Introduction: Who Was Zechariah and When Did He Prophesy?
We begin the Book of Zechariah. Zechariah is one of the last three prophets - Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi - who prophesied at the beginning of the Second Temple era, after the return from exile. This period was already discussed in the introduction to Sefer Haggai: the numerous enactments established by these three prophets, including halachic rulings cited in the Talmud, as well as matters of the Targum transmitted through them.
There is an important clarification here that many confuse: our Zechariah is Zechariah son of Berechiah, son of Iddo the prophet, also referred to elsewhere as Zechariah son of Iddo. He is not Zechariah son of Jehoiada. Zechariah son of Jehoiada was a Kohen and prophet who was murdered in the Beit HaMikdash, and whose blood bubbled until Nebuzaradan came and slaughtered the foremost among them over it, yet the blood would not rest until he said to it: 'I have slaughtered the finest among them, do you want me to slaughter them all?' Only then did it settle. Zechariah son of Jehoiada lived during the time of Joash, King of Judah, whereas our Zechariah lived about four hundred years later.
בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַשְּׁמִינִי בִּשְׁנַת שְׁתַּיִם לְדָרְיָוֶשׁ הָיָה דְבַר־יְהֹוָה אֶל־זְכַרְיָה בֶּן־בֶּרֶכְיָה בֶּן־עִדּוֹ הַנָּבִיא לֵאמֹר׃ - In the eighth month, in the second year of Darius, the word of the Lord came to the prophet Zechariah son of Berechiah, son of Iddo, saying:
A Prophecy in Need of Interpretation
Rashi opens by stating: the prophecy of Zechariah is extremely obscure; it contains visions resembling a dream that requires interpretation, and we cannot fully determine its true meaning until the teacher of righteousness arrives - until Elijah the Prophet comes and teaches us the plain meaning of the verses. Rashi adds that, to the best of his ability, he will direct his attention to reconciling the verses one by one based on plausible interpretations, and then based on the interpretations of Yonatan, namely Yonatan ben Uzziel, author of the Targum. Indeed, Rashi, Radak, and other commentators frequently rely on the Targum to understand the text. Later in the chapter we will see visions that require considerable effort to decipher: sudden red horses, and other imagery whose symbolism must be unraveled.
Ibn Ezra offers his own introduction: the levels of prophecy are numerous beyond counting, and the capacity of worthy souls who receive the power of Ruach HaKodesh to prophesy is not uniform. In other words, one cannot delineate or count all the degrees of prophecy, for they are manifold and varied, and each prophet stood at a different level from his fellow. Moshe Rabbeinu stood above all prophets, below him was Samuel, who was second to him in prophecy, and below him were the rest of the prophets. Even among the other prophets there are differences, just as the Gemara describes one as a villager who sees the king and another as a city dweller who sees the king. Clearly, every attainment of prophecy is an exalted level, yet to claim that all prophets shared the same degree is incorrect.
Ibn Ezra continues: when the Divine Glory rested with Israel - that is, when the Beit HaMikdash stood and the Shechinah dwelled among them - there was no need to interpret prophecies, for they were spoken with clarity. As it says, "Behold, a son shall be born to the house of David, Josiah by name" - it was explicitly stated that a son would be born, and even his name was foretold, without allegories or riddles. But after the exile, a decline is evident: these are no longer direct prophecies, but visions, and these visions require interpretation and deciphering. Just like the visions of Daniel, which Daniel would not have understood had an angel not explained them to him. And since the Beit HaMikdash no longer stood, and the spiritual perceptions derived from the Temple and the dwelling of the Shechinah had waned, the visions became obscure and required elucidation; so too with the visions of Zechariah.
