"Present your case, says Hashem. Bring forth your strong arguments, says the King of Yaakov." The Malbim explains: we saw that the chapter opened, "Be silent before Me, you islands, and let the nations renew their strength; let them approach, then let them speak, let us come together for judgment." The Holy One comes and says to the nations, I have a case with you. I now wish to come and debate with you, to prove things to you so that you will return to the true faith, so that you will return to the service of Hashem. Therefore, after He stated all the arguments we have seen in the chapter until now, He now concludes the debate and says, "Present your case, says Hashem, bring forth your strong arguments, says the King of Yaakov," let us come together for judgment. Therefore, "present your case."
The Malbim says, notice: here it says "present" (karvu) and here "bring forth" (hagishu). Here it says "your case" (rivchem) and here "your strong arguments" (atzumoteichem). What is the difference? The Malbim explains: "drawing near" (karev) is always used when two things are equal to one another. For example, if the two of us are equals and I come toward you, then I say I will draw near to you. But if, by contrast, I am the small one and you are the great one, then I do not "draw near," I "approach" (nigash). "Approaching" is always the small one approaching the great. "And Yehudah approached him," Yehudah approached Yosef. Or another possibility: something involving opposition. Not with the aim of drawing close to one another, but rather when I approach, for example, for battle, I approach for the sake of a quarrel, then the expression is always "to approach," nigash.
So therefore, at first He says "present your case," and afterward He says "bring forth your strong arguments." What is the difference between a "case" (riv) and a "strong argument" (atzumah)? The Malbim explains: a riv is a simple dispute. By contrast, atzumoteichem means when each side intensifies its dispute. From a simple dispute it turns into a dispute that has already become a quarrel, a great argument. So at first He says to them, "present your case," something without great opposition, a drawing near, and it is only a riv, "says Hashem." In the second stage He says "bring forth," which, as we said, is already far more intensified, like approaching for a quarrel, "bring forth your strong arguments," for the dispute grows and strengthens, and therefore He tells them to bring forth their arguments as the dispute intensifies.
Now He says "says Hashem" and "says the King of Yaakov." What is the difference? The Malbim explains: among the nations there were two kinds of claims. There was a claim that the Holy One does not supervise the world at all. This is the position of the heretic: the world is random, there is no divine providence. This is the claim of a small number of the nations. Ever since Christianity and Islam spread through the world, most of the world became believers in one God. As is known, the Rambam writes that this matter of the spread of the religions is a process toward the coming of the Mashiach. For although these religions contradict the monotheistic belief in one God, that the Holy One, the God of Israel, is the God of truth, they are far better than idolatry. In idolatry they worshipped wood and stone, pagans, idol worshippers. The nations have progressed since then, and they already believe there is one God. Only what? Among the Christians they still believe there is a son to this god. From this standpoint the Muslims are already more advanced; they believe there is God and there is His prophet. He is only in the category of a prophet, and therefore we have already said once that it is permitted to enter a mosque, but forbidden to enter a church. For a church is a place of heresy; they believe there is more than one power in the world.
It emerges, then, that the claim of the nations that there is no one who supervises is no longer a strong claim today. It is no longer a claim that most of the nations hold. Most of the nations believe in the monotheistic faith that there is one God. Therefore at first He says, "present your case, says Hashem." "Hashem," the Malbim says, refers to the aspect that the Holy One is God of the whole world, that He created the entire world. So the dispute over this matter is a small dispute. Everyone already recognizes today that the Holy One is God of the entire world. So this is "present your case." If this leaves us with a dispute involving only a few, since most already acknowledge that the Holy One is the God of the entire world and that there is one God.
But to accept that God is the God of the people of Israel in particular, and that we are the treasured people, and we are the chosen people, and all the nations here in the world are only in the category of scenery, this almost none of the nations accepts. Almost none of the nations is willing to agree to this. They accept that there is one God, but not that He is the God of Israel. They accept the Old Testament, but claim there was a New one. That is to say, to accept that the Holy One is the God of Israel, this they do not accept. This is already a great quarrel. To come and prove this to the nations, to make a debate over it with proofs and evidence, this is already a great quarrel. Therefore notice, this is "bring forth your strong arguments." When the dispute intensifies, we said, here you already need "bringing forth," for "bringing forth" is for a great dispute. Over what point? Over the King of Yaakov, that the Holy One is the King of the people of Israel. And it is not merely "Hashem," not as before where "says Hashem" refers to the fact that the Holy One is God, that is "says Hashem." No, here we have a debate: is Hashem the King of Yaakov? Is He the God of the people of Israel in particular, and we are His children while all the rest are like stepchildren? This is a difficult debate, hard to settle. This is a "strong argument," here a great debate is needed. Therefore He says, "bring forth your strong arguments, says the King of Yaakov," over the point that the Holy One is the King of Yaakov. They are willing to agree that there is a God, but they do not accept that Yaakov, whom Kah chose for Himself, Israel as His treasure, this they do not accept. Over this the Holy One says, we have a strong argument and a great dispute.
