Sefer Yeshayahu, with Hashem's help we shall begin and succeed. Chapter 1. The vision of Yeshayahu son of Amotz, which he beheld concerning Yehudah and Yerushalayim in the days of Uziyahu, Yotam, Achaz, and Chizkiyahu, kings of Yehudah.
The vision of Yeshayahu son of Amotz. Rashi brings the words of Chazal: Rabbi Levi said, this is a tradition in our hands from our forefathers, that Amotz and Amatzyah were brothers. Amatzyah was king of Yehudah, and Amotz was his brother. The Ibn Ezra explains through this an interesting point regarding what we find, that Yirmiyahu was greatly persecuted. They threw him into the courtyard of the prison. What did he not go through? Yirmiyahu endured troubles upon troubles. Yeshayahu did not endure such troubles. Says the Ibn Ezra, according to what we have now explained this is understood, for he was from the royal family. Yeshayahu son of Amotz, and Amatzyah who was the king, were brothers. Therefore no one persecuted him, because he was close to the monarchy.
The vision of Yeshayahu son of Amotz, which he beheld concerning Yehudah and Yerushalayim. The word "chazon" (vision) is written here. Why "chazon" and not "the prophecy of Yeshayahu son of Amotz"? So Rashi explains: since these are words of rebuke and harshness, he called them "chazon", from a term of harshness. Prophecy has ten expressions, ten terms of prophecy, and "chazon" is the harsh term, "a harsh vision was told to me." Therefore he used the term "chazon". "Chazon" is from the term "to behold", yes? The prophet indeed sees and beholds, therefore it is called a term of vision.
The vision of Yeshayahu son of Amotz. Some say, incidentally, that "chazon" is one of the higher levels of prophecy, and therefore he used "chazon" since he reached a high level of prophecy. But the commentators say, what is written here, "which he beheld concerning Yerushalayim... Yehudah and Yerushalayim in the days of Uziyahu, Yotam, Achaz, Chizkiyahu, kings of Yehudah," this is not his first prophecy. Although it is the beginning of the prophecy, it is the first in Sefer Yeshayahu, this is not the beginning of the book, says Rashi. And why is the book called "the vision of Yeshayahu"? Because in fact the beginning of the book was with the prophecy that he prophesied in the year of King Uziyahu's death. "And I heard the voice of Hashem saying: Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" and then Yeshayahu said, "Here I am, send me." This was the beginning of the mission. When Uziyahu fell ill and then he said to Him, send me, from there Hashem began to send him. So why then is it stated here "the vision of Yeshayahu son of Amotz which he beheld concerning Yehudah and Yerushalayim" if this is not the beginning? Says the Malbim, because he repeated this prophecy in the days of each and every king. He repeated it in the days of Uziyahu, and afterward in the days of Yotam, and afterward in the days of Achaz, afterward in the days of Chizkiyahu, and he did not mention here one more because of his great wickedness, this being also in the days of Menasheh. Since in the end Menasheh killed Yeshayahu the prophet, therefore he did not want to mention his name at all. And he reminds you and tells you, know this, that this prophecy repeated itself with every king; he had to return and remind them of the matters stated here.
Concerning Yehudah and Yerushalayim. The Malbim says, the prophecy is divided into two. From verse 2 until verse 21 is a prophecy about the tribe of Yehudah in general. From 21 until 27 is a prophecy about Yerushalayim in particular. From 21 until the end of the chapter is about Yehudah and Yerushalayim. Therefore he mentions both Yehudah and Yerushalayim. Yehudah is every place where the tribe of Yehudah dwelt, even outside Yerushalayim. In contrast, Yerushalayim is only those who dwelt within Yerushalayim.
I would like to read to you the Malbim's introduction to Sefer Yeshayahu, but since his language is poetic and very difficult, I have left just the end of it, not the entire introduction. Says the Malbim: My heart's rock was almost stirred by the sound of the cherub's wings touching one another, for the spirit of the living creature was within them. And my soul for a moment roamed, flew, soared upon the wings of the wind, upon the pinions of this daughter of heaven that speaks great things. The spirit of song almost began to stir within me, the spirit of poetic expression to strum upon the harps, my hands almost weakened from holding back this soaring one, soaring the heavens, and before the mighty heights of her poetry I could not hold my strength. I will not explain everything he says, for that would require half a lesson; I will just tell you the idea of the matter. The idea is that in fact I had some desire to write in poetic language, in elevated language, in exalted language, like for example the last lines I just read. But why in truth did you not do this? Why did you write in far more common language?
And behold, the voice of many multitudes upon them I have set my word in this entire composition. The voice of many multitudes I hear calling in my ears, saying: Please, do not speak to us lofty things, do not come to test us with riddles, speak to us in Yehudit (the Jewish tongue) in the ears of all the people who are upon the wall. Like the words that Chizkiyahu's men said to Sancheriv's men, "speak to us in Yehudit." In simple words, speak at eye level. Do not speak to us in poetic language, in exalted speech. And now I awoke from these dreams of mine, that is, those aspirations I had to write in poetic language; the violins were silenced, singers male and female fell mute, and like a dream upon waking the visions of poetry scattered from before me. I can no longer write in poetic language.
In the evening, and behold, the face of the cherub is the face of a man. Now the face of the cherub, an angel, I see the face of a man. A pen and an inkwell, the hands of a man beneath their wings, and all the winged ones have, like any man, a mouth and a tongue, lips. I see that I must express myself in far more common language, far less exalted. But the Malbim reassures us: From now on do not be astonished, do not be desolate, do not draw back, my dear reader, for from now on I will speak with you like any man, like any man of your age. From now on I will speak with you in every language that you hear. From now on a tongue you do not know you shall no longer hear. You will not hear from me a lofty language, a poetic language that you have no ability to understand. And we shall continue.
Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth, for Hashem has spoken: I raised and exalted children, and they rebelled against Me. We are exactly at Parashat Haazinu. "Give ear, O heavens, and I will speak, and let the earth hear the words of my mouth." Here it is the opposite; here it is "hear, O heavens," not "give ear, O heavens." In contrast, Moshe Rabbeinu said to the earth "hear," and Yeshayahu says "give ear, O earth." Chazal already dwell on this contradiction and there are many explanations of it. We also learned in the holy Or HaChaim an explanation for this, and almost every commentator writes to explain it according to his approach. We will not learn everything the commentators say; we just want to see what Rashi says and see one more explanation.