Ibn Ezra adds further: if we were to find an ancient book recounting the wars and developments of those days, we would grope like the blind along a wall, suggesting that perhaps the prophecy referred to this event. That is, had we possessed a chronicle of the kings of Media and Persia describing the events of that era, we could have drawn comparisons and said: he lived at such-and-such time, and therefore his prophecy refers to such-and-such war. We would at least be like a blind person feeling along a wall who, though unable to see, begins to perceive: here is a protrusion, here is a door, here is a window. But we do not possess even such an external historical record to shed light on the prophecy, and therefore these prophecies are exceedingly difficult to comprehend.
Because of this difficulty, Ibn Ezra notes that he saw commentaries by scholars in France who interpreted Zechariah's prophecies retroactively: namely, that even though Zechariah lived during the Second Temple period, he was describing events that had already occurred in the past - such as the vision of the ephah, "for because of it Judah was exiled to Babylon," and the two staffs of Israel and Judah, all referring to events prior to the exile. However, Ibn Ezra rejects this approach entirely: prophecy is directed toward the future. A prophet comes to deliver a message to the people standing before him; there is no need for him to recount what transpired before the exile. A prophet comes to foretell what will occur and instruct them on what they must do. Therefore, his words must be explained as addressing the future, prompting us to probe and discern the meaning of his visions.
The Prophet Understood Completely - It Is We Who Do Not Understand
An essential point must be emphasized: regarding a dream, we say that it must be interpreted according to its context, and Chazal even state that a dream follows its interpretation - as it is interpreted, so it will be. But with prophecy we do not say this, for prophecy is entirely clear to the prophet without any hesitation or doubt. It is we, reading it thousands of years later, who do not know clearly what was said, which is why the commentators seek to decipher and understand it. But Heaven forbid one should mistakenly think that because the prophet's words appear obscure, he himself did not understand what was told to him. That is never the case, as discussed elsewhere in the teachings on dreams: a prophet always understands what is spoken to him. Were this not so, how could Avraham have taken his son to the Akeidah? Would a person go to slaughter his son and say, 'Perhaps I did not understand'?
There is only a situation where, at the start of his prophecy, a prophet does not yet comprehend what prophecy is - like Yaakov who said, "Hashem is in this place, and I did not know it," or like Shmuel who ran to Eli thinking Eli was calling him. Afterwards, however, he knows Who is speaking to him, knows how to distinguish between a dream and a prophecy, and knows the meaning of the prophecy very well. And if he does not know, he asks. The Holy One, Blessed be He, asks him, "What do you see?" and he replies, "I see a rod of an almond tree," and receives an explanation: "For I am watching over My word to perform it." There is no scenario where a prophet receives a prophecy and conveys it to the people while he himself does not know what he has spoken. He certainly understood, and he certainly delivered a clear message to the people. We are the ones seeking interpretations, and concerning this Rashi and the Ibn Ezra tell us that the matters are obscure and require careful study and explanation.
A Prophet, the Son of a Prophet
The Radak examines the verse's wording, "Zecharya the son of Berechya, the son of Iddo the prophet," and asks: to whom does the title "the prophet" refer? This is the same well-known dilemma as in the liturgical phrase "in the days of Mattisyahu the son of Yochanan the Kohen Gadol" - who was the Kohen Gadol, Mattisyahu or Yochanan? There are different opinions on this. Radak explains: "the prophet" refers back to Zecharya, and it is also possible that Iddo was a prophet as well, for he is Iddo the Seer. In truth, this hesitation is somewhat surprising, since we have an explicit Midrash - Midrash Rabbah, Vayikra Parashah 6 - that Zecharya was a prophet, the son of a prophet, so there is no need for doubt. Furthermore, Chazal state: wherever a prophet is mentioned alongside his father's name, both he and his father were prophets. Thus it turns out that Zecharya, Berechya, and Iddo were all prophets, or at least formed a dynasty of prophets. And as for what is stated, "saying" (lemor) - this means to say to Yisrael, as it immediately says afterwards, "and you shall say to them."
Anger That Has Not Yet Ended
קָצַף יְהֹוָה עַל־אֲבוֹתֵיכֶם קָצֶף׃ - Hashem was intensely angry with your fathers.
