Chapter 36 of Yeshayahu opens the narrative of Sancheiriv's campaign against Yehudah and Jerusalem. The Malbim notes that this story appears three times in Tanach: in II Melachim chapter 18, in II Divrei HaYamim chapter 32, and here in Yeshayahu chapter 36. The core of this chapter is Ravshakeh's approach to the people, attempting to convince them not to rely on Chizkiyahu, who rebelled against the king of Ashur, but rather to come out to him, make peace with him, and accept being exiled to another land. However, when comparing these three accounts, distinct differences emerge.
In II Melachim, it is written that Chizkiyahu sent word to Sancheiriv saying, "I have sinned; turn back from me; whatever you impose upon me I will bear" - meaning, he presented himself as totally submissive, ready to pay whatever tribute was demanded. The king of Ashur then imposed upon the king of Yehudah three hundred talents of silver and thirty talents of gold, and Chizkiyahu paid it all. Only after that did Sancheiriv dispatch Ravshakeh. In Divrei HaYamim, however, the narrative unfolds differently: when Sancheiriv arrived, Chizkiyahu stopped up the springs and the brook that flowed through the land (stopping the waters of Gichon), made weapons and shields in abundance, gathered the people, encouraged them, and appointed military officers over them - in other words, he prepared the nation for war, and only then did Sancheiriv send Ravshakeh. If so, what prompted Ravshakeh's arrival: submission, or preparations for war?
The Malbim resolves this: initially, Chizkiyahu made an outward declaration that he was willing to pay tribute and accept whatever was imposed on him. However, this was a stratagem designed to lull the king of Ashur into a false sense of security, making him confident that Chizkiyahu had surrendered and would pay annual tribute from now on. Consequently, Sancheiriv would not muster an army or sharpen his swords of war, assuming that front was quiet. Meanwhile, Chizkiyahu planned to arm his troops and organize them for battle, intending to strike precisely when Sancheiriv was unprepared. Therefore, both accounts are true: Ravshakeh was sent both after Chizkiyahu paid the tribute and after he prepared for war, since Chizkiyahu did both simultaneously.
וַיְהִי בְּאַרְבַּע עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה לַמֶּלֶךְ חִזְקִיָּהוּ עָלָה סַנְחֵרִיב מֶלֶךְ אַשּׁוּר עַל כָּל עָרֵי יְהוּדָה הַבְּצֻרוֹת וַיִּתְפְּשֵׂם׃ וַיִּשְׁלַח מֶלֶךְ אַשּׁוּר אֶת רַבְשָׁקֵה מִלָּכִישׁ יְרוּשָׁלְַמָה אֶל הַמֶּלֶךְ חִזְקִיָּהוּ בְּחֵיל כָּבֵד וַיַּעֲמֹד בִּתְעָלַת הַבְּרֵכָה הָעֶלְיוֹנָה בִּמְסִלַּת שְׂדֵה כוֹבֵס׃ - And it came to pass in the fourteenth year of King Chizkiyahu, that Sancheiriv king of Ashur came up against all the fortified cities of Yehudah and took them. And the king of Ashur sent Ravshakeh from Lachish to Jerusalem unto King Chizkiyahu with a heavy army; and he stood by the conduit of the upper pool, on the highway of the fuller's field.
Ravshakeh was the one who did the dirty work for Sancheiriv, and as is often the case - Ravshakeh was an apostate Jew. It is always they who do the dirty work for the gentiles. At times it is apostate Jews, at other times it is leftists; history changes the names, but it simply repeats itself. And this Ravshakeh came to persuade the people to rebel against Chizkiyahu and accept the sovereignty of Sancheiriv.
The Malbim raises two questions here. First, if Chizkiyahu agreed to pay tribute and submitted, why did Sancheiriv come to conquer him? This defies standard diplomatic conventions: when one country pays tribute to another, the receiving country does not move to conquer it; on the contrary, it leaves it intact so that it will continue paying tribute. Why, then, does he label him a "rebel"? Second, what is the significance of the detail that Ravshakeh stood "by the conduit of the upper pool, on the highway of the fuller's field"? It would have sufficed to say that he came and besieged Jerusalem; what difference does it make which corner, latitude, or longitude he stood at?