Rashi says, when witnesses come to testify, if their testimony is not aligned, if they do not say the same thing precisely, their testimony is not accepted. The heavens and the earth here are two witnesses. Had Yeshayahu not come and given "hearing" to the heavens and "giving ear" to the earth, it would not have been possible to accept their testimony. For they would come and say to the earth, what, what happened with you? Then it would say, I gave ear... I heard. What was your testimony, heavens? I gave ear. Ah, this is not the same testimony at all. This is hearing, this is giving ear. Each one, as it were, testifies about something different. What did Yeshayahu do? He came and said: with respect to the heavens, hearing, and with respect to the earth, giving ear. So we have an earth that both heard and gave ear, and we have heavens that both heard and gave ear. With Moshe it is thus, with Yeshayahu it is thus, their testimony is aligned. Both testify about the same things, both about hearing and about giving ear. Consequently, from here there is already validity to their testimony.
The heavens and the earth, why specifically them? So we have one explanation, because they are witnesses. It is written, "and I will call the heavens and the earth to witness against them," because they exist, they exist forever. "Existing forever" means, there is no situation where I search for the witnesses and they have gone overseas or died. These witnesses exist forever. Another matter, "the hand of the witnesses shall be against him first to put him to death." If we stray from the path, who are those who will exact punishment from us? The heavens will not give their dew, the earth will not give its produce. Consequently they are the ones who will exact punishment from us first. Therefore, says the Radak, he mentioned here the heavens and the earth as witnesses, for they are the ones who will exact punishment when we do not act properly.
The Radak explains another reason why Moshe Rabbeinu said "give ear, O heavens" and "let the earth hear." Says the Radak, since Moshe Rabbeinu was close to the heavens, therefore he says "give ear, O heavens." When you are close, you use the term "giving ear." When you are far, you say "hear, hear," you are far, he is far from you. So Moshe Rabbeinu was close to the heavens, he said "give ear, O heavens." The earth is far, it is below, so he says "let the earth hear," I will raise my voice, so that it too can hear. In contrast, Yeshayahu was not on the level of Moshe, and therefore Yeshayahu said "hear, O heavens." He stands here, he cries out to the heavens, hear, O heavens. On the other hand the earth, he is close to it, so he says "give ear, O earth," it is beside me. Each one in fact speaks from the very point where he is situated.
Says the Malbim, "hear, O heavens," he calls to the heavens and the earth, who are in fact the well-known witnesses as I said. And then he comes and says to them, for Hashem has spoken. If Hashem has spoken, who would not listen? Who would not give ear? "I raised and exalted children, and they rebelled against Me." Says the Malbim, according to the principles of ethics, the very fact that the father raised his child, even if he did not grant him, even if he did not bestow upon him millions, but he raised him, this alone already gives him a moral debt toward the father. "I raised children." And all the more so if this father favored this child and gave him all good more than all his brothers, and bestowed upon him a portion of holiness, all the more so must the son show gratitude to the father. So this is what he says, "I raised children." From the very fact that I raised you, you should have shown gratitude to Hashem. And not only that, but also "exalted." I raised you up and lifted you above every nation, we were exalted above every tongue. All the more so were you obligated to do the will of Hashem. And with all this, "and they rebelled against Me." And they did not act and did not behave as was expected of them.
An ox knows its owner, and a donkey its master's trough; Yisrael does not know, My people does not understand. An ox knows its owner. Rashi explains, the ox recognizes the one who bought it, it fears him. The ox does not say to its boss, today I am not plowing, my dear, today I am on strike. You did not give enough fodder yesterday, you did not give enough straw, I am not working. A donkey its master's trough. And the donkey never said, I am not carrying a load today. Today I have no strength, today I am on vacation, today does not suit me, today I am depressed. It has no excuses. It goes to work as it should. Says Hashem, and if these, who were created to serve you, are not to receive reward if they do good, and will not receive punishment if they do evil, and nevertheless they did not change their role. You, Am Yisrael, who if you do good you receive reward, and if you sin then Heaven forbid you are still punished, receiving calamity, you, My people, do not know, do not understand? How did you not set your heart to understand?
The Malbim, in his way, since he explained to us before that there is a concept of children, the very fact that the father raised us, and there is a concept that the father favored us, further exalted us, not merely gave us food and took us to the doctor, but further gave us elevation above all the other children, he comes and tells you, come and see that these traits are placed even in the nature of animals. The ox, the very fact that it was bought already recognizes its owner. An ox knows its owner. A donkey, what can we do, its level of intelligence is lower, the fact that he bought it is not enough. But if he feeds it well, well, then it will already recognize its boss. A donkey its master's trough. Through his feeding it at the trough, it recognizes him. But he says, look, Yisrael does not know. I called them Yisrael. Yisrael means they are My portion, they are My acquisition, they are My servants, this is indeed "I raised children." In any case you should have recognized your Master, the Holy One blessed be He, like the ox. But My people, Yisrael does not know. My people, My people, you are not merely Yisrael, you are not just another child, of whom I said I merely raised, but you I also exalted, you are in the category of My people. What other nation did I take for Myself? Upon whom else did I pour and bestow, in such a private way, so much? So this is not merely "I raised," this is already "I exalted," you are My people. So why did they not understand? If so, why do you not understand?
The Malbim says, notice here first of all regarding the nature of man. When the father truly bestows upon the son, but when does the son truly love his father, when does he feel most connected to him? When the father gave him beyond what he needs to give. If the father gives to the son as any father raises his son, then the son is connected to the father in a standard way. But if the father bestows upon him much above and beyond, then the bond between them is far greater. And this means that according to gratitude, his obligation toward the father who bestowed upon him so much is far greater. Therefore he says, notice that our obligation is far greater than that of the nations. The nations, Hashem did not bestow upon them so much, seven mitzvot are enough. But upon you Hashem bestowed, you need six hundred and thirteen mitzvot. Who else merited a higher level? The Kohanim. The Kohanim have more mitzvot than the Yisrael. Who has an even higher level? The Kohen Gadol. The Kohen Gadol has a level higher than the Kohanim. He has obligations upon him, he has mitzvot upon him, the meal-offering of the griddle-cakes morning and evening, he has a rank, consequently he also has demands, consequently there are also claims. The king, an exalted and lofty rank. For you it is enough to have a Sefer Torah in the ark; the king, no, they tell him, my master, attached to you, you go about with the Sefer Torah. The greater the rank you receive, the more it demands of you, the more it requires of you.