The Malbim explains: during the First Temple era, before the Holy One, Blessed be He, destroyed the Temple and exiled Yisrael, He sent them prophets. The prophets went early and late, rebuking and warning the people, speaking of the impending destruction and the afflictions that would come, saying: if you repent, there will be no afflictions, but if not, Heaven forbid, the prophecies will be fulfilled. In the end, the people did not awaken, did not repent, and were exiled. But notice who was the instigator then: the Holy One, Blessed be He. It was not the people on their own initiative; rather, the Holy One, Blessed be He, initiated toward them and sent them prophets to bring them back in repentance, yet they refused.
And now, after the calamity has already befallen them, He says to them: know that the wrath still endures. For the exile still persists, as the redemption under Cyrus (Koresh) was not a complete redemption. As mentioned, only fifty thousand ascended in that return. Many mistakenly believe that only the Yemenite Jews did not return. While it is true that the Yemenites did not return, it was not only them: out of all Yisrael, who numbered in the millions, only fifty thousand ascended - a tiny minority. The Levi'im, for example, did not go up at all, and consequently we find in Ezra and Nechemya that they were deprived of their share. Thus, this was not a complete redemption, and the wrath still persists.
This is the meaning behind the repetition "katzaf... ketzef" (was angry with anger): Hashem was angry with your fathers, and that anger has not ended; rather, it is still here, and Hashem has not turned away from His burning wrath.
"Return to Me, and I Will Return to You"
וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵהֶם כֹּה אָמַר יְהֹוָה צְבָאוֹת שׁוּבוּ אֵלַי נְאֻם יְהֹוָה צְבָאוֹת וְאָשׁוּב אֲלֵיכֶם אָמַר יְהֹוָה צְבָאוֹת׃ - Therefore say to them: Thus says Hashem of Hosts: Return to Me, says Hashem of Hosts, and I will return to you, says Hashem of Hosts.
Go and inform them that from now on, the Holy One, Blessed be He, will no longer send prophets to warn them and turn them back to Him, for after Chaggai, Zecharya, and Malachi - the last three - prophecy ceased. It is as if He is notifying them: from now on, know that there are no more prophecies, no more heralds turning to you and telling you that Hashem has commanded you to repent. From this point forward, you must awaken on your own and by your own power to return to Hashem. That is why it says, "Return to Me" - you must begin, you must return, and through that, "I will return to you." Not as it was until now, where I turned to you through My prophets and asked you to return to Me; rather, you must return to Me first, and only then will I be moved and filled with compassion toward you.
According to the Radak, the phrase "and you shall say to them" comes to remind them of the wrath with which Hashem was angry at the fathers - the generation in whose days the Temple was destroyed - and to say: remember that this occurred because of their corrupt deeds, and if you repent, the same fate will not befall you as it did your fathers. And to what does this refer? It refers to the fact that they were sluggish regarding the rebuilding of the Temple. Therefore, he rebukes them and says: do not be lazy in rebuilding the Temple; go and build it. In addition, there were other sins for which they needed rebuke, as we learn in the Book of Ezra - they were buying on Shabbat, requiring Nechemya to keep the gentiles who came to sell outside the wall so that people would not come to buy on Shabbat, along with several other sins of their era. He said to them: mend your ways so that you will not be exiled as your fathers were exiled, and through this, you will be worthy of having the Temple endure.
Do Not Be Like Your Fathers
אַל־תִּהְיוּ כַאֲבֹתֵיכֶם אֲשֶׁר קָרְאוּ־אֲלֵיהֶם הַנְּבִיאִים הָרִאשֹׁנִים לֵאמֹר כֹּה אָמַר יְהֹוָה צְבָאוֹת שׁוּבוּ נָא מִדַּרְכֵיכֶם הָרָעִים וּמַעַלְלֵיכֶם הָרָעִים וְלֹא שָׁמְעוּ וְלֹא־הִקְשִׁיבוּ אֵלַי נְאֻם־יְהֹוָה׃ - Do not be like your fathers, to whom the early prophets called, saying: Thus said the Lord of Hosts: Return now from your evil ways and from your evil deeds; but they did not hear and they did not heed Me, says the Lord.