However, based on what we explained, everything becomes clear. When Chizkiyahu stopped up the waters of Gichon, Sancheiriv realized there was a trap. He understood that the surrender was mere lip service, not genuine submission. The proof was that Chizkiyahu was actively preparing for battle: stopping up the waters of Gichon so that when the enemy laid siege to Jerusalem, their soldiers would find no water, and preparing weapons and shields, as recorded in Divrei HaYamim. Sancheiriv, who was an experienced warrior and strategist - as shown by his extensive conquests - recognized this immediately, which is why he sent Ravshakeh. And for that reason, Ravshakeh specifically stationed himself at the conduit of the upper pool, the very conduit that Chizkiyahu had stopped up, to send an unmistakable message: your intentions are clear to us. You stopped up the waters of Gichon with the express purpose of fighting us.
וַיֵּצֵא אֵלָיו אֶלְיָקִים בֶּן חִלְקִיָּהוּ אֲשֶׁר עַל הַבָּיִת וְשֶׁבְנָא הַסֹּפֵר וְיוֹאָח בֶּן אָסָף הַמַּזְכִּיר׃ - And there went out to him Elyakim the son of Chilkiyahu, who was over the household, and Shevna the scribe, and Yoach the son of Asaph, the recorder.
Elyakim ben Chilkiyahu was "over the household" - the minister in charge of the royal palace. Shevna the scribe was the one who chronicled the royal history. Yoach ben Asaph the recorder would present before the king who had arrived first for judgment and what petition had been submitted to him.
וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵיהֶם רַבְשָׁקֵה אִמְרוּ נָא אֶל חִזְקִיָּהוּ כֹּה אָמַר הַמֶּלֶךְ הַגָּדוֹל מֶלֶךְ אַשּׁוּר מָה הַבִּטָּחוֹן הַזֶּה אֲשֶׁר בָּטָחְתָּ׃ אָמַרְתִּי אַךְ דְּבַר שְׂפָתַיִם עֵצָה וּגְבוּרָה לַמִּלְחָמָה עַתָּה עַל מִי בָטַחְתָּ כִּי מָרַדְתָּ בִּי׃ - Rabshakeh said to them: "Say now to Chizkiyahu: So said the great king, the king of Assyria: What is this confidence that you have relied upon? I said [to myself], it is mere lip service; strategy and might are needed for war. Now, upon whom have you relied that you have rebelled against me?"
What does he mean by "What is this confidence that you have relied upon"? After all, Chizkiyahu had already sent tribute. And why does Rabshakeh repeat the theme of confidence so often - "upon whom have you relied," "behold, you rely on the staff of this crushed reed," "and if you say to me, 'In Hashem our God we have relied'"? The Malbim explains: You, Chizkiyahu, already rebelled once, and you already agreed to make peace and paid tribute. If so, upon what confidence did you rebel a second time? Someone who rebels once and in the end is forced to pay tribute - it is a sign that he understood he lacks the strength to fight. And if you have now changed strategy and decided to fight, it is a sign that you have something to rely upon. Tell me, then, what is your confidence? From here on, Rabshakeh will dissect every possible plan one by one and prove that Chizkiyahu has nothing to lean on.
In the Book of Kings (Melachim) it says, "You said (amarta), it is mere lip service," referring to what Chizkiyahu said, whereas here it says, "I said (amarti)" - the words of Rabshakeh. Seemingly, this is a discrepancy that alters the entire picture: who is speaking here? The Malbim explains that there is no difficulty here, because Rabshakeh is, as it were, stepping into Chizkiyahu's shoes and speaking in his place: I am telling you what you say in your heart. You think to yourself: Everything I sent to Sennacherib, pretending I seek peace and paying tribute and bribes just so he will get off my back - it is all mere "lip service," empty talk, and I have no intention of abandoning my plans. And in the meantime, what are you planning? "Strategy and might for war" - at the very time you are placating Sennacherib with words, you are preparing an arsenal of weapons and gearing up for war.
What are this "strategy" (eitzah) and "might" (gevurah)? The Malbim explains: "Strategy" - the plan to stop up the waters of the Gichon spring, redirecting the water into the city, so that the enemy troops would not be able to obtain water outside the city during the siege. "Might for war" - as recorded in Divrei HaYamim (Chronicles), where he prepared darts and shields and appointed military officers over the people. And regarding this comes the question: "Now, upon whom have you relied that you have rebelled against me?"