Now the Malbim says, notice that within man are all the powers of all the animals. That is, if there is a power in creation, that power exists also in man. Therefore it is written that had the Torah not been given we would have learned modesty from the cat, we would have learned about theft from the ant, we would in fact have learned from all the animals all the traits. "Be swift as a deer, light as a leopard, mighty as a lion." That is, all the powers placed in the animals are as a kind of sign, let us say, of what is in man in all his powers. And in man there is a bit of the lion, and a bit of the rabbit, sometimes a bit of the snake, and sometimes also a bit of the ant. In short, in man there are all the powers that exist in creation, and he needs a necessary minimum to learn from the animals. If you see the animals behaving in some certain moral way, this is not because they have morality, it is to teach you. It is so that you draw conclusions from it. So that you learn how to behave, because the Holy One blessed be He implanted in you all the powers of all the animals. And therefore, says the Holy One blessed be He, behold, come and see, from the standpoint of ethics, they bestowed upon you, they gave you, you should have shown gratitude to the Holy One blessed be He, so why did you rebel against Me? And not only that, He says to them, but also in your nature this trait was placed. For if you see that an ox and a donkey recognize the trough of their masters and show gratitude to them, what does this say? That you have this in your nature. So this is an even greater claim. I implanted this as part of your nature, the recognition of good. So how were you able to be so ungrateful toward the Holy One blessed be He? This is part of you. This is not only from the law of ethics that someone gave to you and so according to the principles of ethics you must repay him, but I also implanted this in you, just as in the ox and the donkey these traits are implanted in their nature. So how is it possible that you rebelled against Me?
Woe, O sinful nation, a people heavy with iniquity, seed of evildoers, corrupt children; they have forsaken Hashem, they have spurned the Holy One of Yisrael, they have turned backward. What is the term "hoy" (woe)? Rashi explains that every "hoy" in Scripture is a term of complaint and lamentation, from the term of one who laments, like a person who groans from his heart and cries out "ahah." The Malbim, in contrast, distinguishes between "hoy" and "oy." "Hoy" is a proclamation. "O honored people," a term of proclamation. When a person speaks with pathos then he says "hoy." In contrast "oy" is what we today call "oy," "oy va'avoy." When something happens to a person then he cries "oy." So therefore says the Malbim, here it is a term of proclamation and not a term of pain and sorrow. And what does he say to them? Woe, O sinful nation. You are a sinful people, a people heavy with iniquity who have forsaken Hashem, and therefore I will ask you, for what will you be stricken? What benefit did you gain by forsaking Hashem? And now he will explain to us.
Woe, O sinful nation, a people heavy with iniquity. Says the Malbim, this is built in the form of level upon level, as he goes and increases, goes and increases their sins and their iniquity. And therefore he says, look, in the beginning he said "sinful nation." What is a "chet" (sin)? An unintentional error. A sin without intent. Afterward he comes and says, a people heavy with "avon" (iniquity). "Avon" is already deliberate. "Avon" is a distortion of the intellect, as the Malbim says. A "chet," his desire overpowers him. "Avon" is a distortion of the intellect. His intellect is distorted, meaning I specifically choose this. This is already deliberate, this is more than a sin. He says, you did not do this only occasionally, but you are "seed of evildoers." "Evildoers" is already a description. A description means, like the difference between saying to a child "you did a bad deed," versus saying to him "you are a bad child." "Bad" I have already attached to him as a description. A bad deed, I do not say you are... the deed you did is not good, but you are a good child. But if I say you are a bad child, this is already your description, you are bad. So he says, you are already evildoing children, seed of evildoers. "Seed of evildoers" is a description that you do evil constantly. And not only that you would do this, say, for some benefit or to fulfill your desire, but you are corrupt children. What is the meaning of "corrupt" (mashchit)?
I will give an example. Not long ago, I read about some man who was in the Alps, one of those who go skiing. So they go up with a lift to the top and come down on skis, with the ski poles, with the ski gear, gliding down to the bottom. The man arrived a bit late, went up, and the one below did not consider carefully, the hour arrived, he needed to shut off the electricity, he shut off everything, and the lift also shut off. The man is stuck up there somewhere in the Alps, without electricity, without a moving lift, he is in fact, you understand, he is inside a freezer. Within a short time the man is finished. After five hours maybe they rescued him. What, what did he do in the meantime? He said he had money in his pocket, he had quantities of money in his pocket, and he took it out, and he had a lighter, and he lit it and warmed himself beside it. Each time he had something else that he burned in order to warm himself; if not, he would have had no chance to survive. Now I ask you, this man, I think he said it was more than a thousand euros there. This man who burned the money, did he destroy money? No. He kept himself alive. But if now a person takes money, places it here and sets it alight, what would we say? He destroyed the money. In fact, what is the difference? Both did the same act. The question is whether there is some benefit or no benefit. "To destroy," says the Malbim, always means without pleasure, without benefit, just to break, just to ruin, that is called destruction. So this is more than what was before with "evildoers," you became corrupt children. Corrupt without benefit, without pleasure, just to do evil, even without any profit coming to you from the transgression you committed.