"Let them bring them forth and tell us what shall happen. The former things, what were they, declare them, that we may consider them and know their outcome, or announce to us the things to come." The Malbim says: when one comes to debate, the main proof and demonstration that the prophet now brings to prove to them is that the people of Israel have advance knowledge of the entire future, and the nations do not. We have already discussed in the past that this is one of the greatest proofs of the truth of the Torah, and that there is a Creator of the world, this matter of prophecies. In seminars there is an extensive section on this in the segment of proofs, a topic given in a lecture called "Prophecies That Were Fulfilled." There are dozens of prophecies written in the Prophets, and these prophecies were fulfilled, something that has no parallel in any religion in the world. There is no religion in the world that even dares to say what will be in the future, all the more so one that said and hit the mark. There was once Christianity that tried to say something, as we discussed in the past, tried to say that the Holy One has rejected the people of Israel, and the proof, a prophecy, is that the people of Israel will never return to their land. Five hundred years passed for this prophecy to be undone, and behold, the people of Israel returned to their land. We already discussed in the past that as a result of this the Pope never wanted to visit here, because it is a slap in the face to Christianity. Behold, the people of Israel returned to their land, and you brought that as proof that Hashem rejected them. So what does one do? Bury one's head in the sand. So they do not come here, so it does not exist. It is like the Palestinians: there is no such thing, they do not write for you that there is a State of Israel, there is Palestine. It does not appear on their maps. If it does not appear, then it does not exist. That is it, that is the method.
So the nations have no possibility at all and never uttered any prophecy. This is the healthiest and strongest proof. And the people of Israel have dozens of prophecies, I am speaking about those that have already been fulfilled, I am not even speaking about what is destined to be, of which we are one hundred percent certain will be fulfilled. Dozens of prophecies that were fulfilled; you can check and see that everything the Holy One said came to pass. And there is not one prophecy that should already have been fulfilled and was not fulfilled. There is no such prophecy. All the prophecies not yet fulfilled are future prophecies that are supposed to be fulfilled in the future. But if, for example, we saw a prophecy that Bavel would be destroyed and never be inhabited again, then to this day you can go visit in Iraq at the ruins of Bavel and see that Bavel is not inhabited forever, and in the language of the prophet, "no Arab shall pitch his tent there." An Arab will not even place his flock there, will not even pitch a tent among the ruins of Bavel. It is a desolate place with ruins because of the word of the prophet. And so on, dozens of prophecies: the people of Israel are destined to be exiled, where they will be exiled, that they will return to the land, two exiles, two rebukes, everything written in the Torah, all of it was fulfilled one to one, one hundred percent. So He says, do you have such an ability? "Let them bring them forth and tell us."
The Malbim says: now notice that there are several levels in announcing future events. The highest level: when I announce to you something that is destined to be, and this thing is not dependent on any cause whatsoever. That is, you will not be able to say, listen, you assessed correctly and therefore you said it would be so. No. Nothing had begun, there was no hint of it whatsoever, and I announce to you already now that in a hundred years such and such will be. This is the strongest prophecy, something that cannot be known in advance, that has no prior hint or sign, and for such a thing there is no choice but to be a prophet. Without prophecy one cannot say such a thing. For example, if I say that in a hundred years the government of Russia will rise and fight against America and subdue it. This is also not logical, Russia cannot naturally subdue America. Secondly, that it will even fight against it, it is not logical that two superpowers would come and break out in war; there is no visible cause for it at this stage, and I announce it in advance. All the more so when I announce something completely devoid of logic, something entirely not according to nature. For example, Bavel was in its time a great empire, and I announce that it will sink. The people of Israel were considered nothing, and I announce that they will return and rise and come back to their land and rebuild their land. This is something, these are two opposites. Bavel is at the peak of Olympus and the people of Israel at a great low, and I announce such an outlandish thing, an illogical thing. Such a thing truly requires an enormous power of knowledge. And this is what He says, "let them bring them forth and tell us what shall happen" (tikrenah). Tikrenah is a term of "chance" (mikreh). It is an illogical thing. It is chance, only by chance could such a thing happen, it is illogical. Let them announce to us what shall happen.