And why was this such a grave danger? Before you paid tribute, had I conquered you, I would not have exiled you, but rather imposed a tribute upon you. However, since you already rebelled once and I imposed tribute on you, and now you are preparing an army - this is a second rebellion. And with Sennacherib, there are no second chances. After a second rebellion, it is over; from that point on, it is exile. There is no "Excuse me, let's start over." There will not be a third time. And this is his entire challenge: Where did you get the audacity to trust and rebel again, knowing that one does not mess with Sennacherib, and that you are cutting off the very branch you are sitting on?
Notice the precise phrasing, "that you have rebelled against me." The word "rebel" (marad), the Malbim explains, applies only to someone who was already subjugated to his master and then threw off his yoke. When one nation seeks to conquer another nation and the second resists, that is not a rebellion; how could it be considered rebelling against you when I had no relationship with you? But someone who was already subordinate and decided to cast off the yoke - he is called a rebel. Since Chizkiyahu had already agreed to pay tribute, had already paid it, and had accepted being subject to him, breaking the treaty now is termed rebellion, and his status is like that of a servant who rebels against his master.
הִנֵּה בָטַחְתָּ עַל מִשְׁעֶנֶת הַקָּנֶה הָרָצוּץ הַזֶּה עַל מִצְרַיִם אֲשֶׁר יִסָּמֵךְ אִישׁ עָלָיו וּבָא בְכַפּוֹ וּנְקָבָהּ כֵּן פַּרְעֹה מֶלֶךְ מִצְרַיִם לְכָל הַבֹּטְחִים עָלָיו׃ - Behold, you rely on the staff of this crushed reed, on Egypt, which, if a man leans upon it, it will enter his palm and pierce it; so is Pharaoh king of Egypt to all who rely upon him.
There are two possibilities: either you relied on the help of flesh and blood, or you relied on God's help. Rabshakeh first addresses the help of flesh and blood. Upon whom were the people of Israel accustomed to rely? Upon Egypt, as we see numerous times throughout the Prophets, where the prophet rebukes them for leaning upon Egypt.
He says to him: You rely on Egypt? Why, it is a "staff of reed," and moreover it is "crushed." It possesses two flaws. The first - "which, if a man leans upon it": you imagine you have something to support you, but a reed is weak; when someone leans on it, it bends and snaps. And the second - it is also crushed: take a river reed and break it from above, and you are left with sharp splinters that pierce right into your hand.
And what is the harm in it being weak? When you have no one to lean on, you know you have no choice but to rely on yourself, and you prepare the army properly. But when you have someone to lean on, people ask you, "Well, what are you doing?" and you reply, "So-and-so promised to help me" - and you do not prepare at all. Thus, the very act of reliance ruins you. Not only that, but the reed also splinters and pierces your hand: Pharaoh king of Egypt would always promise to help and fail to keep his word, yet when it came to collecting the tribute and payment promised to him - that he would certainly demand. Therefore, it is not merely a staff that cannot be leaned upon, but a staff that actually causes harm.
וְכִי תֹאמַר אֵלַי אֶל ה' אֱלֹהֵינוּ בָּטָחְנוּ הֲלוֹא הוּא אֲשֶׁר הֵסִיר חִזְקִיָּהוּ אֶת בָּמֹתָיו וְאֶת מִזְבְּחֹתָיו וַיֹּאמֶר לִיהוּדָה וְלִירוּשָׁלִַם לִפְנֵי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ הַזֶּה תִּשְׁתַּחֲווּ׃ - And if you say to me: "We trust in Hashem our God" - is He not the One whose high places and altars Chizkiyahu removed, saying to Yehudah and Jerusalem: "Before this altar you shall bow down"?
This verse can be understood in two ways. When we studied this narrative in Sefer Melachim, we explained one possibility, which does not follow the Malbim: that Ravshakeh is enumerating Chizkiyahu's merits before the Creator of the world - he removed the high places (bamot) and altars, and commanded Yehudah and Jerusalem to bow down only before this altar and not burn offerings on high places, which is forbidden according to Halachah, and therefore Chizkiyahu has merits.