Says the Malbim, come and see now with what wondrous correspondence this is. If you notice, until now I detailed the types of iniquity. It was a sin, afterward iniquity, afterward evildoers, afterward corrupt. But if you noticed, the description of Yisrael also changed. In the beginning it was "nation" (goy), after that "people" (am), then "seed" (zera), afterward "children" (banim). Says the Malbim, why these changes? Says the Malbim, just as he went up and said, see how severe this is, even more severe, even more severe, truly corrupt, the most severe, from the light to the heavy, so too he increases the iniquity from the standpoint of their description. A sinful nation is not comparable to a son who sins. The closer you are, your transgression against your father is far greater. And this is what he comes and says. The later it is in the verse, the more important it is. "People" is more elevated than "nation." "Nation" is a very general term, "people" is a more specific term. "Seed" is already his offspring, this is already closer than "people" in general. Afterward "children," this is already the closest. His children, you could call his descendants and the descendants of his descendants, all considered his seed. But his children, this is already a description that applies only to those who are directly from him, this is already a closer description. So he says, just as the quality of the sin grew here, so too the quality of the people grew. Consequently, if you increase the description of the people as closer, then this increases the iniquity even more. And therefore the order of the verses, says the Malbim, is thus: Woe, O sinful nation. You are first of all a nation, you are gentiles, merely a nation, and you committed a sin unintentionally. And not only that, but you are a people, which is a greater level, and not only from the standpoint of the one committing the sin, but also the sin in itself, for this is iniquity, a people heavy with iniquity. And you are a seed, which is an even greater level, and not only that but you were evildoers, which is harsher than iniquity. And you are children, which is an even higher level, and you are corrupt, which is destruction, the harshest and greatest thing.
They have forsaken Hashem. What does "they have forsaken Hashem" add here? You already said everything that can be said. What did you add with "they have forsaken Hashem"? Says the Malbim, about the Shomronim it is written, "they feared Hashem and served their gods." Idolatry in partnership. Well, this can be understood. You come and say, there are powers in creation, I do not know, this is what I see. The Creator of the world, fine, He too is an option. We will take Him into account too. This was the Shomronim. But you did not take the Creator of the world even as an option. Even in your leisure hours you did not say, also the Creator of the world. Rather, they forsook Hashem, they forsook Hashem entirely. The Gemara says, they had three hundred and sixty-five kinds of deities, and each day they would serve that day's god. Hashem? Out of the question, He was not included there, He was not part of the deities that had to be served. And this shows, Chazal say, "not even like this lupine which is eaten at the end of the meal did My children make Me." Bring Hashem even as a dessert, alright? Not as the main course. No, not even that. We once explained that there was here a defense of Am Yisrael.
In its innermost depths Am Yisrael knows that Hashem is the God. In its innermost depths it knows that Hashem is the truth. And it knows that what Hashem demands of it is what it is truly called upon to do, and all the idolatries, all of it is falsehood. Why does it do them? As Chazal say, Yisrael served idolatry only in order to permit themselves forbidden relations in public. That is, I serve idols because the idols are, they are very generous with me, they are very liberal, they are not strict like the Holy One blessed be He. Fine, whatever you do will be alright, come afterward to the priest, say I sinned, I transgressed, I rebelled, receive credit for another two years, give a nice donation, he will do a confession for you, and everything is over. Much easier. In contrast the prophets always have harsh and severe and dreadful things, and the worst of all is that in the end it comes, what all these frightening prophets say. So what does he do? So he forsakes Hashem, does not recognize Him. And then it is much easier for him. Because if even for one day I would serve Hashem, that is a slap in the face to all the idol worship, and then I, I am unable to continue serving idols. You know that Hashem is the truth. And therefore they reached such a state that they preferred not to look at Hashem at all, so that they would have no difficulties. So that they could continue in their way and not be forced to believe in Hashem.
He comes and says, not only all that we said until now that they forsook Hashem, but they spurned the Holy One of Yisrael. "Spurned" (ni'atzu), if you had forsaken Hashem, fine. But what is "to spurn"? To spurn is to kick. To spurn is to disgrace, to spurn is to curse, to provoke. And not only that, but they turned backward. If you would say, listen, I forsook the Holy One blessed be He, why? I want to be free. To be a free nation in our land. I serve no one. I do not want anyone to tell me anything, I am free, an atheist. I do nothing. Fine. But he says, they turned backward. This means, you forsook God in order to take for yourself whom? Idolatry. And idolatry is called "turning backward." Why? Because also their sons and their daughters they would burn in fire to their gods. Is this not heavy for you? But what Hashem told you is heavy for you? So they even turned backward, so fine you would say I want nothing, I want rest, fine. But is it comfortable for you to serve idolatry and not serve Hashem, whose service is lighter?
The Malbim dwells here on one more point. He says, look, from the beginning of the creation of man, he is built in such a way that he should rise level after level. In the beginning, after the sin of Adam HaRishon, Adam HaRishon was like an animal. He would eat only the fruit of the land. In the days of Noach he reached the level of a speaking being, he was permitted to eat meat. In the days of the Avot he reached the level of Yisrael, already the Holy One blessed be He speaks with him, already he receives instructions, he is already careful with mitzvot. The revelation at Har Sinai, oh, we already became truly Jews obligated in six hundred and thirteen mitzvot. From there we reached the holy land. A level after that, a Beit HaMikdash was already built for us, the House of Choice, we are connected with Hashem. And what in fact is the continuation of the task? From the era of Shlomo, which is the repair of the world in the kingdom of the Almighty. We have dominion over the entire world, Shlomo ruled over the whole globe, we should already have been very close to repairing the entire world. But instead of repairing the world, Shlomo married foreign women, married the daughter of Pharaoh, the kingdom split, and from here reality went and deteriorated. And this is what he says, your task was to advance further, and instead you turned backward. You reached a state where you already began to deteriorate backward. You returned from the level of Yisrael to the level of a speaking being, and from the level of a speaking being to the level of an animal, and worse than an animal, for "an ox knows its owner and a donkey its master's trough," but you did not even know this. So it turns out then that not only did you not advance from the point where I left you, but you even regressed, much lower than what was before.