All right, you cannot say such a thing? There are things, processes that have begun. Can you tell us what will be in the end? The process has already begun, it already exists. Can you tell us what will be in the end? This too requires the power of prophecy. For example, a process began here, let us say a volcano began to erupt. And I announce how many villages it will destroy. If I announced in advance, there is no mountain, there is nothing, I tell you this is a mountain that will become a volcano and erupt, ah, that is already tremendous power, that is "what shall happen." But I am not asking that of you. After the mountain has erupted, can you tell me how many villages it will destroy? Can you tell me how great its eruption will be? That is already a lower level. Look at such standard things: people trained in intelligence, in security, in knowing the enemy. When the revolution in Egypt began back then, all the security experts here in the country said, Mubarak is strong, Mubarak will not fall, he will subdue them in no time, there is nothing to worry about. A week passed and the man was on a stretcher. Right? There you go, where, what did you say? What did you talk about? Nothing. It began with Assad, they said do not worry, Assad is a matter of days, the man is finished. Days, he is finished, they already announce to you he is finished, Assad is already down and it is just a matter of a few hours and they... and the man still survives and slaughters and does whatever he pleases, and no one says anything to him. There you see a process that has begun. Come, foresee its end. And you are supposed to know this, you are supposed to have security, you are supposed to have information. By the way, this only shows how much we have nothing to rely upon except our Father in Heaven. On these you rely? He does not know what will happen in two days. He does not know what happens right under his eyes, and these are people who are supposed to have information. No one foresaw the Arab Spring. No one foresaw that there would be demonstrations, that they would topple the regimes in Egypt, in Libya, no one foresaw it. These are people who were supposed to have intelligence. No one foresaw it, so on them you rely? This is just an aside, only so that we understand that we have no one to rely upon except our Father in Heaven.
And this is the second stage. "The former things, what were they, declare them, that we may consider them and know their outcome." The things we have already seen happen, that began, the former things, what were they, this we see. All right, tell me what will happen in the end. Tell me the end of the story. "Declare them, that we may consider them" in order to check whether what you say is correct, "and know their outcome."
All right, this too you cannot do. But I will ask of you, of your idols, of the Baal, of the faith, of the idols in which you believe, I will ask "or announce to us the things to come." There are things that come from natural causes. The Malbim says, such as whether the year will be rainy or a year of drought, cold or heat, famine or plenty. "Or announce to us the things to come," these are things that customarily happen. This too they cannot know. Someone from the meteorological institute can announce to you that this year... they do announce, they do, it is not that they do not, they announce. They announce but in the end they are always proven wrong. He can tell you this year will be a rainy year or a year... they have no ability at all to know. Even the natural, ordinary things in the world, they have no ability at all to know. Even things that analysts and experts are supposedly supposed to know, this too they do not know. "The things to come," the standard things that are supposed to come, "announce to us." This too you do not know.
A fourth thing, which is the smallest of all. He says to them, behold, look, there are things that have already come. There are things that have already come. And from what has come, you should draw conclusions and explain what the cause was that brought it about. Notice, I am no longer asking you for future events. Future events, I understand you have no idea. But there are things that have already happened, right? Give it an interpretation, explain to me what caused it. For example, you see smoke, so by the wisdom of nature I know: if there is smoke, that means someone kindled a fire. Look at reality, observe it, interpret the causes that bring it about. This too you do not know. What the wise men of nature somehow still know how to do, this, through your idols, to give it an interpretation of what happened, what the causes were, this too you do not attain. To discover the cause from the effect. This too you do not know. This is the next verse.
"Declare the signs that came before, that we may know that you are gods; yes, do good, or do harm, that we may be dismayed and behold it together." "Declare the signs (otiyot) that came before." Otiyot is from the term ot, a sign. From the effect to the cause. After you saw the sign, "declare backward," give us explanations in advance for why it happened. He says, even such a thing you do not know. "That we may know that you are gods." Through this I would be able to know that you have power, that you have some god, and elohim here means power. That you have some particular strength, at least to give an interpretation to what happened, what the circumstances were that caused it, what brought about that such a thing occurred. And if you cannot say even this, then who is even speaking about future events? Who is even talking about it? To give an interpretation of the past you have no idea, so who is even talking about foreseeing the future?
