"I will gather Egypt from the peoples among whom they were scattered." At the end of forty years, about whom are we speaking? The Malbim does the calculation, as we explained earlier: in the twenty-seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar, Egypt was destroyed. Nebuchadnezzar reigned altogether for forty-five years. How many more years remained until the end of his reign? Eighteen years. That is, during the final eighteen years of Nebuchadnezzar, Egypt lay in ruins. After him his son Evil-Merodach reigned for twenty-two years. If you add that to the eighteen years at the end of Nebuchadnezzar's days, together you get forty years. And why? Because in the first year of Belshazzar the prophecy about Persia was given to Daniel, and from then the exiles began to return in the days of the king of Persia and began to gather. So at the end of forty years, "I will gather Egypt." The Holy One says, Egypt will begin once again to gather from the nations among whom they were scattered.
"And I will restore the fortunes of Egypt and bring them back to the land of Pathros, to the land of their origin, and there they shall be a lowly kingdom." So the Holy One, as it were, will proclaim their freedom to return to their land, and among them too this will be by permission of the king of Persia, and they will return to the land of Pathros. The land of Pathros was the land where they began, where Egypt began to be a nation. But He says, know that this kingdom will still be a lowly kingdom. The Malbim asks: "and I will bring them back" (vehashivoti), what is the difference between "vehashivoti" and "veshavti"? The Malbim explains: the expression "veshavti" is called a light expression, a light verb. "Vehashivoti" is called a heavy verb. We once explained the difference between light and heavy verbs: the light verb is light on the organs of speech. "Veshavti" is easy to say. But "vehashivoti", see how many contortions the mouth must make to produce this word. This is called a heavy verb. Like "ratzach" (murdered), that is a light verb. "Meratzeach" (murderer), see how much the organs of speech must change to pronounce "meratzeach." The expression, the heavy verb, always comes to say that the thing is done with greater force. By contrast the light verb, "ratzach," is said of something done more easily. So here the Malbim asks, what is the difference between "veshavti" and "vehashivoti"? "Veshavti," with the expression that is light, means that Hashem will restore them to their level. But "vehashivoti" means He will return them to their land. Not only will He return them to their former state in terms of rank, but He will also return them to their land as it was before. And what does "to the land of their origin" (mechuratam) mean? "Mechuratam" means like "megguratam," the place where they dwelt. By contrast the Metzudat Tzion explains that what is written "veshavti" means "I will bring back." "Shevut" means captivity. "Veshavti shevut Mitzrayim" means: I will bring back the captivity of Egypt. It is not that the Malbim disagrees, because the Malbim did not explain this. The Malbim explained the difference between "veshavti" and "vehashivoti." It is the difference between them that the Malbim explains. The Metzudat Tzion only explains what "shevut" is: "shevut Mitzrayim" means the captives of Egypt, those who were taken captive from among the Egyptians.
"It shall be the lowliest of the kingdoms, and shall never again exalt itself above the nations, and I will diminish them so that they shall not rule over the nations." "It shall be the lowliest of the kingdoms." He says: do not think that what I told you earlier, "and there they shall be a lowly kingdom," refers only to being lowly relative to their former state, while they would still have a high rank. He tells you no, not only relative to their former state, but even relative to the rest of the kingdoms they will be considered lowly. "And it shall be the lowliest of the kingdoms." This gives the explanation for why the verse repeats itself. "And there they shall be a lowly kingdom," "it shall be the lowliest of the kingdoms." "A lowly kingdom" I might have thought is relative to their former state. He tells you no, but even relative to the kingdoms that exist now, relative to them too it will be lowly. That is to say, it will be utterly lowly. Everyone will raise their head against it. And do not think that although it will be beneath other kingdoms, still there are kingdoms and there are gatherings of nations that are not a kingdom but a collection of peoples, which is the definition of a "nation" without a monarchy. He tells you no, no, know: "and shall never again exalt itself above the nations." Not only relative to the kingdoms will it be lowly, but even relative to the nations that have no monarchy at all, relative to them too it will not exalt itself. And this He says will come about because I will diminish them so that they cannot rule over the nations. And the purpose of this is several matters. First, so that they will not rule over the nations, "so that they shall not rule over the nations," that they will not dominate them and oppress them with harshness; Hashem removed the yoke of the nations, removed Egypt. A further matter: "and it shall never again be a source of confidence for the house of Israel, recalling their iniquity when they turned after them, and they shall know that I am the Lord God."