Another matter the Malbim says, let us notice, there is an interesting thing here. They have forsaken Hashem, they have spurned the Holy One of Yisrael. Why does he once mention "Hashem" and once mention "the Holy One of Yisrael"? The Malbim states a principle, which he will mention again later in the book. Every place where he mentions the name Hashem or Elokim, he refers to the essence of the greatness of Hashem the Blessed as the Conductor of the world, as the One who created the world, a general description. But when he mentions Him in the context of Yisrael, like "the Holy One of Yisrael," "the God of Yisrael," here he speaks of the Holy One blessed be He as the One connected to Am Yisrael, as the One who has a special love for Am Yisrael, that from the standpoint of the connection between us and Him the Blessed He did for us what He did. This is the special quality of what is written, "the Holy One of Yisrael," "the God of Yisrael," "the exaltation of Yisrael." Says the Malbim, there is a far more dreadful disgrace when you forsake Hashem who is the Holy One of Yisrael than merely to forsake Hashem. The very fact that He is Hashem, you are already indebted to Him. He created the world, He created man, He bestowed upon us as He bestowed upon the entire world. This alone is already an obligating cause. But he says, they did not suffice with forsaking Hashem, but whom did they spurn? The Holy One of Yisrael. The God who bestowed upon them especially, the One who is the God of Yisrael, who gave us special leadership that set us apart and distinguished us from all the nations, who is the Holy One of Yisrael, He is our special God. And so consequently this is already spurning. Therefore, they spurned the Holy One of Yisrael. This is not merely forsaking, this is far more severe.
Why should you be stricken further, that you continue to rebel? The whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint. Here he completes what he began in the previous verse. Here he says to them, after you multiplied transgression so greatly, until you reached the utmost extreme, truly spurning, then I ask you, why should you be stricken? That is, if a person received afflictions, and these afflictions caused him to awaken and repent and do the will of Hashem, then I say, listen, there was benefit in this. Something good came from it, the person drew close. But he says to them, you receive the afflictions and do not return. So what is the benefit? So what is the gain? Why should you be stricken? What came out of the blows you received? What good does the beating do for you? And the proof, here he says to them, the whole head is sick and the whole heart faint. Your reality is that the head's pain is only greater, and the heart is faint, hurting and aching more. He says to them, so what benefit is there in the beating? What did we gain from it? What good thing came out of it?
From the sole of the foot to the head there is no soundness in it, wound and bruise and fresh injury; they have not been drained nor bound nor softened with oil. Now he describes all the limbs of the body. From the sole of the foot to the head there is no soundness in it. "There is no soundness in it" means there is no whole limb, no intact limb, no limb that has any human form in it. They are all full of wounds, bruises, and fresh injury. What is the difference between a wound and a bruise? Says the Malbim, a wound is a blow of a sword. When one strikes with a sword, the flesh opens, this is called a wound. A bruise, in contrast, is if I take a blunt object and give you a hard blow to the hand or the body, the blood congeals. This is called a bruise. In a bruise the blood does not come out, but congeals inside. Pus can form, an internal hemorrhage can form, but it does not come out. In a wound it comes out. What is their remedy? Each of them has a different remedy. The wound, its remedy is that one must place a bandage until the open place closes. In contrast the bruise, one must place special remedies that soften and open the place. The wound must be closed, but the bruise must be opened, because it congealed there, sometimes there is pus there, sometimes there is fluid there that must be drawn out. They would place all sorts of remedies that soften the skin, through which the skin would open, the pus would come out, and through this it would heal.
Now notice, what does a person do who has both a wound and a bruise? On the one hand he is supposed to place substances that close the wound, and on the other hand he is supposed to place substances that open the bruise. As the Gemara says, woe to the person who is harmed by a wasp and a scorpion. By a bee and a scorpion. Why? This one's remedy is in hot water, that one's remedy is in cold water. He bathes in hot water, this harms the second sting. He bathes in cold water, this harms the first sting. One who is stung by two opposite things, what will he do? Every remedy he makes will harm the other injury. This is in fact what he says here. There is no soundness in it, wound and bruise, which are two opposite things. If he closes the wound, he will also close the bruise and that is not good. If he opens the bruise, that is, places substances that open it, through this he will also open the wound, it will continue to bleed. What in fact will he do with this? And a fresh injury. He has an injury that constantly emits pus, emits some fluid from within it. And this requires special substances, a special remedy that dries, that stops the fluid. And this remedy, says the Malbim, harms both the wound and the bruise. Do you understand? That is, he has a third injury, which if he heals it according to its own rules, this harms both of the first two injuries as well. Both will not heal when the flesh dries, but only when the flesh is fresh.
It turns out then that they have such injuries that are hostile to one another, that it is not possible to heal them at all. They have not been drained nor bound. "Drained" (zoru) is a remedy. We say "mazor." "Mazor" is a remedy. From what term does "mazor" mean remedy? Because the physician would sprinkle (zoreh) substances upon the wound. He would sprinkle upon it all sorts of substances, these were powders that they would extract from plants. They would take them, grind them, and create a powder, and this powder they would use. What today they extract natural remedies from, ointments and the like. And therefore, incidentally, this is the prohibition on Shabbat. Why on Shabbat is it forbidden to make a remedy? Because of the grinding of substances. He will approach the physician, he will tell him take this and that plant, grind it, place it on the wound. Or drink it. Grinding substances is the prohibition of grinding. So "they have not been drained," the powder of the remedy was not spread upon them. "And they have not been bound," they did not wrap upon them the bandage that is wrapped around the injury. "And they have not been softened with oil." When they would heal the injury, they would first soften it with oil until it softens, then they would bind it with a cloth so that the injury would not spread, then they would sprinkle substances as a remedy. And he says, not only were they not drained, which is what is done at the end, they would sprinkle at the end, they were also not bound, which is done first. And not only were they not bound, but also what is done even before this, softened with oil, which is the beginning. That is, in simple words, you received all types of injuries, and you did not trouble yourselves to be healed even in some small way. So he says, why should you be stricken? So in fact what is the benefit of all the blows I give you, if these blows do not bring you to repentance?
