Sefer Yeshayahu, chapter 53. "Who would believe our report, and to whom has the arm of Hashem been revealed." "Who would believe our report": here Rashi says that the nations of the world will declare this in astonishment when they see our condition. They will say: had we heard from others what we are now seeing, we would not have believed it. "Who would believe our report": what we are now seeing, had we merely heard of it, we would not have believed it. "And to whom has the arm of Hashem been revealed": to whom has the arm of Hashem been revealed with such glory and such a wondrous reality, that a people who, as we saw, was so lowly, becomes so exalted and lofty. Note that this pasuk is actually a direct continuation of the previous pasuk; the fact that there is a chapter break cutting through in the middle is not our division, it is a Christian division. Since that is so, we should not take it into account. It is really a direct continuation: that the nations will be so amazed, so astonished, how this lowly people, as great as their lowliness was, will suddenly be as great in their loftiness, and they say "Who would believe our report": had we heard it we would not have believed it. "And to whom has the arm of Hashem been revealed": where have we ever seen such a thing, that until today the arm of Hashem was revealed and so totally transformed the condition of any people.
"Who would believe." The Radak offers an additional explanation: "who would believe" is, as it were, in a manner of contempt. "Who would believe our report, to whom has it been revealed": upon this people? Whom, as it were, has Hashem come to redeem? Upon whom? As if to say, who are they at all? Upon this people, this is a manner of contempt: "to whom has it been revealed," upon this people, how is it possible that this people, who were so lowly, are suddenly the very ones in whom Hashem took interest.
The Malbim explains that this refers back to what we saw above. Now he explains why it was not told to them and why until today they had not even imagined such a possibility. For they said to themselves that such a thing could not be, for two reasons. One reason is the report itself: that Hashem would perform miracles and wonders of this kind is something not trivial, not commonplace, not something that happens continually. Therefore "who would believe our report," who would believe that Hashem would do such a thing, since Hashem does not perform miracles continually. The second thing: for whom, as we explained earlier, for the people of Israel? The people for whom the wonders were performed, the people upon whom "the arm of Hashem has been revealed," that Hashem would reveal Himself upon this lowly people? That is to say, if Hashem had revealed Himself upon America, upon Russia, upon superpowers, well, all right, I can hear that. But this lowly people sitting there in the Middle East, always subject to catapult stones and always subject to attacks, and most UN resolutions to this day have concerned Israel, have opposed Israel, this lowly people, suddenly the arm of Hashem is revealed upon them? So you understand why this was far from our thoughts: because it is not reasonable that Hashem would perform miracles, and if He would, then not for this people, not for this lowly people.
"For he grew up before Him like a sapling, and like a root out of dry ground; he had no form nor beauty; we saw him but he had no appearance, that we should desire him." This people, who was very lowly, grew up of itself like a young shoot from the trees, meaning like a plant that grows and develops and rises and climbs. "And like a root out of dry ground": "dry ground" expresses a parched place, a desert, and suddenly this root within the dry ground sprouted and rose up. "He had no form" from the outset "nor beauty": as we said, Israel was disfigured from a man's form, so he had no form nor beauty. "We saw him but he had no appearance": when we first saw him, we saw that he had no shape at all. "That we should desire him"? Would it ever enter one's mind that we, as it were, would desire him, that this is a people we would envy, a people we would be impressed by? After all, "he had no form nor beauty"; anyone who saw him, no one, as they say, he was not an object of envy. No one envied them at all.
The Malbim says that here he describes the lowliness of the nation through a parable of a tree. Sometimes the tree is strong in itself, if for example it is a tree that has been there for many years, that already has a trunk and possesses tremendous strength, that has already developed over a long time. And sometimes, says the Malbim, even the sapling, the young shoot, will be strong. A young sapling is naturally tender; now that it has been planted it is beginning its growth, but sometimes it too will be strong. How? By our having rooted it in a place of water, by our having rooted it in rich soil, and then, although it is now only at the start of its growth, it will nonetheless be strong because its environmental conditions are very good. But he says: look at this root that we are speaking about, at this sapling; it has neither this nor that. It is not strong in itself, "he grew up before Him like a sapling," a sapling meaning, as I said, the beginning of a planting, tender and weak. And this also expresses smallness, like something little; he is only a young shoot, an infant, only a sapling, still just beginning. What will you say, no, but perhaps they rooted it in a good place, so you might know what strength it has. He says: no, "it grew up like a root out of dry ground." They sowed it in a parched place, they sowed it in a place with no fertilizer, no place suitable for its growth, so consequently it has no advantage that you could point to and say: here is why it is strong. It has nothing, neither from itself nor from the place where it was planted.