Do not be like your fathers, to whom the early prophets called out and warned them about the evil of their ways, yet they did not listen. And again, as we explained, everything began with the call of the prophets - meaning that the Holy One, Blessed be He, as it were, took the initiative to inspire them to repent, but they did not listen.
And what is the difference between "your ways" (darcheichem) and "your deeds" (ma'alaleichem)? The Malbim explains: "ways" refers to the inner inclinations of the soul, while "deeds" refers to the actions that stem from them. For example, if a person harbors hatred, we would say that his way is evil. If, out of that hatred, he went and caused harm, we would say that his deeds are evil. The "way" is his pattern of conduct, and that conduct, laden with hatred and corrupt character traits, leads him to evil deeds, where he translates his inner inclinations into actual practice.
"Yet they did not hear and they did not heed" - the Malbim notes that hearing (shemi'ah) is of a higher order than heeding (hakshevah). Not only did they not hear, but even heeding, which is a lesser level, was absent in them. This differs from the common usage, where hearing is merely acoustic perception while heeding implies attentive listening. The Malbim, however, establishes in several places that hearing is superior to heeding, bringing many proofs for this, such as "Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth." This is why it says: your fathers did not hear, and even to heed - which is less than hearing - they did not heed.
Where Are Your Fathers?
אֲבוֹתֵיכֶם אַיֵּה־הֵם וְהַנְּבִאִים הַלְעוֹלָם יִחְיוּ׃ - Your fathers, where are they? And the prophets, do they live forever?
According to the plain meaning (peshat), he is telling them: Where are your fathers? They died, perished, and were consumed by the terrors and calamities that befell them as a consequence of their transgressions. And the prophets whom I sent to them back then - do they live forever? In other words, do not expect someone to come now and rebuke you. True, there were prophets back then, but did you think they would live forever? They too died at some point, and consequently there is no one left to rebuke you now. From now on, return to Me on your own initiative, for there are no new prophets, and the prophets of old have already passed away.
This is especially true since you saw with your own eyes that everything the prophets foretold came to pass. If so, why do you need any more prophets? You saw that when evil is committed, just as the prophets warned that disaster would strike - disaster indeed struck, and calamity befell your fathers. Surely you can deduce on your own that if you act improperly, the same will happen to you. You no longer need a prophet to tell you this, for you already have firsthand experience. Therefore, you must awaken on your own, by virtue of the experience you possess.
Rashi presents the exposition of Chazal along a different line: The prophet said to them, "See how your fathers were stricken with severe affliction, with famine, sword, and captivity." The people replied to him: "Wait, and the prophets - they were righteous, do they live on? They died too!" Thus, the words "and the prophets, do they live forever?" are the people's retort to the prophet: "You claim that those who sinned died, but surely the righteous are not alive either!" To this he answers them: "Did you expect the prophets to live forever? What do you expect, that prophets should live eternally? The prophet died because his time came to die, whereas your fathers died because of their wickedness. No human being lives forever, even a righteous person; everyone must die eventually. But with your fathers, death came upon them because of their wickedness."
The Words of the Prophets Endure
אַךְ דְּבָרַי וְחֻקַּי אֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִי אֶת־עֲבָדַי הַנְּבִיאִים הֲלוֹא הִשִּׂיגוּ אֲבֹתֵיכֶם וַיָּשׁוּבוּ וַיֹּאמְרוּ כַּאֲשֶׁר זָמַם יְהֹוָה צְבָאוֹת לַעֲשׂוֹת לָנוּ כִּדְרָכֵינוּ וּכְמַעֲלָלֵינוּ כֵּן עָשָׂה אִתָּנוּ׃ - But My words and My decrees, which I commanded My servants the prophets, did they not overtake your fathers? And they returned and said: Just as the Lord of Hosts planned to do to us according to our ways and according to our deeds, so has He done with us.