We saw that Israel's trouble was that they relied on Egypt. And the moment Egypt is lowly, who will go and rely on it? So they will not be such as to be a source of confidence for the people of Israel, recalling iniquity. For when you rely on Egypt, that recalls your iniquity, that you lost your faith and trust in the Creator of the world and relied on flesh and blood. So they will no longer be a source of confidence for Israel to recall their iniquity when they turned after them, for when Israel turned after them it recalled their iniquity. So now, through their being humbled, they will not be so. And the third purpose: "and they shall know that I am the Lord." Through this they will recognize the divinity of the Creator, blessed be He, that Hashem does with the kings of the earth as He wishes, and Pharaoh cannot think that he is the great sea monster, "my Nile is my own, and I made myself." They will recognize that there is one Creator of the world and He rules over all.
"In the twenty-seventh year, in the first month, on the first of the month, the word of the Lord came to me, saying." In the twenty-seventh year, the Malbim says, it is written in Seder Olam that in the twenty-seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, as we saw above, he conquered Egypt. In the twenty-seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign. This is the twenty-seventh year of which we are now speaking. The Abarbanel writes: why does he not give us the calculation as he always does, that the reckoning is relative to the exile of Yehoyachin? Why here does he reckon it according to the reckoning of Nebuchadnezzar's reign? Because above we saw that the destruction would last forty years. And you would not know from when the forty years are counted. He tells you, come and I will tell you from when they are counted. He informed us that in the twenty-seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign came the destruction of Egypt, and then we will understand that when Evil-Merodach dies, meaning the eighteen years that still remained of Nebuchadnezzar's life, plus the twenty-two years of Evil-Merodach's life, forty years will be completed for us, and then the time of Egypt's redemption will come, when Hashem will restore their fortunes to the land of Pathros.
"Son of man, Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon made his army perform hard labor against Tyre. Every head was made bald and every shoulder rubbed bare. Yet he and his army received no wages from Tyre for the labor he performed against it." Here it describes Nebuchadnezzar as, so to speak, an agent of the Holy One, since here he was in the aspect of "the rod of My anger" to exact punishment from Egypt. The Holy One uttered a harsh prophecy about the destruction of Egypt. Who would carry it out in practice? It was Nebuchadnezzar. So Nebuchadnezzar was, so to speak, what one might call the demolition contractor of the Master of the world. He was the one sent to demolish Egypt. As is known, a contractor must be paid for his work. Where did Nebuchadnezzar receive his wages for going and destroying Egypt? Now the Malbim says, the harder the work, the greater the wage as well. So where is the wage for this matter here? He says, behold, look: "against Tyre he made his army perform hard labor." He says, consider that when Nebuchadnezzar went to conquer Tyre, he made his army perform hard labor. There was great difficulty there in conquering Tyre. Until "every head was made bald." They would carry the siege stones and the sling stones on the head or the shoulder. And from carrying the sling stones and siege stones in order to fight against Tyre, from carrying them on their shoulder and head, the head became bald, no hair remained on it. "Every head was made bald." And the shoulder became rubbed bare, could no longer be used. The shoulder was thrown out of place. "Every head was made bald and every shoulder rubbed bare." He says, it follows that under these circumstances he should have received wages for this matter. He says, know that in the end he received nothing. What is the wage? The Malbim says, usually when a king conquers another land, there are two kinds of wages. There is the wage of the army and there is the wage of the king. The wage of the army is the spoil and the plunder. What they take from the place they conquered. The wage of the king is either the land he conquered, which is now his, or the immense honor he will have, "I conquered such and such a country." Through this he casts his dread over the rest of the peoples: beware, do not tangle with me, I conquered here and I conquered there. Through this he frightens the rest of the peoples and they pay him tribute and are anxious and afraid of him. He says, come and observe: here neither Nebuchadnezzar nor his army received wages for the conquest of Tyre. For we saw above that after they labored a long time to conquer Tyre, the sea rose, flooded it, and swept everything away. It follows then that they were left with nothing. So they worked very, very hard, shoulder rubbed bare, head bald, but in the end they came out with nothing. The river swept everything away.