Well, as he said, this is a parable. What is its lesson? Says the Malbim: a nation can be mighty in itself, if for example we are a vast people, a great and numerous people. Or from its roots, if we have long been rooted, ruling for many long years, so that even if we are weak now, we still hold much dominion from earlier periods when we were stronger. Of Israel, he says, come and see: they do not have the advantage of being strong in themselves, for they are few. What will you say, from their roots, that perhaps in our origins we were some empire, ruling over many peoples? He says, in history too it was not so. For we know what our origin is: a small, weak people, six hundred thousand who came out of Egypt. So where are we rooted? "And like a root out of dry ground." We are rooted in dry ground, in the desert, and already from that time onward, says the Malbim, "a star did not go forth from Yaakov." We did not see Israel in any tremendous greatness. True, there was a brief period in the time of Shlomo, but that was really a short period, not something that could change the entire essential root of Israel. So in simple terms, Israel has no strength in itself as a numerous people, and no strength from its roots, from having perhaps begun with some root that ruled over many peoples; no, everything with us is, as they say, weak and small.
"He had no form nor beauty." Sometimes at least the tender shoot, this plant, is valued for its beauty, its shape; its beauty is lovely, and as we explained, the matter of "form" describes its external part, its outer outline that is beautiful and pleasant. And through having form, it has importance. It is straight, its branches are spread out in an orderly fashion; that is called having form. It is lovely in its form. You can photograph a tree even in gray without any color at all, just draw it with a single line on the outside, and you can see a beautiful tree, a lovely tree; it has form. On the other hand, you can draw a tree with broken branches, some drooping, the tree leaning, so that even in outline it has no form. Israel, he says, at its source has no form, so even outward form this tree, this sapling, does not have. And sometimes it has beauty, it has an appearance, it has a color that carries charm, so that even if you say, listen, its outer shape, the way it grew, is not really pleasing, but at least its color is something very charming. This is like fruits that are very beautiful in color, or very beautiful in their outer shape, but when you taste it, it has no taste. Take a carambola; they cut it for you and it is like a star, they cut it very nicely, those little stars people put out as decoration, very nice, but it has no taste, it is sour. On the other hand, there are other fruits that are really not beautiful, really not appealing, and when you taste them they are delicious, good and sweet. So he says: perhaps this tree has beauty? He says no, know that this sapling has no beauty either. Look, it also has no lovely color, nothing to draw the eye.
What does he mean, where is the lesson? Sometimes it may be that a certain nation, even though small, has ability, will succeed to sovereignty, says the Malbim, because among them are wise-hearted people, among them are wealthy merchants. But that too was not the case. "No form nor beauty." That is to say, we already spoke earlier about might that we do not have. We already spoke earlier about beginning from a small root in a desert land and not beginning with great strength. But perhaps, all right, we are small but concentrated. Yes, there is some concentration of special sages, craftsmen, merchants, wealthy people. But that too is not so. And not only that, "we saw him but he had no appearance": we could not attribute any appearance to him, and as we said he is the most disfigured of all, the most despised people of all. So "that we should desire him"? How could we desire him in order to recognize his dominion, in order to see his beauty, in order to esteem him? This magnifies the wonder: how could this people, who had all these minuses, "for he grew up before Him like a sapling and like a root out of dry ground, he had no form nor beauty, we saw him but he had no appearance," how is it possible "that we should desire him," how could it be that we would desire such a thing.
"Indeed he bore our illnesses and carried our pains, yet we regarded him as stricken, smitten by God and afflicted." "Indeed he bore our illnesses and carried our pains." "Indeed," that is, now we see that all the suffering he endured was not because of his lowliness, was not because of the low status he had on account of his sins, but rather his suffering was "he bore our illnesses." That is, what we should have received, he received. The suffering that we should have borne, he bore. "Yet we regarded him as stricken, smitten by God and afflicted." We thought that all his afflictions were because he was hated by the Omnipresent. But it was not so; rather "he was wounded for our transgressions," as we will see in the next pasuk, "and crushed for our iniquities." The meaning: "wounded," from the word for illness, was because of our transgressions, the nations will say. And the suffering because of our iniquities; because of that Israel suffers. As is well known, the Christians harped heavily on this matter, that the exile and suffering of the Jewish people are a sign and proof that Hashem rejected them. And since that is so, He cast them out and made them prey and plunder, and the more they were trampled and plundered, the more they were fulfilling the will of God to prove that this people is despised and rejected by Hashem. That is to say, our punishment for having rebelled against Hashem is that we suffer, and that Hashem replaced us with another nation, with Christianity. This is their distorted conception. So accordingly we will also see later how they come to a sobering realization about this whole matter, and they reach the conclusion that what we suffered was because of their own iniquities.
