites another explanation based on Targum Yonatan: "Vechinashtun yat ama lemei berechta ar'ita" - you did not gather the water of the pool, but rather gathered the people to the location of the pool's waters so the people could fight from there. And why specifically there? Because that was Yerushalayim's vulnerable point, through which the enemy could penetrate; therefore, you assembled the people specifically there so they could fight from that position.
וְאֶת־בָּתֵּי יְרוּשָׁלַיִם סְפַרְתֶּם וַתִּתְצוּ הַבָּתִּים לְבַצֵּר הַחוֹמָה׃ - And you counted the houses of Jerusalem, and you tore down the houses to fortify the wall.
You conducted a census and began counting how many houses there were in Jerusalem, and from this tally you wanted to know who had a spare house, who had an extra property, who had an investment apartment. And for what purpose? To tear down that house and use its stones to reinforce the city wall. "And you tore down the houses" - you demolished those spare houses to strengthen the wall, for they lacked stones with which to repair the breached 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 water of the old pool, but you did not look to its Maker, nor did you see the One who fashioned it from afar.
Between the two walls surrounding the city, you gathered the water of the pool to make a mikveh - a reservoir, in the sense of a place where water gathers. This served three purposes: First, so that the enemy would not find water to drink, for if he had water readily available, he could prolong the siege for a long time. Second, so that there would be water for those inside under siege, as we saw in the days of Chizkiyahu, when they channeled the water into the city to have drinking water during the siege. And third, so that the water would serve as a barrier and a second wall that the enemy could not cross, just as was customary in royal fortresses, where they would construct a wall surrounded by a moat of water so that the fortress could not easily be conquered, that body of water serving as an obstacle.
And all this you did to protect Jerusalem - and to this the prophet says to them: "Yet you did not look to its Maker, nor did you see the One who fashioned it from afar." Why all this toil, strain, and labor? You should have observed with rational reflection that the enemy on his own has no power for any of this. How did he accomplish all this? It is something supernatural; this success defies reason. Hashem did all this; Hashem delivered you into the hand of your enemies. And if this is from Hashem, what place is there to go and wage war by natural means when your issue is with the Creator of the world? You needed to resolve your problem with the Holy One, Blessed be He, realize that Hashem did all this against nature, and repent. But you said: We have a problem, let us go and fight the enemy - and regarding this it was told to them that this is Hashem's doing, and it will not avail you.
"Nor did you see the One who fashioned it from afar" - you should have seen with your own eyes that Hashem fashioned this decree long ago. After all, for years you have been receiving prophecies through the prophets about what is destined to happen to Jerusalem, and you see, generation after generation and time after time, that not a single prophecy is nullified and not a single prophecy goes unfulfilled; of everything the prophets say, not one word has fallen to the ground. If so, you should have understood that if something was declared from afar, it will ultimately come to pass. You had plenty of time; you were warned long in advance; you were notified long ago that this is what would occur. Yet you, instead of repenting, seek stratagems on how to fight, how to vanquish the enemy, how to defend yourselves. And what will it avail you? For He spoke and it came to be, and there is no counsel and no wisdom against Hashem. What were you supposed to do? Repent.
"Its Maker" and "the One Who Fashioned It", "Looking" and "Seeing"
The Malbim notes the paired expressions: "you did not look [lo hibat-tem]" and "you did not see [lo re'item]", "its Maker [oseha]" and "the One who fashioned it [yotzerah]". What is the difference between a yotzer (fashioner) and an oseh (maker)? A yotzer forms the shape of the object, while the oseh brings it to completion in all its beauty and perfection. This can be compared to someone sculpting an image: first he takes the raw material and forms a shape - this is yetzirah (fashioning); afterward, he carves the fine details with a chisel, shaping the ears and eyes, paints, coats, and gives it a lifelike appearance - this is asiyah (making/completing). When we speak of the creation of the world, we say that the Holy One, Blessed be He, created something from nothing on the first day alone, and from there He continued and completed all His works. Although the term bara is typically used for creation ex nihilo, the intention here is not strictly ex nihilo, for a yotzer works with existing material, "like clay in the hands of the potter"; rather, the distinction is between the initial shaping and the asiyah, which is the final perfection. As in the verse, "and she had not dressed [astah] her nails" - did she create nails? Rather, she did not pare and groom them; similarly, "he did not trim [asah] his mustache" - he did not groom it. The term asiyah consistently refers to perfecting and completing an object in its proper form, while yetzirah refers to fashioning it from raw material and turning it into a concrete reality.