"Therefore thus says the Lord God: Behold, I am giving Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon the land of Egypt, and he shall carry off its wealth and take its spoil and seize its plunder, and it shall be wages for his army." So for the destruction of Tyre too he deserves wages, since there was a prophecy about the destruction of Tyre as well. The Holy One says, what will be Nebuchadnezzar's wage for what he did there at Tyre? For we saw that he received no wage. Hashem says, I will give him the land of Egypt, "and he shall carry off its wealth." He will take the multitude of Egypt. We explained that "hamon" (multitude) means a large number of people, and it is therefore called "hamon" because when there is a multitude there is a tumult (hemyah); when there is a large populace, a bustling city, there is great noise. Therefore it is called "hamon." So he will carry off its multitude, take them as slaves and maidservants, "and take its spoil." This will be the wage of the army. All this the armies will receive, by receiving the spoil and plunder. What is the difference between spoil (shalal) and plunder (bizah)? The Malbim explained this several times: what remains, the property left over after the war, is called "shalal." By contrast, what the soldiers each take for themselves is called "bizah." "Bizah" is what each soldier takes for himself. "Shalal" is by contrast what is distributed at the end. That is why we always see "the dividing of the shalal." They do not divide the "bizah," because with "bizah" each one takes for himself. But "shalal" is what the king commands to be gathered to one place and then distributed to everyone.
Hashem says, "as his reward for which he labored I have given him the land of Egypt, because they did it for Me, declares the Lord God." "And his reward" (ufeulato), for his intention was for the deed. What does "and his reward for which he labored" mean? For as we said, the king, his intention is not for the wage, not for the money, that is the army. But the king, what does he want? For the king, the deed is precious in his eyes. What deed? To conquer a land. The deed is precious in his eyes. To receive honor, "I am the one who conquered." So although he will have no wage, since in the end, observe, Egypt as we said will be utterly destroyed, it will not be a kingdom. So what did we say the king gains? One of the two. Either the place he conquered, or the reputation. The place he conquered has nothing. What will he have? A desolate land. There are plenty of deserts. That will give him nothing. But even so, you conquered a great place, lofty and exalted. Ah, honor he will indeed have. This is "his reward for which he labored, I have given him the land of Egypt," that he succeeded in destroying such a great kingdom. This he will indeed receive, this honor he will indeed have. Why in truth does Hashem not give him the land of Egypt itself? You want to give him a wage, and we saw that the king's wage can also be the place he conquered. Why did Hashem destroy Egypt, make it utterly desolate, so that it cannot even serve as a wage, but only the honor remains here? To this the verse immediately says: "because they did it for Me, declares the Lord God." The meaning is: we saw that Egypt, that Pharaoh said "my Nile is my own, and I made myself." We saw that he was a broken reed of a staff for the house of Israel. For this he deserves destruction. He does not deserve that the land fall into the hand of another king while it still has continued existence, but rather that it be utterly destroyed. And therefore their punishment was forty years of destruction. And what will Nebuchadnezzar receive? His army will receive the plunder and the spoil, while he himself will receive the reputation and the honor for conquering a place as great and mighty and vast as Egypt.
The Malbim says, in the Holy Tongue there is a difference; note, "his reward (peulato) for which he labored," and before that we saw "and it shall be wages (sachar) for his army." The Malbim asks, what is the difference between "sachar" for his army and "peulato"? There is a difference between "sachar" (wages) and "peulah" (reward for labor). "Peulah," when one expresses the term "peulah," means to look at the deed he did, at the work he performed, at the action he did. By contrast, when I speak of "sachar," I speak of the profit that came out of it for me. What did I actually receive from the matter? When I speak of "peulah," it is what the deed was that he performed. When I speak of "sachar," it can very much be that even if a person acted through an intermediary, for example soldiers and servants and so on, he will receive "sachar." By contrast, always when I say he performed something, he deserves his "peulah," that is what he performed himself. If he did it through others, I will say he deserves his "sachar." If he did it himself, I will say he deserves his "peulah." The Malbim says, accordingly you will understand why regarding the army he uses the term "sachar." Because with the army, as we said, you did it through someone else, and for that "sachar" is deserved. And what he did himself, "his peulah for which he labored," that is what he performed by his own power, and that is called "peulato." What was done through the power of his armies, for that we said "sachar" is deserved, that is where the term "sachar" is used, because "sachar" is given even for what you performed through someone else.