However, the Malbim and other commentators do not take this approach. Rather, on the contrary - Ravshakeh is listing his shortcomings: You have no one to rely on, because Chizkiyahu got into trouble with the Creator of the world. In every city there was an altar to Hashem, and Chizkiyahu came and dismantled them all, demanding that they slaughter and bring sacrifices only in Jerusalem. In Ravshakeh's view, this was done for his own benefit and glory, so that anyone wishing to offer a sacrifice would have to come to the royal capital, and perhaps also pay taxes there. If so, the Holy One, Blessed be He, has an unsettled score with Chizkiyahu; he is leaning on Someone who holds a grievance against him, and he has nothing to rely upon.
וְעַתָּה הִתְעָרֶב נָא אֶת אֲדֹנִי הַמֶּלֶךְ אַשּׁוּר וְאֶתְּנָה לְךָ אַלְפַּיִם סוּסִים אִם תּוּכַל לָתֶת לְךָ רֹכְבִים עֲלֵיהֶם׃ - And now, make a wager with my master, the king of Assyria, and I will give you two thousand horses, if you are able on your part to set riders upon them.
Here the insults begin. "Make a wager" (hit'arev na) - in the sense of a bet as we use the term today. And why is a wager called hit'arev? Because when two people place a wager on a sum of money, who guarantees that the loser will actually pay? They bring a third party and say to him: You will be the guarantor (arev). This one deposits with you and that one deposits with you, and whoever wins - you will give him his money and the loser's money. "Hit'arev" therefore means: enter into a pledge, deposit collateral with a third party to guarantee the wager between us.
And with this he refutes the first claim: What will Egypt give you in the first place? Not warriors, but at most chariots and horses ("parashim" - according to the Malbim, this always means horses, though some commentators explain that parashim are horsemen). And how many will they give you at most? Two thousand. He tells him: For that you need Egypt? Let us make a sporting challenge - I am ready to give you two thousand horses. Do you have riders to mount them? Do you have men of war who know how to sit on them and lead them into battle? There are not even two thousand riders in your army; what good will the chariots you receive from Egypt do you if you have no one to operate them?
וְאֵיךְ תָּשִׁיב אֵת פְּנֵי פַחַת אַחַד עַבְדֵי אֲדֹנִי הַקְּטַנִּים וַתִּבְטַח לְךָ עַל מִצְרַיִם לְרֶכֶב וּלְפָרָשִׁים׃ - And how then can you turn away the face of one captain of the least of my master's servants, and put your trust in Egypt for chariots and for horsemen?
"Pachat" is a commander or governor, related to pechah. How can you withstand even one of the least of my master's servants, the smallest of whom is a captain over thousands - commander over thousands of horsemen - while you, even if you receive anything, will receive two thousand horses, and even for those you have no riders? Tell me, then, how could you rely on Egypt?
וְעַתָּה הֲמִבַּלְעֲדֵי ה' עָלִיתִי עַל הָאָרֶץ הַזֹּאת לְהַשְׁחִיתָהּ ה' אָמַר אֵלַי עֲלֵה אֶל הָאָרֶץ הַזֹּאת וְהַשְׁחִיתָהּ׃ - And now, have I come up without Hashem against this land to destroy it? Hashem said to me: Go up against this land and destroy it!
And when did Hashem speak to him? Here Ravshakeh shifts to the opposite angle: we said that you trust in the Creator of the world. I already told you that you got entangled with Him and demolished His altars, and now I will add: you come in the Name of Hashem? I, too, come in the Name of Hashem. He does not mean that it was explicitly told to him, but rather that since you defied the word of Hashem by removing the altars, it is as though I have come to champion His cause and fight His battle - as if Hashem told me to march against Chizkiyahu and take retribution from him for abolishing all the altars and demanding that they come only to Jerusalem. This was Ravshakeh's perception, viewing it as a flaw. Yet according to Chazal, this was actually Chizkiyahu's great merit, for under all the kings before him the people had been sacrificing and burning incense on the high places (bamot), violating the prohibition against slaughtering outside the Temple, and Chizkiyahu put an end to it.