Accordingly, the ancient decree that Hashem decreed regarding this calamity - this was the fashioning (yetzirah) of the decree. And when He brought it from decree into actual reality - that was its completion and making (asiyah). "The One who fashioned it from afar" - the decree was formed long ago and you did not awaken, and consequently, the Holy One, Blessed be He, was compelled to also become its Maker, bringing what He fashioned from afar to its ultimate completion and executing it in reality.
And what is the difference between "looking" [habatah] and "seeing" [re'iyah]? Seeing is physical eyesight, what a person sees with his physical eyes, "for eye to eye they shall see"; whereas looking is contemplation of a matter, even intellectual observation - where one does not merely look at the object itself, but reflects upon it and contemplates it. And the Malbim explains: they knew in advance that whatever the Holy One, Blessed be He, prophesies is true; they saw the enemy's conquest and how he would triumph, they saw it all; and the enemy is nothing more than an axe in the hand of the hewer, while the Holy One, Blessed be He, is the One who orchestrated everything. For this, one does not even need deep intellectual contemplation, because you see it with your own eyes: you saw unnatural occurrences, you see the conduct of the Holy One, Blessed be He, and one does not need to be a great scholar for this - simply by observing, you see that unnatural things are happening here and that Hashem is fighting on their behalf.
Therefore: "Nor did you see the One who fashioned it from afar" - if you were informed long in advance about every single detail, and you see that it unfolded exactly as predicted, point by point, no deep contemplation is needed at all; anyone with eyes of flesh can see that Hashem spoke and it came to pass, He commanded and it stood. And even when it finally unfolded, where there is a need to reflect more deeply and see how every single detail aligned with what Hashem said - here looking is required, and regarding this it says "you did not look": to understand the essence of the matter, how each and every detail unfolds, and to see how everything was delivered in ancient prophecy. Yet you did not look at this either, whereas had you looked, you would have repented. But that was not the case, and therefore you sought wartime stratagems, how to battle the enemy; yet that was not meant to be your path, but rather to contemplate and repent.
Permissible Effort and Heretical Effort
Rashi asks: Seemingly, what fault is found with them for constructing a water reservoir between the walls for reinforcement so that the enemy would not conquer the city? After all, we find the very same with Chizkiyahu: "And he took courage, and built up all the wall that was broken down, and raised it up to the towers, and another wall outside, and strengthened the Millo, the city of David" - Chizkiyahu too built a wall and made a pool between the walls to prevent the enemy from entering. Rashi answers that there is a vast difference: Chizkiyahu trusted in Hashem, the God of Israel. One begins with trust in Hashem, and then also engages in natural effort (*hishtadlut*). But in your case, in the days of Yehoyakim and Tzidkiyahu, "you did not look to its Maker" - you failed to recognize that there is One who wages this battle, and He is Hashem.
In other words, you are permitted to fight, and indeed you are required to fight - on condition that you fight like David and Chizkiyahu, knowing that the kingship and the battle belong to Hashem, yet nevertheless you say: I must do my part in natural effort. But if you say: Master of the Universe, stand aside and do not go out with our hosts, we will manage on our own - that is heresy against Hashem. In that case, building this reservoir merely reflects the attitude of "my power and the might of my hand": You are not with us? We will manage by ourselves.
This calls to mind the familiar story of the man searching for parking in Tel Aviv: he circles around and around and finds nothing. Having no choice, he pleads: "Master of the Universe, if You provide me with a parking spot right now, I will give twenty shekels to charity." Barely had he finished uttering the words when he saw someone pulling out of a spot. He immediately said: "Master of the Universe, no need, I managed on my own!" A person ought to realize how the Holy One, blessed be He, directs his every step, yet he says: No, we will manage on our own. In this light, the very construction of the reservoir and that water conduit expressed denial of Hashem, as if to say: I have no desire to repent; I can manage quite well without the Master of the Universe.