And He also says to them, "yes, do good, or do harm, that we may be dismayed and behold it together." I will test you, the prophet says to them, with something even smaller. "Yes, do good, or do harm." Does your idol have the power to do good or to do harm? That is, people pray to it. A person prays to Yeshu, does your idol have the power to do him good? Or to do him harm? For this is the thing that every follower of a religion boasts of. Come, pray to my idol, come, accept my religion, and you will see that the god will bestow upon you, that he will give to you. Well, is your idol such that one can ask of it and it gives? And if so, if you do good or do harm, "that we may be dismayed and behold it together," then we will know that you are gods. What is "that we may be dismayed and behold it together"? The Malbim explains: their way was to deceive their believers. Idol worshippers would deceive their believers by showing them that the idol does good or harm to its worshippers. But this they would do with all sorts of deceptive tricks, all sorts of stories, showing you all kinds of stories about all kinds of people: behold, this one was crippled and rose, behold, that one had such and such and behold he awoke, and all sorts of stories, and all of it deceptions. All lies, for there is no power in an idol to do harm or good. So He says to them, but if you want to make such a claim, if you want to bring proof that behold, an idol does have power to do harm and good, I know there is no substance to it, but such proof to prove it to me, I want "that we may be dismayed and behold it together." "That we may be dismayed" (nishta'ah), the Malbim explains, is from the term of "turning to look" (panim), as in "and Hashem turned to Hevel," "do not turn your eyes." "And behold it together" means the two of us together. In simple words, do not do all sorts of hocus-pocus on me. I want with my eyes, with my eyes to see together how you pray and behold it happens. He prays, rain falls. I want to see, come, "that we may be dismayed and behold it together." Not stories, you know, three years ago there was, and they came to the idol and... no, no, no, come now, show me, "that we may be dismayed and behold it together." Is there power in your idol to do something in the present? So I am no longer even talking about future events, of which there is nothing to say. And regarding the past too, we saw that you cannot give explanations of the past for what we see. But something, to do harm or good, which is the minimum required, why worship an idol if it cannot deliver the goods? This is the minimum that every idol boasts of, doing harm or good. Come, let us behold it together, show me that you ask of the idol and it gives to you.
Therefore He says to them, it is all only in the category of falsehood. "Behold, you are nothing, and your work is worthless (me'afa); an abomination is he who chooses you." "Behold, you are nothing." The Malbim explains: a person who wishes to choose something chooses it for one of two reasons. Either because it has a virtue, the thing itself possesses an intrinsic virtue, it has holiness, it has a virtue, and because of this he chooses it. Or because of the benefit in that thing. If, for example, they offer you as an inheritance a Sefer Torah, and let us say, may there be a thousand distinctions between them, also a lawnmower. And you have a lawn. So if you choose the Sefer Torah, it is not because of the benefit, I have no benefit from the Sefer Torah, but rather because of its virtue. And if I choose the lawnmower, because I have a lawn and I precisely need to mow the lawn, then I take it. That is to say, we are speaking here about two things. We are speaking here about something that has a virtue, and we are speaking here about something that has a benefit. So He says to them, "behold, you are nothing." You, from your own side, from a virtue that would cause one to choose you, you are nothing. You are in the category of nothing, there is no understanding in you to declare future events, nothing can be known through you. What will you say? All right, but listen, the idol is a fact, it has influence, it does good, it does harm. He says to them, "and your work is worthless (me'afa)." The work you attribute to the idol is me'afa. What is me'afa? The Malbim explains it as a term of bleating (pe'iyah). It bleats falsehood. Words of falsehood you bleat in your words, you the priests who tell of the good and harm of the idol. So since there is no intrinsic virtue in you, and since there is no benefit in you either, at least to receive benefit, to ask for something and receive it, then consequently "an abomination is he who chooses you." Whoever chooses you chooses an abomination. He chooses a repulsive and abhorrent thing. For he has neither benefit from its virtue, nor benefit from what I would receive from it. So what do I have from it? It is merely in the category of an abomination. The Radak explains in the name of his brother Rabbi Moshe that me'afa is from the term efeh, a viper. "Behold, you are nothing and your work is me'afa," me'afa is from the term efeh, a viper. You are like the snakes that kill whoever joins with them; so too you, "your work is me'afa." Whoever joins with you, you kill him. And who would choose you? Only an abomination would choose you. Only the abhorrent people would choose you, and not the Almighty.