The Radak, and also the Malbim, find it very difficult to accept this interpretation. The Radak asks: after all, the prophet Yechezkel wrote that a son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, nor a father the iniquity of the son. All the more so one person for another, and all the more so one nation for another. So where have we heard such a thing, that they would sin and "he bore our illnesses"? Does Israel suffer for the sins of the gentiles? Did he carry "our pains," the pains of the gentiles? Where have we heard that even a father for a son and a son for a father do not bear one another's iniquity? If so, what is "he bore our illnesses, wounded for our transgressions, and by his wound we are healed"? What will you say: there is an explicit pasuk in Yirmiyahu, our fathers, in Eichah, "our fathers sinned and are no more, and we have borne their iniquities." Here you see explicitly that it is possible for one to bear the sin of another. It is not comparable, asks the Radak, for there it speaks of "visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children" when they cling to their fathers' deeds in their hands. So when you hold onto your father's deeds, then the whole account is charged, even for three generations, as the holy Arizal says; this is understood much more clearly there, for it is really a reincarnation of the soul of the sinning grandfather. But here it is not so; this is a nation bearing the iniquity of another nation, how could that enter one's mind? So the Radak takes one approach. He says: in truth the nations spoke nonsense, but what can you do, when a person speaks out of grief and weeping he also speaks nonsense. And what they said here he says according to the manner of those who lament out of their grief; their words are not measured or weighed. When a person speaks out of his grief, out of his weeping, do not expect logic from him, do not expect him to speak with any sense. And this is what he says: the nations will say "he bore our illnesses." Now it will become clear to us that all that they suffered was because of our iniquities. They will think so, and they will say it according to their reasoning. Why does Israel suffer? It is not for their sins, for we see that Israel remained clinging to faith in Hashem, Israel still believes in Hashem. And if so, how can it be that they, the believers in Hashem, suffer, while we, the gentiles who deny Hashem, are at ease? How can it be? The conclusion the gentiles reached then: necessarily, if the believer suffers and the denier is at ease, necessarily the believer bears the sufferings of the denier. What the denier should have received, the believer received. But this is a very superficial interpretation of reality, and it is an interpretation which, as we explained, is peculiar to the nations; they see things this way, but according to the Radak there is really no substance to it.
The Malbim too struggles with the same difficulty as the Radak, but his explanation is a different one. Says the Malbim: the nations attributed two illnesses to Israel. As is well known, Israel was always emaciated and rejected among the nations, treated like dung upon the face of the earth; all illnesses, all harms, all diseases, everything possible, they would pin on the Jews, they would pin on Israel. They attributed to them, first, an inner illness. Inner illness meaning of the soul, spiritual. Says the Malbim, as if their soul were sick and unfit to receive any good trait or any perfection, no human virtues, no study of the sciences and no moral qualities. In simple terms, spiritually a most inferior people. And we must know that in certain periods the state of Israel really was, spiritually, most inferior. And this was a result of everything the gentiles did to Israel, for they prevented Israel from studying, prevented Israel from many things that caused the spiritual state of Israel to be most inferior. Therefore too they gave Israel no authority, no position, no appointment of any standing, for they would say this people has a sick soul, cannot learn any upright trait, any good quality, any enlightened and deep study. But now, following the redemption, what will they see? That this illness is not an illness that is part of us, but rather what caused it? The poverty, the lowliness, the persecution of the nations against us, the siege that the gentiles imposed on us. As we say, "and the Egyptians did evil to us and afflicted us." They say "the Egyptians did evil to us," they made us evil. That is, if we reached a very inferior state, it was because the Egyptians made us evil, they brought us to such a lowly and base condition. And then it comes out, if so, that if you really see Israel in such a state, in an inferior state in terms of illness, as we explained the inner illness, meaning spiritually, this is through our transgressions, through what we transgressed against him. And if we see that he is crushed with suffering and outward pains, afflicted, this is through our iniquities.