"On that day I will cause a horn to sprout for the house of Israel, and to you I will grant an opening of the mouth in their midst, and they shall know that I am the Lord." The Malbim says, the commentators were greatly troubled by this. This verse is a puzzling verse, a difficult verse, and all the commentators try to resolve it. I will read to you the words of Rashi. "On that day I will cause a horn to sprout": I have not heard nor found an explanation of this verse. What was the sprouting of Israel's horn in the downfall of Egypt? What horn sprouted for Israel? The meaning is: what benefit, what greatness was there then for Israel when Egypt fell? For Israel went into exile eight years before the downfall of Egypt. So at the time of Egypt's downfall we were in exile. In what way did their horn sprout? Thus Rashi was puzzled. Rashi explains that "on that day" means after forty years. The Malbim says, but in truth it does not say "at that time" from the forty years. For "on that day" that we are speaking of here, he is prophesying in the tenth year. The tenth year is not after forty years. He speaks of "on that day" in the time when Yechezkel exists. A further point: if you speak of after forty years, Yechezkel no longer existed. So how does He say "I will grant you an opening of the mouth in their midst"? To you, to Yechezkel, there will be an opening of the mouth in their midst. What opening of the mouth? Yechezkel no longer exists. Yechezkel died in the days of Nebuchadnezzar. And Egypt was destroyed after twenty-two years of the reign of Evil-Merodach who came after him. So what opening of the mouth was there for Yechezkel, who did not exist at all then?
Therefore the Malbim explains that after Nebuchadnezzar conquered Egypt and finished his wars, he then made the idol in the plain of Dura. As we learned at length in the book of Daniel. And then came the miracle with Chananyah, Mishael, and Azaryah, who refused to bow to the idol, and he cast them into the fiery furnace. And then he saw them dancing within the fiery furnace, and the fourth like an angel of the Lord among them. And then, through this, the Malbim says, the horn of Israel was raised up. This is the meaning of "on that day I will cause a horn to sprout for the house of Israel." Their horn will be raised up. We are not speaking here of redemption; they were not redeemed then, they were still in the exile of Babylon. But in any case their horn was raised up, they saw that the name of Hashem was called upon His holy ones. And our Sages received a tradition that at the time of the deed of Chananyah, Mishael, and Azaryah, at that same time Yechezkel revived the dead in the plain of Dura. And then the bones came and slapped him in the face, in the face of Nebuchadnezzar. The God of these is reviving the dead now in the plain of Dura. The companions of these men who revive the dead in the plain of Dura told him, which is essentially a sign of the future redemption, of the resurrection of the dead. What were those bones that slapped him in the face? These bones, it is written, were that he, among other things, used vessels of bone. These are vessels made from bones, whether of animals or of human beings. And he used there the bones of the dead whom Yechezkel revived in the plain of Dura. And every bone ran to join its bones. So when the bone ran to join its bones, and it was just then serving here as some spoon or dish for the king of Babylon, then it came to him and slapped him in the face, it flew off to go and join its part there in the plain of Dura. This is what is written, "they slapped him in the face." So it follows that in this there was a raising up and sprouting of a horn for the house of Israel, "and to you I will grant an opening of the mouth in their midst, and they shall know that I am the Lord." In this they saw the greatness of the Creator, in this the spiritual might of the people of Israel was made evident. But we are not speaking here of any redemption or the sprouting of an absolute horn of salvation whereby the people of Israel came out of their exile; that is not what is being discussed.