"I have roused one from the north, and he has come; from the rising of the sun he calls upon My name; and he shall come upon rulers as upon mortar, and as a potter treads clay." This verse has four interpretations. Whom did I rouse from the north? What is the prophet saying here? The Holy One roused one from the north, and he comes from the rising of the sun, he calls upon My name. Who is it that was roused from the north? The Malbim explains: "I have roused," I have roused Gog to come from the north. That is, after He comes and shows them, you have no ability at all to say anything about the future, the Holy One says, behold, I will tell you what is destined to be. The prophet says, behold, our God prophesies to the people of Israel about future events. Can anyone of you tell the future? I announce to you, I have roused Gog to come from the north, "and he has come," and he will come, just as I announce to you in advance. And I also roused "from the rising of the sun." Who is this? The Mashiach. The Mashiach I have roused from the rising of the sun, who "calls upon My name." He will call all the nations to speak in a clear language, to serve Hashem, he calls upon My name. And he too will come. And he shall come upon the rulers as upon mortar that is trodden for the sake of building. What is the meaning? What is the purpose of coming upon the rulers, and what is the purpose of the treading? What in fact is the idea? The Malbim explains: there is a difference between mortar (chomer) and clay (tit). Tit is mud. From mud one makes nothing, there is nothing to do with it. By contrast, chomer, mortar, is what is called the material one works with, say clay, to make vessels, cement and the like in order to build houses. This is called chomer. So He says to them, behold, look, with mud there is nothing to do at all. By contrast, with chomer, the potter forms vessels. Now, does the potter do anything with mud? He has nothing to do with mud, mud is just mire. He has nothing to do with it. Only with chomer is the potter able to make a vessel. By contrast, what is written here? "And he shall come upon rulers as upon mortar (chomer), and as a potter treads clay (tit)." The potter does not tread the mud. For what does one do with mud? One treads the chomer, one treads it so that it becomes fit for work, kneads it, works it so that it becomes fit for work, and then shapes from it what one wants. But no one goes to tread mud, no one goes to knead mud. He says, know this: the Mashiach will be in the category of a potter, that just as the potter succeeds in producing from clay a vessel for its use, so the Mashiach will succeed in producing from mud a vessel for its use. That is, he will take the nations, and not merely the nations, the worst of the nations, those who are in the category of mud, even them he will turn into the category of a vessel. Even they will be worthy to receive the divine revelation. Even they will be worthy to be present in that time of the Mashiach, through his correcting and improving their deeds for the good. Like clay in the hand of the potter, this is what He says. "And he shall come upon rulers" (sganim), sganim referring to those of the nations who are in the category of mud; he will turn them into the category of chomer so that they will thereby be worthy to receive the divine message, so that they will thereby be worthy to change their way and accept the belief in one God, even the empty and reckless among the nations.
Rashi explains that here he tells the future and announces to them: I am about to build the ruins of Yerushalayim. And whom am I about to bring? "I have roused one from the north," Koresh will come from the north. And upon whom will Koresh come? The king of Paras, he will come upon Bavel in order to destroy it. "From the rising of the sun he calls upon My name." What will he call? "All the kingdoms of the earth has Hashem given me," thus said Koresh, and therefore I go to build Yerushalayim. And seemingly, why does He call him from the north? Rashi says: because the land of Paras is indeed eastern, but it is northeastern. Therefore "I have roused one from the north" refers to the kingdom of Paras, to Koresh, who will come in order to build the Beit HaMikdash. So too the Radak explains in the name of the commentators, and therefore He says "I have roused one from the north, from the rising of the sun," for he went to destroy the city that is in the rising of the sun. Which land is to our east? That is Bavel. Bavel is located to the east. "I have roused," I roused Koresh against the rising of the sun in order to destroy Bavel, in order to command the people of Israel to go up to their land to build the Second Temple in the time of Ezra and Nechemyah. Whoever wishes may listen to the discs on Ezra and Nechemyah, on all the awakening that took place in order to build the Beit HaMikdash and on the assistance they received from Koresh. Therefore the continuation of the verses is "first to Tziyon, behold, here they are, and to Yerushalayim I will give a herald." When is this? When Koresh comes and rouses the people to go up and build Yerushalayim.
There is a further explanation, and this is an explanation that Rashi brings as "another interpretation." "I have roused one from the north," Rashi says, speaks here about Nevuchadnetzar. Nevuchadnetzar will come and be roused to destroy Yerushalayim. "I have roused one from the north, and he has come." And Koresh, that is "from the rising of the sun." The east, as we said, since it is Paras, is northeastern, so according to the second interpretation, "the north" does not refer back to Paras and Koresh, but rather "from the east" refers back to Koresh, which is, as we said, northeastern. "From the rising of the sun he calls upon My name," as we said, I roused him afterward, Koresh who would come from the east, who would come to build Yerushalayim.