What is the difference between "our transgressions" and "our iniquities"? The Malbim has an approach that he applies throughout Tanach: that the difference is that iniquity (avon) is always a distortion of the intellect. Avon is a term of distortion, from "awa," to twist, as in "awa awa awa asimenu." Avon is a term of distortion. Iniquity is always distortion of the intellect. By contrast, transgression (pesha) is when a person rises up to rebel. No, we will not now go into sin versus iniquity as inadvertent versus deliberate; no, that is not the direction. Rather, pesha is one who wishes to rebel against the Master of the Universe, transgressing against Him. Even knowing that Hashem is true, he rises up to rebel against Him; he is called a transgressor. By contrast, one who commits an iniquity means that intellectually his mind is distorted and he thinks there is no truth in the holy Torah and that the truth lies elsewhere. When Israel was oppressed, the reality that the gentiles afflicted them, tormented them with pains, inquisitions, persecutions, crucifixions, all of that was through the iniquity of the gentiles. This means: the gentile, when he tormented the Jews, was certain that he was doing the right thing. There was here a distortion of the intellect. After all, all those priests of Isabella and Ferdinand and all those others who always encouraged them to torment and afflict the Jews, their conception was that the Jews do not accept upon themselves the true religion and therefore they are where they are and therefore they suffer as they suffer; so on the contrary, one must help them and turn them too into good Christians. That is, this conception is a conception of distortion of the intellect, for he thinks the truth is with him, and since that is so he needs to convert us too, he needs us also to be believers in his religion. And this is not specific; I am only taking as an example the harsh period of the Spanish expulsion, a harsh period for Israel, but truly whoever looks even generations earlier, Nevuchadnetzar. Whoever does not bow to the image when that symphony is heard, his sentence is to be put to death. The same idea, that they believed, out of distortion of the intellect, that since this is the true god to whom one must cling, whoever does not do so shall be killed, whoever does not do so does not cling to the truth. And him they would have to kill. And so you see that they had here an intellectual distortion, to think that they were doing good for us. For after all you see that you, as a Jew, suffer; why do you suffer? Because you are not in the correct religion. Come to the correct religion, see how happy we are, how good we have it. So this is a distortion of the intellect. But when Israel was sick with the inner illness, all of that is the outer illness, and therefore they afflicted, struck, massacred, slaughtered, this is the outer illness. But regarding Israel, when Israel was wounded with the inner illness, sick with the inner illness, then it was not a case where the gentiles supposedly wished to strike us and fight against us outwardly; rather, that they did not do out of any faith at all, but out of the wickedness of their soul. That is what is called transgression and rebellion. Therefore "he was wounded for our transgressions": the inner illness, meaning what they used to debase Israel throughout the generations, was not in order to do good for us, it was out of the evil of their hearts, in transgression and rebellion. So "he was wounded for our transgressions," the nations say. "And he was crushed": but what they truly did in persecuting and striking and massacring and murdering us throughout the generations, that really was, supposedly, with good intention, so that we would become Christians or become gentiles like them; therefore "he was crushed for our iniquities," here already there was a distortion of the intellect, to think that their way is the truth and that they must draw us in to be like them.
"The chastisement of our peace was upon him." What does this mean? When the gentiles had peace, they would afflict us. Why? Because they were certain that through our being afflicted, their peace and tranquility would continue. When the attribute of judgment struck them, when the gentiles underwent sufferings, they were certain, ah, we have apparently grown lax in afflicting Israel. Do you understand what their conception was? We have not afflicted Israel enough, apparently that is why we are now suffering, that we have decrees against us. That is to say, the gentiles saw in this yet another mitzvah, and they further understood that "the chastisement of our peace was upon him": the more we afflict him, the more our peace will grow, for we are carrying out the divine will, and the divine will, after all, is to torment and afflict Israel for having abandoned Hashem, for having despised the Temple, for having worshiped idolatry. On the contrary, they even think that "by his wound we are healed." "By his wound," what is "his wound"? We will inflict upon them a wound and a bruise, and we will be healed. Strike the Jew and save Europe. Strike the chareidi and save the State of Israel. Yes, only the expressions have changed a bit, but it is really the same thing. All the troubles are because of the Jew; the Jew is the source of all diseases, the source of all troubles, the source of all disasters. If only there were equality of the burden and they would enlist, you would see the Switzerland of the Middle East. Everything will change. Strike the Jew. So they said, do you know why we now have problems? "By his wound we are healed." Let us add a few more blows to the Jew, and then we will be healed. And then we will have no sufferings, so thinks the gentile, who is certain that he is performing a mitzvah in afflicting Israel, and further certain that for this he will even receive reward.