Furthermore, regarding "and its Fashioner from afar you did not see": you should have contemplated that the Holy One, blessed be He, fashioned Jerusalem from afar. The Midrash states: He who created it created it before the world was created. And so Chazal teach, seven things were created before the creation of the world, namely: Gan Eden, the Torah, the righteous, Israel, the Throne of Glory, Jerusalem, and Mashiach ben David.
Yet note the words of the Radak: this Midrash is not to be understood in the simplistic manner that many assume. Rather, its meaning is that they existed in potential to be created before the world was created, because these things are the very purpose of the creation of the world. One should not be foolish and ask: Where did Jerusalem stand before the world was created? Where did He place it? And where was Mashiach - who gave birth to him? Was King David around before the world was created? Rather, the meaning is that they stood at the foundation of the blueprint. When Hashem willed to create the world, what was in His plan, what did He foresee as the ultimate purpose for which He was creating it? He saw Jerusalem, He saw the Jewish people, the Throne of Glory, and Mashiach ben David. That is what is meant by their being created before the world was created.
This is what is meant by "and its Fashioner from afar you did not see": you did not reflect that Jerusalem is not an ordinary, natural city. Jerusalem is a city that the Holy One, blessed be He, created even before the world was created, standing at the very foundation of the blueprint of creation. If so, you should have understood that this city does not function according to natural laws; it is governed by special Divine providence - "His dwelling place is in Zion" - for the Holy One, blessed be He, permanently rests His Presence in it. How, then, did you think you could manage simply by diverting the water of the pool here and having no need for Him? How did you imagine the Holy One, blessed be He, would let you act as you please, when He is its Fashioner from afar?
A Call to Weeping - and a Response of "Eat and Drink"
וַיִּקְרָא אֲדֹנָי יְהֹוִה צְבָאוֹת בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא לִבְכִי וּלְמִסְפֵּד וּלְקׇרְחָה וְלַחֲגֹר שָׂק׃ - And on that day the Lord God of Hosts called to weeping, and to mourning, and to baldness, and to girding with sackcloth.
Hashem proclaimed this prophecy through the prophets long before it came to pass. And to what end? "To weeping, and to mourning, and to baldness" - Hashem desired that they repent, weep, and mourn, and then He would relent of the evil decree. But they did not do so.
וְהִנֵּה שָׂשׂוֹן וְשִׂמְחָה הָרֹג בָּקָר וְשָׁחֹט צֹאן אָכֹל בָּשָׂר וְשָׁתוֹת יָיִן אָכוֹל וְשָׁתוֹ כִּי מָחָר נָמוּת׃ - And behold, joy and gladness, slaying cattle and slaughtering sheep, eating flesh and drinking wine: "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we shall die."
Instead of weeping and mourning, there was joy and gladness, slaughtering cattle to eat meat, and declaring: "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die." Since tomorrow we die, let us at least seize the moment, make the most of it, and enjoy life; better to indulge today if tomorrow we are destined to perish. And Rashi explains "for tomorrow we shall die" as referring to the World to Come: the prophets announce that we will have no share in the World to Come, so let us at least enjoy this world.
The Malbim notes a precise distinction: What is the difference between *sason* (joy) and *simchah* (gladness)? *Simchah* is gladness of the heart, an inner joy, whereas *sason* is outward rejoicing, where a person is exuberant and begins to dance from sheer excitement. This was the progression they followed: they began with outward revelry until it turned into internal gladness, and consequently "slaying cattle and slaughtering sheep" - seeking only the lusts and pleasures of this world, "let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we shall die."
Notice what happened here. When the prophet came and told them in advance: Know that trouble is coming, a difficult war is coming, many will die and perish - what is a person naturally supposed to do? To be aroused to repentance. And what did they do? "We are about to die? Great, let us hold celebrations; the prophet also said we are going to die!" See what a corruption and distortion this is: what was supposed to awaken them not only failed to awaken them, but instead fostered the attitude of - come, enjoy what remains; we still have a little time left to live, so enjoy it to the fullest.