וַיֹּאמֶר אֶלְיָקִים וְשֶׁבְנָא וְיוֹאָח אֶל רַבְשָׁקֵה דַּבֶּר נָא אֶל עֲבָדֶיךָ אֲרָמִית כִּי שֹׁמְעִים אֲנָחְנוּ וְאַל תְּדַבֵּר אֵלֵינוּ יְהוּדִית בְּאָזְנֵי הָעָם אֲשֶׁר עַל הַחוֹמָה׃ - Then Elyakim, Shevna, and Yoach said to Ravshakeh, "Please speak to your servants in Aramaic, for we understand it; do not speak to us in Judean in the hearing of the people who are on the wall."
Aramaic was the language of royalty and diplomacy. As noted earlier, they had two languages: the language of the educated elite and the language of the common people. Such a distinction exists in almost every tongue. In Hebrew, too: give an ordinary person today a chapter from Yeshayahu or Yirmeyahu to read, and he cannot follow what is going on; he wonders whether those words are Hebrew at all. There is a higher register of language. So it is in English as well: there is everyday spoken English, and there is Shakespearean English, in which the plays are written and which the nobility spoke. Here, the language of the aristocracy, the language of the royal court, was Aramaic, whereas Hebrew was the vernacular of the common people.
On the surface, this request seems baffling: you have come to conquer me, and I am going to dictate which language you use for your propaganda? After all, the conqueror wants to address the people and terrify them. The Malbim explains: they assumed that Ravshakeh's objective was to persuade Chizkiyahu to abandon the idea of war, lay down his swords, shields, and weapons, unstop the waters of the Gichon, and resubmit to Sancheiriv's rule. Therefore they said to him: if your business is with the king, speak in the language of royalty; why speak in the vernacular, the Judean language spoken by the people of the tribe of Yehudah?
There is a note and gloss in Rashi here - though it may not be from Rashi himself, as bracketed comments are often later glosses - that Ravshakeh was an apostate Jew. They assumed that even though he was acting under his master's orders - meaning that Sancheiriv forced him to come and speak because he knew the language - perhaps his heart still held affection for his kin and compassion for his relatives. They were trying to appeal to the Jewish spark within him: speak with the king; why terrorize the entire populace?
וַיֹּאמֶר רַבְשָׁקֵה הַאֶל אֲדֹנֶיךָ וְאֵלֶיךָ שְׁלָחַנִי אֲדֹנִי לְדַבֵּר אֶת הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה הֲלֹא עַל הָאֲנָשִׁים הַיֹּשְׁבִים עַל הַחוֹמָה לֶאֱכֹל אֶת צוֹאָתָם וְלִשְׁתּוֹת אֶת מֵימֵי רַגְלֵיהֶם עִמָּכֶם׃ - But Ravshakeh said, "Was it to your master and to you that my master sent me to speak these words? Is it not to the men sitting on the wall, doomed to eat their own dung and drink their own urine along with you?"
Ravshakeh corrects them: I was not sent to Chizkiyahu at all. Under Sancheiriv there are no second chances, and Chizkiyahu's verdict is death; nothing will help him, he is beyond hope, we will strip him of his kingdom, and I have nothing to discuss with him. One negotiates only with someone with whom there is room to strike a deal, someone whose stance might change. But as for Chizkiyahu, even if he comes and begs and does whatever he might do - once I made peace with him previously and he rebelled, he is written off. I have come to speak to the people.
Nor can the decree of exile be overturned for the people: the nation will go into exile, for with Sancheiriv there is no second chance. However, you have two options: to go into exile pleasantly, or to go into exile the hard way. Therefore he tells them: we can besiege this city for a long time, and what will you have to eat? You will eat your dung and drink your urine. Rashi explains that "meimei raglehem" is not what is commonly understood - urine - but rather loose bowel discharge, the secretion of the rectum. In other words: the siege will drag on until you have nothing left to eat and are forced to consume your own waste. Surrender to me now, and spare yourselves all this agony.
וַיַּעֲמֹד רַבְשָׁקֵה וַיִּקְרָא בְקוֹל גָּדוֹל יְהוּדִית וַיֹּאמֶר שִׁמְעוּ אֶת דִּבְרֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ הַגָּדוֹל מֶלֶךְ אַשּׁוּר׃ - Then Ravshakeh stood and cried out with a loud voice in Judean, saying, "Hear the words of the great king, the king of Assyria!"
The insistence on "the great king" comes to say: You have a small king, Chizkiyahu, and we have a great one - the king of Assyria.