Let us see another explanation that the Radak brings in the name of his father. He says that in the time of the reign of the king of Babylon, meaning the reign of his son, there was a sprouting of a horn for the house of Israel. What was that sprouting of a horn? That in the fiftieth year of the Babylonian exile Cyrus was born. And Cyrus, as is known, is the one who gave permission to build the Temple, to restore and build Jerusalem. Cyrus is called "anointed," as it is written, "to His anointed, to Cyrus." So from there essentially began the sprouting of a horn for the house of Israel, for he sent them out from the exile and restored them to their land. The Radak says, thus he brings in the name of his father, a wondrous thing, if it is not a scribal error, I do not know, I tried to search and did not see another version. He says, and he was then twenty years old, and Darius his son-in-law was sixty-two. Do you hear? That is to say, if he was twenty years old, then when did he beget children? And how old was his daughter? Yes? He tells you, Darius his son-in-law was sixty-two. Well, perhaps he is speaking of a later period, I do not know. This truly was a puzzling matter in my eyes, but so the Radak brings it. We still have not been rescued from the Malbim's difficulties, because it is written here "and to you I will grant an opening of the mouth in their midst," which implies that Yechezkel exists. So this can be explained that what is written "I will grant an opening of the mouth in their midst" means that now they will see that your prophecies are fulfilled. This is "I will grant an opening of the mouth," not that you will exist, but that there will be an opening of the mouth. Ah, now you see that what Yechezkel said then is true. This is the meaning of "I will grant an opening of the mouth in their midst." There will be, as it were, an opening of the mouth for those prophecies you delivered. You deliver them today, and in the future they will see that they are true. This is "I will grant an opening of the mouth in their midst," but it does not mean to say that Yechezkel himself will exist. And through this "they shall know that I am the Lord," for behold I delivered these prophecies of old and from the beginning I made known, and now they will see that it is fulfilled, and in this there will be an opening of the mouth to prove that you are a true prophet and that Hashem calls the generations from the beginning.
Anyone who paid attention, in our chapter, in verse 12, it appears: "thus says the Lord God, behold I am giving Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon the land of Egypt." And usually we know that his name appears as Nebuchadnezzar. But in certain places it appears as Nebuchadrezzar. And the question that arises is why? What actually accounts for the change? In fact I found, according to what I gathered, that there were nine reasons. One must know that among the early authorities this was discussed, meaning in Midrash, only the Yalkut Shimoni discussed it, and even in it we have no comprehensive answer but rather a more localized answer. The Yalkut Shimoni says, "and the heart of the mighty men of Edom shall be like the heart of a woman in labor. Concerning Kedar and the kingdoms of Hatzor which Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon struck." This is in Yirmiyahu. Rabbi Elazar said, it is written "Nebuchadrezzar" because he restrained them (she'atzran); there is a version that reads she'atzran, which fits more logically with Nebuchadrezzar from the language of restraining (atzar). That he restrained them in the wilderness and killed them, and it was fulfilled in him "his hand against all and the hand of all against him." That is to say, there he speaks of the reality that occurred there, that Nebuchadrezzar restrained them in the wilderness, that he gathered and assembled them in the wilderness and killed them. So there it is written Nebuchadrezzar. An answer for all the other places we do not have in this. Unless we say that following the deed that occurred there, following that he was called from then on in other places Nebuchadrezzar. But to explain why this name is the one that appears in certain places, we still have no explanation.
There are additional explanations. Rashi in Tractate Arachin says, on the word "katzir" and "katzin," Rashi says, nun and reish interchange. Therefore you can see "katzin" and the meaning is "katzir" or vice versa. And Rashi brings as an example, as it is written Nebuchadnezzar, Nebuchadrezzar. Here is an example for us of nun and reish interchanging. That is to say, according to Rashi there is no precision in this, but nun and reish can interchange with each other, just as we know that sometimes the letters bet-vav-mem-pe interchange, the throat letters interchange, and so on. The Radak says that when a certain name in Scripture appears in several variations, it is a sign that all these names are his names. If you see sometimes Yirmiyah and sometimes Yirmiyahu, and sometimes Yonatan and sometimes Yehonatan, and so on in this manner, these names, all the names are the names of that same person. And therefore the prophet sometimes calls him by this name and sometimes by that name. It follows then that both Nebuchadnezzar and Nebuchadrezzar were his names, and therefore sometimes he calls him this way and sometimes that way.