Their ultimate outcome proves that their words were true. This can be explained as his response to them: You are correct that the prophet is no longer physically alive, but his words are alive and enduring. The prophet warned that whoever does evil will be stricken - and you were stricken. He said that the king of Babylon would come and exile you - and he exiled you. He said that you would be redeemed after seventy years - and indeed, after seventy years you received permission to ascend, and you began to ascend to the Land. Everything the prophet said was fulfilled. Even though the prophet is no longer physically alive, his words live on with us, and therefore you must listen and pay heed to the words of the prophets.
Furthermore, you no longer need a prophet, for a prophet comes to foretell the future and declare what is to come, whereas you can see that the troubles have already manifested in reality, and you have still not been completely redeemed from the dominion of Cyrus. Second, you have already experienced and seen the providence of Hashem in His punishments: you saw that Hashem has the power to punish sinners, and everyone acknowledged and said, "Just as Hashem purposed to do to us, so has He done with us." Third, you saw that this was not some random punishment about which you could claim it was a mere coincidence, but rather a punishment of measure for measure: "According to our ways and according to our deeds" - exactly according to our ways and our deeds has He done with us. Through this, their eyes were already opened to recognize that everything was the handiwork of Hashem.
"To Do to Us" Versus "He Has Done with Us"
The Malbim examines the grammatical precision of the text: Why does it say initially "to do to us" [la'asot lanu], and concluded with "so has He done with us" [asah itanu]? He explains that when the preposition lamed ("to/for") follows a verb of doing or making - "did to us" - it refers to the act itself, how the recipient received the action and what was done to him. But "did with him" [asah ito or asah imo] comes to designate the quality of the action rather than its mere substance.
An example of this is: "According to all that He did with you in Egypt" - it does not say "did to you." "Did to you" would mean what He wrought upon you, whereas "did with you" comes to say: consider the quality of the action - what abundance He bestowed upon you, what protection, what care. In contrast, "did to you" is merely a description of the act, without reference to its quality. The Malbim likewise cites: "For you have done kindness with my master," and "You have declared today how you have done good with me" - where the statement pertains to the quality of the deed, that he did good with him. For he did not merely intend to say, "See what I did to you," but rather "I did good with you, on your behalf and for your sake," highlighting the significance of the act. So too, "And Hashem will reward you for what you have done for me" - Shaul said there would be recompense, meaning there was a virtue here in having done something of true worth for him, and noting the quality of the action serves so that he might be rewarded for it measure for measure.
Thus, we find a general rule: wherever it says "with us" [itanu or imanu], it refers to the character and quality of the action; wherever it says "to us" [lanu], it refers to the substance of the deed itself. This is what is meant here: Just as Hashem of Hosts purposed to do to us, so has He done with us - exactly according to the quality of the action and deed due to us, or more precisely, due with us.
In Summary:
Chapter 1 of Zecharya opens with the announcement of a new era: prophecy is drawing to a close, and from now on there will no longer be anyone to awaken the people from the outside. The Holy One, Blessed is He, reminds Israel that the wrath directed at the forefathers has not yet ended, since the redemption of Cyrus's days was not a complete redemption, and He warns them not to follow in the footsteps of their forefathers, who neither listened nor paid heed to the words of the early prophets. The forefathers are gone, and the prophets are gone - but the words of the prophets live and endure, for everything was fulfilled in actual fact, and measure for measure. From here on, the message is singular: "Return to Me, and I will return to you" - the awakening must come from you and from your own strength, out of the experience you have witnessed with your own eyes, and only then will the Holy One, Blessed is He, return to you in mercy.