כֹּה אָמַר הַמֶּלֶךְ אַל יַשִּׁא לָכֶם חִזְקִיָּהוּ כִּי לֹא יוּכַל לְהַצִּיל אֶתְכֶם׃ - Thus said the king: Let not Chizkiyahu deceive you, for he will not be able to deliver you.
Further on, he says, "Lest Chizkiyahu incite you [yasit]." The Malbim asks: What is the difference between yashi (deceive through false reassurance) and yasit (incite through argument)? After all, "The serpent beguiled me (hishi'ani) and I ate" also carries the sense of incitement. He explains: One who causes someone to be mashi reassures someone who is afraid. The serpent said, "You shall not surely die" - I know you are afraid of dying, so I am reassuring you. Likewise, "The pride of your heart has deceived you (hishi'acha)... who will bring me down to the earth?" - he feared being brought down, and the pride of his heart reassured him. Similarly, "You have greatly deceived (hashei hisheita) this people, saying: You shall have peace" - they feared war, and he reassured them. A mashi always removes fear. In contrast, a mesit (inciter or persuader) provides reasons and logical arguments to follow his words; fear is not the issue here, but rather offering counsel and rationales for why it is worthwhile to act this way. For example: "She incited him (vatesitehu) to ask of her father a field" - she persuaded him with arguments that it was advantageous to have the field; "and he enticed him (vayesitehu) to go up to Ramot-Gilead"; "If your brother incites you (yesitcha)... Let us go and serve other gods" - persuasion through proofs and logical reasoning. Enticement or seduction (pituy), on the other hand, differs from both: pituy appeals to emotion - "like a silly dove without understanding (petah ein lev)," "if a man seduces (yefateh) a virgin"; pituy speaks to the gullible simpleton, someone who believes anything.
Therefore here: Chizkiyahu reassures you and says, "Do not fear" - "let not Chizkiyahu deceive you," do not listen to his reassurances, for he will not be able to deliver you.
וְאַל יַבְטַח אֶתְכֶם חִזְקִיָּהוּ אֶל ה' לֵאמֹר הַצֵּל יַצִּילֵנוּ ה' לֹא תִנָּתֵן הָעִיר הַזֹּאת בְּיַד מֶלֶךְ אַשּׁוּר׃ - And let not Chizkiyahu cause you to trust in Hashem, saying: Hashem will surely deliver us; this city will not be given into the hand of the king of Assyria.
There are two arguments here in Chizkiyahu's words: "Hashem will surely deliver us" - on account of our merits, that we are worthy and righteous; and "this city will not be given" - on account of Jerusalem being the city of the Creator of the world, for would Hashem deliver His own city into enemy hands? And Ravshakeh comes to address both of these claims.
אַל תִּשְׁמְעוּ אֶל חִזְקִיָּהוּ כִּי כֹה אָמַר הַמֶּלֶךְ אַשּׁוּר עֲשׂוּ אִתִּי בְרָכָה וּצְאוּ אֵלַי וְאִכְלוּ אִישׁ גַּפְנוֹ וְאִישׁ תְּאֵנָתוֹ וּשְׁתוּ אִישׁ מֵי בוֹרוֹ׃ עַד בֹּאִי וְלָקַחְתִּי אֶתְכֶם אֶל אֶרֶץ כְּאַרְצְכֶם אֶרֶץ דָּגָן וְתִירוֹשׁ אֶרֶץ לֶחֶם וּכְרָמִים׃ - Do not listen to Chizkiyahu, for thus said the king of Assyria: Make peace with me and come out to me, and eat, every man of his vine and every man of his fig tree, and drink, every man the water of his cistern; until I come and take you away to a land like your own land, a land of grain and new wine, a land of bread and vineyards.
"Make peace with me (berachah)" - make peace with me; "and come out to me" - to greet me; open the city gates. And what will you gain? First, immediately: "and eat, every man of his vine and every man of his fig tree, and drink, every man the water of his cistern." Right now you have no water and no vines or figs; there is a siege, with no one leaving and no one entering. I will open everything for you, and you will not starve to death. However, this is temporary, "until I come and take you away to a land like your own land."