The Malbim explains the concept of "petza" (wound). Says the Malbim, "petza" is from the term "to open" (liftzoach). "He opened (patzah) his mouth," this is opened. "Patzach," correct? What is the meaning? Open. Like "burst forth (patzach) in song," correct? "To open." Or "to crack (lefatzeach) nuts," meaning to open the shell. And also "petza" is from the term "to wound" (liftzoa), correct? To open the injury. This is the meaning of "petza," the place that was closed, the knife cut it and the person was wounded. A bruise, in contrast, is the opposite. A bruise is the opposite of a wound. A wound, as we said, is to open, from the term "patzah" and "patzach"; a bruise (chaburah) is to close. A bruise, we find this expression, says the Malbim, in three usages. It is written, for example, a gathering, a company (chaburah) of people. "A charmer (chover) of charms," or the bruise of a wound. All three are "to connect" (lehitchaber). A company of people, several people connected together. "A charmer of charms," he gathers animals through all sorts of incantations, gathers them to one place, this is called "a charmer of charms." The bruise of a wound, there is blood inside, the blood congealed, all the blood connects to one place. According to this, says the Malbim, you will understand what he in fact intended to tell us here. There was here on the one hand a wound, which we said is a thing that opens, "he opened his mouth," and on the other hand a bruise, a closed thing that must be opened, congealed blood or pus that congealed beneath the skin and must be opened.
Your land is desolate, your cities burned with fire; your soil, before you strangers devour it, and it is desolate as overthrown by strangers. Now he begins to explain the analogy. What I said in the beginning, "the whole head is sick," he says, behold, look, your land is desolate. The head is the whole body, for the head sends its influences to the entire body. So too the country is the whole nation. When there is desolation, then everyone feels it, the entire nation feels it. What happens in the whole country affects all the people. "The whole head is sick," I said the head is sick, your land is desolate. The head affects everyone, everyone feels, the land is desolate, everyone senses and feels it. And what I said, "the whole heart faint," "the whole heart" means this is already something more particular, this is not the head which is general, but this is, this is a more particular limb. He says, the whole heart faint, your cities burned with fire. Each and every city they see that it was set ablaze, burned with fire. Just as the heart is on a level below the head, but the limbs feel it more than all the other limbs. That is, your finger hurts, this feels painful throughout the whole body.
But it does not have influences upon the whole body. In contrast, if there is a problem in the heart, there is an effect upon the entire body. When the heart's output is lower, then the reality of all the body's activity weakens. If the heart does not work properly, there is an effect upon the whole body. And therefore he says, this corresponds to what is written "your cities burned with fire." Your cities burned with fire, so it is not quite that everyone feels it, but certainly most of them feel it. There is a sensation of most people in it when their cities are burned with fire.
What he said after this, "from the sole of the foot to the head there is no soundness in it," which means every particular limb is harmed, so this is what he says now, "your soil," meaning the soil of each and every one, "strangers devour it." This is already on a particular level, each one feels it, his field, his land. He would come today to harvest, and suddenly he saw that someone had harvested for him and taken from him and robbed and plundered him. "Strangers devour it before your eyes," this is already something each one feels. This corresponds to "from the sole of the foot to the head there is no soundness in it," there is no limb, there is nothing particular in the body of the nation that does not feel it.
"They have not been drained nor bound," corresponding to this he comes and says "desolate as overthrown by strangers." "Overthrown by strangers" (zarim) means an overthrow, according to the Malbim's explanation, "zarim" here is not from the term "stranger" (zar), but from the term "a stream (zerem) of mighty waters." This is the meaning of "zarim," from the term "to flow" (lizrom). They destroy so completely, that nothing remains. Just as when water floods the land, then it is not that an animal came and ate, so you say a little remained. When water floods, nothing remains. Nothing at all remains. This is "as overthrown by streams," meaning a situation where there is no more remedy. Everything is washed away. And this corresponds to what he said earlier, that the situation would be such that "they have not been drained nor bound," meaning there is no remedy. It is impossible to heal such a situation. This is a situation where the destruction in it is a complete and absolute destruction.
The Malbim comes and says that there are here two examples that are in fact opposed to one another in order to increase the pain, as we said. There is here a wound, there is here a bruise. The remedy of the wound harms the bruise, the remedy of the bruise harms the wound. Says the Malbim, that a person who sees the labor of his hands in the hand of his enemy, this pains him greatly. Whereas, if they were to tell him, listen, everything you had was lost in a plague, everything you had was lost in a fire, it is less difficult for him. It is less difficult for him. But to see that my enemy plundered it, this is far more difficult.
I once gave you an example of a bad trait that exists in man. A person's fan broke, he took it down below to the sidewalk. Suddenly he looks out the window, sees his neighbor taking it, bringing it up to his home. After two days he even says to him, thank you, you know, it was just missing a screw, I fixed it and it works excellently. It would have been better if the garbage truck had crushed it, dismantled it, I would have been more at ease. Correct? Look, a person has such a trait. A person has such a trait. He will not say this to him, he will say ah, good, thank God, I am glad, wonderful, you succeeded, thank God, good that it works. What is "good that it works"? Why, why did I not keep it? What foolishness I was, I offered... it would have been better if it had been ruined, so that it would not... this is a dreadful and terrible trait. It is difficult even to say; tell this to a person far from mitzvot, he will tell you what do you mean, Heaven forbid, and... but this is the nature of man. When someone else takes it, someone else benefits from it, this bothers him even more.
Like there was once an incident with someone who came to the rabbi, and the rabbi, came with a question, a slaughterer, he said to him, my slaughterer slaughtered the animal, let the rabbi examine it. The rabbi examined, told him it is treif. Fine, no choice, two thousand shekels, thrown in the trash. The next day he came to a Din Torah with his fellow over two hundred shekels. The rabbi told him, two hundred shekels you must pay. He began raising shouts, and what do you mean, and under no circumstances, and how is it possible, and where is the justice, and this is not a true judgment. The rabbi told him, I do not understand, yesterday I told you two thousand shekels to throw in the trash, and you accepted. Now two hundred shekels you are not willing? The rabbi told him, I will explain to you. Because it does not pain you to take out the two hundred shekels, it pains you that he will receive them. That he will receive them, to this I am under no circumstances willing. I am willing to throw two thousand in the trash as well, but not that my enemy, with whom I now had an argument, should be the one to receive it.
And this is what he says, this is what is written here "strangers devour it." Strangers devour it, meaning, some stranger, someone with whom I had opposition, my enemy, he devours. This is very difficult. Like healing a wound and a bruise, which are opposing things. On the other hand, though, when strangers devour it there is an advantage. Because if strangers devour it, I still have the possibility that one day I will save it from them. Say tomorrow I will be victorious, I will save part of the produce of the field. But if a stream of water came and washed everything away, then although it is not my enemy, I have lost everything, there is nothing. There is also no chance that anything will return. When it is with strangers, perhaps tomorrow I will conquer. But when it is someone else, then there is no more chance that I will return to it.