There is a further explanation that the Radak gives, that this is said about the Mashiach. "I have roused one from the north," whom did I rouse from the north? The Mashiach. This is what is written further on, "behold My servant, I uphold him." And the Radak says this is the interpretation that appears most correct in his eyes. In truth, the Malbim too followed the same line. Only the Malbim understood that "I have roused one from the north" refers to Gog, and "he has come from the rising of the sun" refers to the Mashiach. By contrast, according to the Radak's interpretation, "I have roused one from the north" refers from the outset to the Mashiach. The Mashiach will come from the north. Why from the north? Seemingly, what is the connection to the north? On the contrary, "from the north evil shall break forth." So how suddenly does the Mashiach come from the north? The Radak explains: because there are the Ten Tribes who are located in Chalach, Chavor, the river Gozan, and the cities of Madai. And this is northeast of the Land of Israel. Therefore He says "I have roused one from the north, and he has come from the rising of the sun." From the northeast the Mashiach will come to redeem the people of Israel, for he will first redeem the Ten Tribes. So, to summarize, we have here four interpretations: either it speaks here about Koresh, as Rashi explained, or about Nevuchadnetzar, which is a further interpretation in Rashi, or about the Mashiach, that "I have roused one from the north" is according to the Radak, or it speaks here about Gog and Magog, which is according to the Malbim.
"Who declared it from the beginning, that we may know, and beforehand, that we may say he is right? Indeed, there is none who declares, indeed none who announces, indeed none who hears your words." Now He says to them, well, so I now declare a prophecy here. Do you have anyone among you who declared it from the beginning, that we may know? That we will know when the thing comes, that behold, he declared it from the beginning? The Malbim explains: there is a difference between "from the beginning" (merosh) and "beforehand" (milfanim). For it is written here "who declared it from the beginning, that we may know, and beforehand, that we may say he is right." What is the difference between them? When we say "beforehand" (milfanim), we are in fact speaking about the present, and from the present I wish to speak about the past. By contrast, when I speak "from the beginning" (merosh), I am, as it were, located only in the past. I am not speaking about the present in relation to the past. For example, when I say "the Emim dwelt in it before (lefanim)." Now they do not dwell there, I am speaking with you now, and I tell you, and know this, once it was different. "The prophet was formerly (lefanim) called the seer." Today he is called a prophet, I am speaking about the present, and know this, in the past they used to call him the seer. This is called lefanim, speaking now about what was from the beginning. He tells them, look, there is a great difference between the sorcerer and the prophet. For sorcerers too could know certain pieces of knowledge from the power of the stars and their courses. They had very general knowledge, as we saw with Pharaoh, who was a great astrologer, who said, "see that evil is before your faces." And he knew what he was talking about in a certain direction, only he did not interpret it correctly. That a savior of Israel was destined to be born, this too he knew. That he would be judged by water, this too he knew, only which water he did not understand; it was the waters of Merivah, and he thought he would drown in the river. They had general knowledge. He says, behold, look, there are things that someone says in the past, one does not take it so seriously for two reasons. First, these are general things, they are not specific, precise things. That is one thing. Second, until they happen we cannot see the things, since this person is not someone I can rely upon that his words are true. Afterward, when something happens, ah, ah, do you remember that someone once said something would happen, behold, this is apparently what he meant. This is very tenuous. This is very tenuous. There is a book, you know, called The Prophecies of Nostradamus. Has anyone heard of it? Nostradamus was some person who lived a few hundred years ago, and he said, composed poems. Poems that were written in very, very general language. And hundreds of years afterward they come and search how phenomena that happened are found within the poems of Mr. Nostradamus. And this is nonsense, vanity and vexation of spirit. Whoever reads these things, first of all sees some eight interpretations for each poem. "And a great king will come from the north and such," and he interprets it for you as this one, and interprets it as that one, and interprets it as that one, and one sees in it the fall of the Communist bloc, another sees in it the fall of Saddam Hussein. Everything can be seen. Yes, something very elastic like that. These are very general things, and only after they happen do you try to search for them, where they are found in what he said. That is called milfanim, beforehand. By contrast, merosh, from the beginning, is what the prophet announces. The prophet announces precise things. I announce that a descendant of the house of David will arise, and what will his name be? Yoshiyahu will be his name. I announce to you his name, check whether it happened or did not happen. The prophet then relates, after hundreds of years, that a king arose named Yoshiyahu who eradicated idolatry. You announce clear and explicit things from the beginning. First, that. Second, a prophet is a person who is accepted. This is a person who said something, stood the test, and only afterward did they begin to accept from him. The Rambam says one would not accept a prophet immediately. A person who came to declare a prophecy, they would say to him, tell things that are destined to be, for the good and not for the bad. For regarding the bad, it is possible that Hashem would nullify it as a result of good deeds that were done. Regarding the good, this is complete proof. Bring prophecies for the good, say in two weeks such and such