The Malbim asks: On the surface, the offer seems baffling - you currently have vineyards and fields, and I will give you vineyards and fields? Swapping a donkey for a donkey, what do I gain from this? The answer is: I will not annul the decree of exile under any circumstances, for Sancheriv's decree must stand. But you have an opportunity to receive benefits. First, immediate food, on the spot. Second, I will exile you to a good place - a land of grain and new wine, bread and vineyards. For this was Sancheriv's method: he would take a nation from here and exile them to another place, while the previous exiles left behind vineyards and fields, and their refrigerators were still full of food. I will take you as you are to such a place, where there is food, fields, vines, and vineyards. And if you ask what you are ultimately getting out of this - I spared you from war, I spared you from siege and death by starvation, and I spared you from the most terrible possibility of all: that if you reject my offer, I will exile you to an arid wasteland, to a land where you will starve to death. After all, you will be exiled either way; isn't it worthwhile for you to at least be exiled to a place where you will not starve? And as an advance, I am giving you immediate access right now to your vineyards and fields - for inside Jerusalem there were no vineyards or fields, everything was outside - and you will be able to eat from your produce and live in peace until Sancheriv comes and carries out the decree.
The Yalkut Shimoni on Sefer Bemidbar (Chapter 13, Remez 743) states: Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai says, he was a fool who did not know how to entice. That is to say, what a fool Ravshakeh was, and what kind of enticements he presented to them - things that had no persuasive power at all. This is comparable to a man who went to marry a woman, and needed to persuade her to leave her father's house and go with him. He said to her: "Your father is a king, and I am a king; your father is wealthy, and I am wealthy; your father feeds you meat and fish and gives you aged wine to drink - and I, too, will feed you meat and fish and give you aged wine to drink." This is no enticement at all; I already have everything in the palace, why should I go with you? What is an enticement? When he says to her: "Your father is a commoner, and I am a king; your father is poor, and I am wealthy; your father feeds you vegetables and legumes, but I will feed you meat and fish and give you aged wine to drink; your father makes you walk on foot, but I will transport you in a litter (gludka) - in a carried sedan chair, the Mercedes of back then." That is enticement: you were at rock bottom, and I will make you a queen.
And are these things not a kal vachomer (an a fortiori argument)? Says Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai: If one who came to praise his own land did not speak disparagingly of the Land of Israel, how much more so is the praise of the Land of Israel evident! This wicked man wanted to convince them that there was a superior place, yet even so, he could find no flaw in the Land of Israel; he did not say, "Your place is worthless," but merely, "I will give you an equivalent place." That was the absolute maximum he could say. And if one who seeks to disparage finds no words of disparagement, how much more so when one comes to praise the Land of Israel - its praise is boundless and without end. According to the Malbim, however, this is explained wonderfully as a method of persuasion and logic: "I am taking you to a good land; you will eat and drink, you will not die of hunger or in war, and right now I will also lift the siege so you can go out to your fields and vineyards." There is a temptation here.
Yet there is a difficulty here in the order of the phrasing: "a land of grain and new wine, a land of bread and vineyards." Tirosh (new wine) is wine - a finished product; degan (grain) is produce that has not yet been processed; lechem (bread) is a finished product; and keramim (vineyards) are still in the ground. If so, it should have said "grain and vineyards" - both unprocessed, and "bread and new wine" - both processed. Why then does it say "grain and new wine, bread and vineyards"? The Malbim explains that he was exiling them to a place that is part of Afriki, where it is customary to sow the grain near the grape-harvest season, so that when they tread the wine, the grain stands tall in the stalk, in the middle of its growth; or they sow earlier, and when they gather the grain, there is already produce on the vines. Thus, at the time of the grain there is already wine, and at the time of the bread there are vineyards - and the words are exact.
פֶּן יַסִּית אֶתְכֶם חִזְקִיָּהוּ לֵאמֹר ה' יַצִּילֵנוּ הַהִצִּילוּ אֱלֹהֵי הַגּוֹיִם אִישׁ אֶת אַרְצוֹ מִיַּד מֶלֶךְ אַשּׁוּר׃ אַיֵּה אֱלֹהֵי חֲמָת וְאַרְפָּד אַיֵּה אֱלֹהֵי סְפַרְוָיִם וְכִי הִצִּילוּ אֶת שֹׁמְרוֹן מִיָּדִי׃ - "Lest Chizkiyahu incite you, saying, 'The Lord will save us.' Did the gods of the nations save, each one his land, from the hand of the king of Assyria? Where are the gods of Chamat and Arpad? Where are the gods of Sefarvayim? And did they save Shomron from my hand?"