And this is what he comes and says, there is here an opposing matter. On the one hand I would prefer that strangers devour it, so that in the future perhaps there will be salvation for it. On the other hand, it pains me greatly that someone else received my labor, someone who is an enemy to me. I would have preferred that a river had already washed it away, and if a river had washed it away, at least he would not benefit. But even if a river washes it away, it is not so comfortable for me, because then I will never return perhaps to save it. On the other hand, if a stranger devours it, perhaps I will still take it from him. There is here a kind of ambivalence, there is a kind of opposing duality, where a person no longer knows what is preferable. Wound and bruise, whom to heal? I heal this one, that one is harmed. I heal that one, this one is harmed.
And this is what he says, that in fact, says the Malbim, there was here the order of the destruction and desolation that occurred in the land of Yehudah from when the king of Ashur came. The first time was in the days of Achaz, he exiled the ten tribes. Then there was desolation, but not to the whole country, rather there were cities that dwelt in tranquility. And about this he said "your land is desolate." The second time, in the days of Chizkiyahu, and then he seized the fortified cities of Yehudah. Now the destruction was in each and every city. About this he said "your cities burned with fire." But still there were isolated ones who dwelt in security. The third time, when he began to besiege Yerushalayim, then each and every one felt it individually. And about this he said "your soil, before you strangers devour it."
"And the daughter of Tziyon is left like a booth in a vineyard, like a hut in a cucumber field, like a besieged city." Now he will describe for us the decline of Tziyon, meaning Eretz Yisrael, level after level in these three periods. The first period, Yerushalayim remained alone and forsaken like a booth in a vineyard. In a vineyard there is only the guard of the vineyard, who sits there in the booth in the vineyard. No one from another place is found in it, only the people of Yerushalayim. That is, all the rest around have already gone into exile. The second time, when the Kasdim arrived, "like a hut in a cucumber field." A hut is like a booth, but which they make in a field of cucumbers. Why is it called a "melunah" (hut)? Because the main purpose of its construction is for lodging (linah). Therefore it is called a "melunah." Even the guard himself is there only at night, because during the day there is no need to guard the cucumber field there, for the cucumbers are hard, the birds do not damage them, rather one only needs to guard it at night so that thieves do not come and gather and take. So this was an additional state, a further decline, "like a hut in a cucumber field." So too the people of Yerushalayim were all day hiding in caves, in the parched places, because of the enemies, and they reached the city to take things and all their needs only at night. And the third time, when there was already the siege in which they conquered Yerushalayim, then it was "like a besieged city." It was like a besieged city, already a city they besieged, none go out and none come in, and there is famine, and there is a dreadful and terrible state where they cannot survive, until after three years of siege Yerushalayim fell.
"Had Hashem of Hosts not left us a small remnant, we would have been like Sedom, we would have resembled Amorah." If Hashem had not left us a remnant, a small remainder, almost, then we would have been like Sedom. That is, since in our deeds we resembled Sedom. Says the Malbim, if you examine the evil of Sedom compared to the evil of Amorah, Sedom were more stringent in their wickedness. Therefore they were the judges of Sedom, come, sit in Sedom, Sedom were more wicked. So they say, had Hashem not left us a small remnant, we would in our deeds have resembled Sedom, we would have been like Sedom. Consequently, we would have resembled Amorah, so consequently we would have deserved the punishment of "resembling Amorah." The destruction and ruin that we would suffer would be like Amorah. For truly, in iniquity, Sedom was harsher. In punishment, Amorah was more severe. For from Sedom several souls were still saved, Lot and his family. In contrast, from Amorah no one survived. So about this he says "we would have resembled Amorah," for from Amorah no man escaped.
Here in fact, at this stage he completes the matter of which he spoke earlier, and then he begins from the next verse, he begins an open rebuke regarding the matter of the sacrifices, and the path of repentance, how Am Yisrael must return to Hashem. But before we begin the next verse, I would just like to dwell here on a grammatical matter that the Malbim explains. The Malbim says, the concept of "sarid" (remnant) always comes with the verb of "hish'ir" (to leave). "Left a remnant." It is not written "hotir a remnant." Here it is written "left us (hotir lanu) a remnant." What is the difference, says the Malbim, between "hish'ir a remnant" and "hotir a remnant"? The verb of "hish'ir" always comes when a person leaves intentionally. This I took and this I left. I left it because that was my intention. In contrast, I needed this, I took it, well, what about that? Well, that was left over. "Notar" (was left over) is something that remained by itself, not with prior intent. In contrast, if I want to keep this and not take it, I will say I left it, I will not say it was left over here. And therefore, says the Malbim, always when you see the expression "sarid" (remnant), it is written "we did not leave a remnant." We did not leave, because it concerns something intentional. So I had no intention to leave a remnant, for to leave, as we said, means intentionally. Rather what? It is possible that someone was left over, that one was left over. Not with prior intent. It is possible that someone whose life was as spoil to him, was left over. But did I leave him? No, I did not leave a remnant. I intentionally went and searched and did not leave even one. And if one remained, he did not remain by leaving, he is in the category of "left over," he was left over by himself. And here he comes to tell us, come and see that in fact the enemies did not leave the remnant that was here, but it was left over by itself. "He left us a remnant," it was merely left over. So that you should not think that the nations left a remnant here. On their part they would have annihilated everything. Rather what? A remnant was left over. Left over as if by itself, and not by their power. Why in truth was it left over? Because Hashem wanted it to be left over. And therefore it was left over. But on their part, to leave, they did not leave intentionally.