"This iniquity shall not be forgiven you until you die"
וְנִגְלָה בְאׇזְנָי יְהֹוָה צְבָאוֹת אִם־יְכֻפַּר הֶעָוֺן הַזֶּה לָכֶם עַד־תְּמֻתוּן אָמַר אֲדֹנָי יְהֹוִה צְבָאוֹת׃ - And it was revealed in my ears by the Lord of Hosts: Surely this iniquity shall not be forgiven you until you die, says the Lord, God of Hosts.
Then He swore in the name of Hashem that He would not forgive them until they ultimately truly die; just as they said, "Eat and drink, for tomorrow we die" - indeed it will not be forgiven until they die. The Malbim further explains: "Until you die" (ad temutun) is like "forever you shall die" (le'ad temutun) - Hashem heard this, and this iniquity will not be forgiven you; moreover, you will die forever: you will die in this world and also die in the World to Come. And "it was revealed" - Hashem says: It is revealed and known before Me what they are saying, and therefore I swear that this iniquity will not be forgiven you until you die.
Now seemingly, why specifically "this iniquity"? This implies that this final iniquity is greater than the earlier ones. And why is it more severe than all the sins they committed? After all, in Jerusalem of the destruction there was idolatry, forbidden relations, and bloodshed - the destruction of the First Temple involved all the cardinal sins! Why, then, is this iniquity of "eat and drink, for tomorrow we die" greater than them all, such that it cannot be atoned for by sword, nor by famine, nor by exile, and nothing will atone for it except death?
The reason is: as long as afflictions fall upon a person and he is aroused to repentance, he still has hope, and there is a purpose in keeping him here. But the moment the blows not only fail to arouse him, but drag him down into the abyss - for what does he say? "Things are so bad? Then let us indulge even more, because everything is about to end!" - then the Holy One, Blessed be He, says: There is no point in afflictions; the blows do not arouse you. Therefore, "this iniquity shall not be forgiven you until you die": for this there is no atonement, because a person's entire chance of rectification lies in being struck and repenting, in being awakened and waking up; but if it only puts him further to sleep and tells him to exploit this world even more, for this there is no atonement.
This is the meaning of "and it was revealed in my ears by the Lord of Hosts": the Holy One, Blessed be He, says, your thoughts are revealed before Me, and therefore I will give you a punishment for which there is no atonement at all. And there is another explanation: "Until you die" refers to the second death, an additional death in the World to Come; whereas until now you were only threatened with death in this world, now you are threatened with death in the World to Come as well. And "revealed in my ears", according to Targum Yonatan, is spoken by the prophet: It was revealed in my ears, with my own ears I heard when the decree was issued from Hashem. That is to say, I am revealing secrets to you from behind the celestial curtain: I heard that the Lord of Hosts swore that this iniquity will not be forgiven until you die.
And why is this so severe? Our Sages say: Whoever has the sin of chillul Hashem (desecration of God's Name) on his hands, repentance cannot suspend it, Yom Kippur cannot atone for it, and afflictions cannot cleanse it; rather, they all suspend the judgment, and death alone purges it. This is the meaning of "surely this iniquity shall not be forgiven you until you die" - there must be death, and only then will there be cleansing for this terrible sin of chillul Hashem. There are harsh decrees, there are troubles, and you say: "Let us have a celebration, let us throw a party"? That is an appalling chillul Hashem, and regarding this it is said that there will be no atonement for it until you die.
In summary:
The prophet places a watchman over the fall of Jerusalem, and everything he sees defies nature: the warriors go up to the rooftops instead of heading to the gate; a walled city accustomed to war whose people die of starvation rather than by the sword or in battle; and officers and leaders fleeing from the fight. All of these prove that this is not a natural course of events, but a decree from the Lord of Hosts: a day of tumult, trampling, and perplexity. Yet instead of looking to its Maker and seeing its Fashioner from afar, and realizing that the city created within the blueprint of Creation itself does not operate by the laws of nature, the people of Jerusalem turned to physical tactics: gathering water, tearing down houses, building a reservoir between the two walls. The physical effort itself was not improper - Chizkiyahu did the same, yet he trusted in Hashem, the God of Israel; the flaw lay in an effort that declared, "We will manage on our own." And finally, when Hashem called for weeping and mourning, they responded with joy and gladness, saying "eat and drink, for tomorrow we die" - thereby turning the blow meant to awaken into something that put them to sleep. This is a chillul Hashem for which there is no atonement except through death.