will happen, things you say are one hundred percent precise, and just as you said, so it will be fulfilled; they test him several times and afterward he receives a diploma of a prophet. From such a person one can accept anything in the name of Hashem. So the prophet, first, is a person of whom we would know that his words are very precise. Second, he also spoke specifically, he did not speak general things that only after they happen do you suddenly find meaning in them, that surely this is what he meant then. So this is what He says, "who declared it from the beginning, that we may know?" Who declared from the beginning precise things, when it will happen and how it will happen, according to times? "That we may know," and then we will know, behold it happened just as he said. And you know what? This is too great for you. I am willing to compromise for less. "And beforehand, that we may say he is right." That someone would say something that I would afterward, in the end, say, you know what, beforehand in the past someone really did say such a thing, and behold he is right. He says, even this I am willing to accept, but even this you do not have. Not only can you not announce from the beginning precise and true things, but also afterward, that when something comes we would find some interpretation to say that this is what you said, He says even this you do not have. "Indeed, there is none who declares, indeed none who announces, indeed none who hears your words." Indeed there is none who declares, and even if there were one who declares, there is none who announces, no one to announce the words to the multitude. And why? Because your declarers are regarded as liars. And even if there were one who announces, there is none who hears your words. There is none who hears your words, since they are accustomed to your lies and falsehoods. Just as the prophet is full of the false prophets, all sorts of prophecies they announce to them: the king of Bavel will not come, do not frighten the people, all will be well, you have nothing to worry about, you will eat, you will reap, you will be satisfied, no evil will come, nothing will happen. They always loved to comfort the people. It is like the media, always loving only to speak such things: do not say that, you religious people always have prophecies of wrath, you always foresee gloom. No, no, it will be fine, this nation is a wonderful nation, this is truly a nation, go out to the streets, see how much, this is truly a nation, do not speak things that are not... this was the false prophets. He says there is none who declares. And if there is one who declares, there is also none who announces. And if there is one who announces, there is none who hears, so much so that they are accustomed to the falsehood with which the false prophets deceived their believers and their worshippers.
"First to Tziyon, behold, here they are, and to Yerushalayim I will give a herald." The Malbim explains: there are, whoever wishes to bring a proof, two kinds of proofs. There is a positive proof, and there is a proof by way of negation. These are two kinds of proofs one can bring to prove something. A proof by way of negation: I tell you so-and-so is not wise. How do you know that so-and-so is not wise? Listen, because to this day he has not said words of wisdom. From this I infer that so-and-so is not wise. This is called a proof by way of negation. By contrast, there is a proof by way of affirmation. I tell you so-and-so is not wise. How do you know? I heard him speak words of foolishness and vanity. This is proof that he is not wise, this is no longer a proof by way of negation, this is a proof by way of affirmation. I heard that this is so, I heard him. By contrast, when I say I did not hear from him words of wisdom, that is a proof by way of negation. Which is the stronger proof? A proof by way of affirmation. I heard from him words of vanity, that is far more proof that he is a fool than to say I did not hear words of wisdom, for perhaps he is very wise and he is a wise man who keeps silent. How do you know? It is possible that he holds to the practice of silence and he is very wise. That is not an absolute proof, a proof by way of negation. By contrast, a proof by way of affirmation is truly an absolute proof, truly a complete proof. Therefore, after He says, behold, look, I prove to you by proof, as we said, by way of negation, that there is no substance in all idolatry. From what? For behold, look, they do not announce what is destined to be. This is a proof by way of negation. From the fact that he did not announce, it is a sign that there is no substance in him. You can still argue. To say, what, the fact that he did not announce is proof that there is no substance in him? That is proof that he does not announce future events. Perhaps he knows and does not want to announce? He keeps it secret. For himself, the idol does not want to reveal everything, it keeps it secret, it does not reveal it further. This is a proof by way of negation. He says to them, but I will give you a greater proof. I will give you a proof by way of affirmation. He says, behold, "first to Tziyon, behold, here they are." The first sign that will be destined for Tziyon, behold, here they are. These are the rulers of whom we spoke, this is the king Gog, of whom we said "I have roused from the north," behold, here they are. This is the sign that the kingship will return to Tziyon, and this is the sign of the ingathering of the exiles to Yerushalayim. That is to say, behold, I bring you a proof that you will afterward be able to check, and you will see that this thing is fulfilled, and then through this the dominion of Hashem will rule in the world, without any claim to some other power besides Him, blessed be He. All flesh will know together that Hashem is the God, there is none besides Him. He says, and this is a proof by way of affirmation. This is proof that He is God, not from the fact that they did not say, but rather, behold, the Holy One announces things and they will be, and these things will be the, so to speak, the finishing blow that will complete the dominion of the Creator of the world in the world, meaning He will impose His dominion over the entire world.