The Malbim says, dwells here on one more grammatical point. Notice, "almost like Sedom we would have been." Incidentally, "a small remnant" means a remnant, small ones. Not "almost like Sedom we would have been," yes? Do not err. This does not mean we almost were like Sedom. Rather, had Hashem not left us a remnant like a few, small ones, for we would have been like Sedom, wicked like Sedom, then we would have resembled Amorah, we would have received a punishment of Amorah. But did you notice the grammar? "Like Sedom (ke-Sedom) we would have been," "like Amorah (ke-Amorah) we would have resembled" is not written, but "to Amorah (le-Amorah) we would have resembled." Why? Why here at the beginning does he say "ke-Sedom we would have been" and after that say "le-Amorah we would have resembled"? So as you recall, the Malbim, every expression with him is precise and there is nothing written in vain. Says the Malbim, there is a difference between whether the kaf of comparison or the lamed of comparison is written. "Ke-Amorah" or "le-Amorah," "ke-Sedom" or "le-Sedom." Says the Malbim, what is the difference? When one says kaf, it is exactly the same thing. "Ke-Sedom we would have been" is truly like Sedom we would have been. "Le-Amorah we would have resembled," he says, this is already not entirely, but this is close. Like, for example, if we say "my Beloved resembles a deer (li-tzvi)." The Holy One blessed be He resembles a deer. The lamed of comparison, "li-tzvi." This means not truly like a deer, but the swiftness of Hashem the Blessed is, as it were, like a deer. But one does not say that Hashem the Blessed is like a deer. But on the other hand, "Hashem became like an enemy (ke-oyev)," this is truly like an enemy. The kaf of comparison is in fact a kaf that expresses a comparison far stronger than the lamed, where the lamed is only close. Says the Malbim, if so, there is here a great wonder in the verse. For the way of the verse always, the way of the poet, when he begins, he begins from the small and always goes and ascends. This is always the way, the way of writers. I will never say he owes a million dollars and also two shekels to the grocery store. I will say he owes two shekels to the grocery store, and a thousand shekels to that one, and two hundred thousand shekels to this one, and a million dollars to that one. Always going and adding. This is the way. So how here does he say "ke-Sedom we would have been"? "Ke-Sedom we would have been," what does the kaf say? Complete equivalence, correct? Truly resembling. After that he descends, "but we merely resembled Amorah," not truly like Amorah. The opposite, you should always come and say "we were like Sedom and more than this, truly like Amorah." Here he went and regressed. Says the Malbim, from this you will understand what compelled me to explain what I explained. That "ke-Sedom we would have been" refers back to our deeds, truly like Sedom. "Le-Amorah we would have resembled" is already the punishment. The punishment that comes to us is like that which came to Amorah. This is therefore here only a lamed, which is not truly an equal punishment. From this is my necessity to explain what I explained, says the Malbim.
"Hear the word of Hashem, O chieftains of Sedom; give ear to the Torah of our God, O people of Amorah." "Hear the word of Hashem, O chieftains of Sedom." "Chieftains" means the honored men, the heads of the camp, the officers. Chazal say, from here that a person should not open his mouth to the Satan. For you said "almost like Sedom we would have been." Like Sedom. The Holy One blessed be He comes and says, listen, O chieftains of Sedom. You opened your mouth to the Satan, you called yourself Sedom, so already from Heaven they relate to you as Sedom and call you Sedom. "Hear the word of Hashem, O chieftains of Sedom."
"Give ear to the Torah of our God, O people of Amorah." "Hear the word of Hashem," this is the word of prophecy, what Hashem now delivers as the prophecy through Yeshayahu. "Chieftains of Sedom," these are the officers, who resemble in their wickedness the officers of Sedom. For we indeed know that in Sedom the evil of the judges was harsher than in Amorah. All the laws and everything, the place where it was legislated, their assembly was in Sedom. The central place there, the high court, was in Sedom. Yes? And therefore, "hear the word of Hashem, O chieftains of Sedom," for the judges in Sedom were the great wicked ones. "Give ear to the Torah of our God," what is "the Torah of our God"? "And this is the Torah which Moshe set." The rebuke that he will shortly rebuke them about the matter of the abundance of sacrifices, which is written in the Torah, that in order to bring a sacrifice one needs repentance, and they shall confess their iniquity and the iniquity of their fathers, this is the essence of the sacrifice, which is the rebuke that he will shortly rebuke them with; about this he says "give ear to the Torah of our God, O people of Amorah." O people of Amorah, just as he compared them earlier to Sedom and Amorah, he compares them now too like Sedom and Amorah.
The Malbim dwells on the fact that it is written here "hear the word of Hashem, O chieftains of Sedom; give ear to the Torah of our God, O people of Amorah." What is the difference between "hear" (shim'u) and "give ear" (ha'azinu)? Says the Malbim, hearing indicates far more the understanding than giving ear does. I think this is the opposite of what we are accustomed to think. Usually we are accustomed to think that "I give ear to you" is with full attention. "I hear you" enters here and goes out there. The Malbim says the opposite. Hearing, and he brings, he has proofs from many sources, hearing indicates the precise hearing, the understanding of the matters, more than giving ear, where giving ear is a more superficial hearing. When they come together, says the Malbim, to the important matter will be attached the verb "hear," and to the less important matter will be attached the verb "give ear," because this is a lesser thing, less that requires contemplation, it is less important, giving ear suffices for it. And therefore he says, notice, to the chieftains, who are the important ones of the people, he says "hear." To the people, who are the less important, he says "give ear." Therefore giving ear suffices. But the chieftains who are more important, I want you to hear, meaning contemplate the matters.
Another matter, there is here "the word of Hashem" and there is here "the Torah of our God." "The word of Hashem," we said what is it? This is the prophecy. "The Torah of our God," this is what is written explicitly in the Torah. Says the Malbim, hearing and giving ear, for the more elevated matter to which one must incline the heart, he will write "hearing." Therefore "the word of Hashem," the prophecy, these are obscure and sealed matters, one must contemplate what was stated here in the prophecy. Therefore he says "hear the word of Hashem." With respect to prophecy you must hear, be precise in the matters, delve deep, try to understand what was stated here. And who can understand this? Only the chieftains. Therefore the chieftains, "hear the word of Hashem." In contrast, when he turns to the people, they can understand the simpler matters. And therefore to them he turns with the verb "give ear," which is simpler matters. And what? "The Torah of Hashem." For the plain meaning of the Torah of Hashem even a child can understand. With a Chumash and Rashi even a child can understand. And therefore here the verb "give ear" is more fitting.