Here he already uses the term "yasit" (incite or persuade) - meaning that Chizkiyahu will bring you proofs that the Lord will save us. And Ravshakeh counters with proofs of his own: even if your God should want to save you, He cannot, and the proof is that there are many deities in the world and not a single one succeeded. And if you say that your God is unique and capable, I have already seen His power when I conquered Shomron; the people of Shomron are Jews, they are God's people, and behold, He could not save them from my hand, so why do you think He will save Jerusalem? But this fool did not understand that our God was the One Who delivered Shomron into his hand: precisely because Shomron had abandoned Hashem and worshiped idols, precisely because they worshiped Chamat, Arpad, Sefarvayim, Nivchaz, Tartak, and all those gods - for that very reason were they delivered into his hand. Yet he assumed this stemmed from a lack of power in the Creator of the universe.
מִי בְּכָל אֱלֹהֵי הָאֲרָצוֹת הָאֵלֶּה אֲשֶׁר הִצִּילוּ אֶת אַרְצָם מִיָּדִי כִּי יַצִּיל ה' אֶת יְרוּשָׁלִַם מִיָּדִי׃ - "Who among all the gods of these lands saved their land from my hand, that the Lord should save Jerusalem from my hand?"
And if you say that those gods simply did not want to save, but had they wanted to, they could have - to this he adds: surely it is impossible that among all these lands there was not even a single god who wanted to save his land, yet none of them saved it. Why, then, would you think that the Lord will be able or willing to save Jerusalem from my hand?
וַיַּחֲרִישׁוּ וְלֹא עָנוּ אֹתוֹ דָּבָר כִּי מִצְוַת הַמֶּלֶךְ הִיא לֵאמֹר לֹא תַעֲנֻהוּ׃ - "And they remained silent and did not answer him a word, for it was the king's command, saying: 'Do not answer him.'"
The Malbim asks: If not for the king's command, what would they have answered to such words? And he replies: It would have been proper to take vengeance upon him for the blasphemy and insult, for he was blaspheming the Name of Heaven, and as we will see immediately, they tore their clothes. Nevertheless, the king commanded them not to answer him, and therefore they remained silent and did not take vengeance on him.
וַיָּבֹא אֶלְיָקִים בֶּן חִלְקִיָּהוּ אֲשֶׁר עַל הַבַּיִת וְשֶׁבְנָא הַסֹּפֵר וְיוֹאָח בֶּן אָסָף הַמַּזְכִּיר אֶל חִזְקִיָּהוּ קְרוּעֵי בְגָדִים וַיַּגִּידוּ לוֹ אֵת דִּבְרֵי רַבְשָׁקֵה׃ - "Then Elyakim son of Chilkiyahu, who was over the household, and Shevna the scribe, and Yo'ach son of Asaf the recorder, came to Chizkiyahu with torn garments, and told him the words of Ravshakeh."
"With torn clothes" - Chazal explain: because they had heard blasphemy, a curse against Heaven.
Chapter 36 describes the propaganda campaign of Ravshakeh, the apostate Jew who did the dirty work for Sancheriv. According to the Malbim, synthesizing the three scriptural accounts reveals that Chizkiyahu paid tribute as a ruse to lull Assyria into complacency, while simultaneously preparing for war - sealing the waters of the Gichon and manufacturing weapons and shields. Sancheriv saw through the tactic, and therefore sent Ravshakeh to stand specifically by that very conduit, declaring: there will be no second rebellion, and no second chance. Ravshakeh systematically dismantles their two supports: Egypt - a crushed reed of a staff that is not only useless but actively harmful, alongside an army lacking riders; and trust in Hashem - claiming that Chizkiyahu had erred by removing the altars, that Hashem Himself had sent him, and that just as the gods of the nations failed to save them, Shomron was not spared either. He urges the people to surrender to him to gain immediate food and a more comfortable exile, and Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai teaches us that even this wicked man, seeking to disparage the land, could find nothing negative to say about Eretz Yisrael. Above all, the silence and the tearing of garments teach us: even when the king commands not to respond, hearing the blasphemy of Hashem's Name demands keri'ah.