Now let us note that He says here "first to Tziyon, behold, here they are, and to Yerushalayim I will give a herald." What is the difference between Tziyon and Yerushalayim? The Malbim follows a consistent line throughout the entire Tanach, that Tziyon and Yerushalayim both speak in fact about Yerushalayim. Only that Tziyon was the place of the seat of the kingdom and the Mikdash. By contrast, Yerushalayim was the place of the seat of the common people. Har HaBayit, the king's palace, this is called Tziyon. By contrast, the rest of Yerushalayim is called by the name Yerushalayim. And He says, behold, look, "first to Tziyon, behold, here they are." Tziyon hints at the fact that the Mikdash will return, the kingship will return. And Yerushalayim hints at the ingathering of the exiles, that the entire people of Israel is destined to gather to Yerushalayim.
Rashi explains, "first to Tziyon, behold, here they are." The first king who will pay heed to Tziyon, behold, this is what I said. First to Tziyon, who is the first who paid heed to Tziyon? This we saw was Koresh, who was the first to take interest in the building of Tziyon. "Behold, here they are" means, behold, behold he is already ready for this. Now in the end he will be only the one who begins, he is the first to Tziyon. That is, he will not complete the redemption, for we know that when they began to build the Beit HaMikdash, then all sorts of people came who began to bring forth accusation against the inhabitants of Yerushalayim, and the building of the Temple was halted. And only afterward came Daryavesh, and Daryavesh continued the building of the Temple. Whoever wishes may listen to the discs on Ezra and Nechemyah. And this is what He says here, "first to Tziyon." This was only the first, I tell you there will also be a second. He will not complete the work. According to Rashi, He in fact announces about the building of the Second Temple, that it will have a beginning and it will not be completed by that same king. "And to Yerushalayim I will give a herald," at that same time Chagai and Zecharyah will come and urge the people to build the Beit HaMikdash in the days of Daryavesh, who is the king of Paras.
"And I looked, and there was no man; even among these there was no counselor; and I asked them, and they returned no word." I always look at the prophets of the Baal, Rashi explains, and there is no man who declares future events. "And there was no man; even among these there was no counselor," there is none to counsel and say what is destined to be with them. So too the Malbim explains: I look among the nations, among the worshippers of the Baal, and there is no man. Even though the matter has already begun, there is none who knows what its end will be. No one infers from it that from this the kingdom of the house of David will sprout, that from this there will be tidings for Yerushalayim. And not only do they not know the future, He says there is also no counselor. "Even among these there was no counselor," there is none who would counsel them advice how to get out of the trouble into which they have fallen. For, behold, soon the Mashiach will fight against the nations. And He says, and not only do they not know advice, but even if I ask them, and even that they should return a word, even advice and a word to return they do not know. What does this prove? "Behold, they are all iniquity; their works are nothing; wind and confusion are their molten images." Therefore the conclusion you must reach from the fact that there is no substance in them in themselves: corresponding to "and I looked, and there was no man," He tells you "they are all iniquity." And corresponding to what He said, "their works are nothing," there is nothing with them to do harm or good, this is corresponding to what He said, "even among these there was no counselor," there is none who can counsel good or evil. And therefore "their molten images are wind and confusion." What does He wish to say? Their rule, their idol, this is in the category of wind in itself, and confusion in terms of the future benefit from it. And since this is so, there is no benefit at all in those idol worshippers and in that idolatry, and therefore the judgment of the Holy One against the nations will end with the nations being subdued under the hand of the Mashiach and under His judgment, blessed be He, and they will become worshippers of Hashem with one accord, speedily in our days, Amen.