I saw additional reasons. Another reason is brought, that before he destroyed the Temple he was called Nebuchadnezzar, which is a pleasant expression, from the language of "netzer" (branch). By contrast, after the destruction he was called Nebuchadrezzar, which is from the language of "tzorer" (adversary). Thus the Me'am Lo'ez brings in the name of an ancient manuscript of a disciple of the Rav of Worms. Our teachers say, thus it is brought in the Midrash HaBei'ur of Rabbi Saadia ben Or Aldamari, that because he destroyed the Temple, Nebuchadrezzar is called from the language of wickedness (rasha). Because he guarded (notzer) the might of the Holy One from the wicked, he was called Nebuchadnezzar. What does it mean, guarded the might of the Holy One from the wicked? Perhaps the meaning is that Hashem gave him great might and he was among the wicked, so therefore he was called Nebuchadnezzar, guardian of the might of Hashem. And since he destroyed the Temple he was called Nebuchadrezzar, which apparently fits with what we said earlier, that it is from the language of "tzorer." There is another reason that is brought, brought in Otzrot Yosef. He brings that when he destroyed the Temple, it is written that Hashem told Yirmiyahu that Hashem would make cease from them the sound of joy, the sound of exultation, and the light of the lamp (ner). Thus it is brought in the verse. The Rav says, the "light of the lamp" hints here at the matter of Nebuchadnezzar. Why? Because Nebuchadnezzar is sometimes spelled with a nun, sometimes spelled with a reish. The change of nun and reish is "ner" (lamp). This is the meaning of "I will make cease from them the light of the lamp," through the lamp, who? Nebuchadnezzar, who is sometimes with a nun, sometimes with a reish. But apparently there is another change, because Nebuchadrezzar is sometimes written with an alef after the reish, excuse me, with an alef after the nun, and sometimes written without an alef. Sometimes it is written Nebuchadnetzar, nun-tzadi-reish. Sometimes it is written Nebuchadnezzar, with an alef after the nun. He says, what does this alef hint at? Since it is written that Hashem would diminish from them the light of the lamp. So the alef hints at the light (or). And the nun-reish, which interchange, hint at the lamp (ner). Another hint that is brought, in Otzrot Yerushalayim he brings, since he exiled Israel and destroyed the Temple and was a wicked tyrant, therefore Hashem changed him from a nun to a reish, which is the first letter of "rasha" (wicked). The reish hints at "rasha." Therefore he was called Nebuchadrezzar. "The name of the wicked shall rot," therefore he mentioned this in his name. Another explanation: since Nebuchadnezzar, he says, it may be that his name is Nebuchadrezzar. And why was he called Nebuchadnezzar? Because he disturbed (achar) the branch (netzer) of Yishai. The one who disturbed the branch of Yishai, meaning destroyed the Temple and abolished the monarchy and so on, that was Nebuchadnezzar. So he disturbed the branch of Yishai, therefore he was called by this name. Another name, one final explanation, I saw in Otzar Chaim, he explains, because he was, as is known, from the seed of Solomon the king, from the kingdom of Sheba. It is written that Solomon, we learned this when we studied the book of Kings, gave her all her desire. Our Sages say too that he impregnated her, and from her ultimately was born, from her came forth, Nebuchadnezzar. And for Nebuchadnezzar, so to speak, this was no great honor. For us too it is a great disgrace, but for him, who considered himself who-knows-what, to come and think that he came from descendants of the people of Israel, this was for him, as it were, some stain in the dynasty, in the history. And he was perplexed (navoch) by this. And therefore he was called Nevoch-kad-netzer. The meaning is that he was perplexed by his branch (netzer). He was perplexed that he came from a branch of Solomon. And this is what is written, "and you were cast out like an abhorred branch." The meaning is he is in the aspect of a branch, but abhorred. And therefore in the end he was cast out. There are presumably other reasons as well, but apparently even after all these reasons, the matter still remains in the hidden storehouse of the Creator of the world, for none of these reasons truly gives us a fully acceptable explanation; they are more hints to the matters. But apparently the true reasons are still hidden reasons.