Yeshayahu chapter 10. Our chapter, according to the Malbim, up to verse 4 continues the description of rebuke, or the evil things that are happening among the Ten Tribes and the rebuke directed at them. From verse 5 he already moves on to describe what will happen with Ashur. The Malbim writes that the prophet, since we saw that he rebuked them in the earlier chapters, that your officers are rebellious and companions of thieves, everyone loves a bribe and pursues rewards, they do not judge the orphan, and the widow's plea does not reach them, now comes and rebukes the ruling officers, the legislators, who went and legislated laws against orphans and against widows. Their laws were designed to pervert the judgment of the poor and to pervert the judgment of widows and orphans. And this is also the continuation of the previous chapter, says the Malbim, what we saw: 'Therefore Hashem will not rejoice over his young men, and He will not have mercy on his orphans and widows.' Why? Because this is what they themselves were doing, they were robbing the widows and the orphans.
הוי החוקקים חקקי און ומכתבים עמל כיתבו - Woe to those who legislate laws of iniquity, and to the writers who write out oppression. 'Hoy' is always a cry, he says 'hoy,' woe to those who act this way, woe to the legislators. It is not the 'hoy' of grief, but rather, as we discussed in the past, whoever is familiar with the form of Arabic rhetoric, it is a form of rhetoric that is always in pathos. They always love to speak with pathos, woe to those who rise up against the Arab nation, may God strike them, it is always a form of speaking with pathos. Speaking with pathos was an accepted way of speaking. Whoever remembers, in his day, of blessed memory, Menachem Begin, he too loved to speak with pathos, he would deliver square-filling speeches, he would speak with pathos, it is a form of speech. So the prophet too, with all the infinite distinctions between them, the prophet's way was many times, when he came to rebuke, to speak with pathos. 'Woe to the legislators,' an expression of crying out, woe to those who legislate laws of iniquity and the writers who write out oppression.
The 'chokekim,' the legislators, are the judges. The 'chokekim' is like today when we say the legislature. The legislators are those who lay down the laws, those who establish the laws. They made 'chikkei aven,' laws of iniquity. Laws of iniquity means laws of wickedness. 'And the writers who write out oppression.' 'Umchatvim amal kitevu' means they write documents of oppression. The Malbim says that 'mchatvim' means to write forged contracts. This is the meaning of 'mchatvim amal.' 'Amal' comes to symbolize falsehood. Forged contracts, contracts of falsehood, through which you extract money from a person who did not write the contract or did not sign the contract. This is called 'mchatvim amal kitevu.' Why is it called 'mchatvim'? Why does he not say 'kotvim,' writers? Because in truth not everyone knows how to write and forge a contract. You need experts to forge a contract, to know how to imitate the signature, how to imitate the handwriting. So therefore he said 'mchatvim.' 'Mchatvim' means a verb that acts through another. I do it through someone else. I do not write it myself, I have it written, meaning I bring someone else to write and forge the contract so that I can collect from someone who does not actually owe this money, and only by way of deceit do I extract it from him.
The Malbim says that 'aven' generally indicates a person who acts not according to justice, by way of force. He extracts something from someone by force, not according to justice. And by the way, that is why they are also the same letters: 'aven' and 'on' are the same letters. What does 'on' express? Strength, power, right? 'My strength and the beginning of my might.' 'On' expresses strength. And 'aven' comes to say one who extracts something from someone by force, not according to justice. In contrast, 'amal' expresses someone who extracts from another not according to justice, but something that does not require force and power, but rather requires a scheme of falsehood. And this is precisely forgery of contracts. In forging contracts I do not come with force, rather through a scheme of falsehood I forge that you owe me such and such, and through this I extract money from you unlawfully. Therefore he says, to pervert the judgment of the poor, this he calls by the name 'aven.' This requires strength, 'to those without might He gives abundant strength.' In contrast, to forge contracts, as we said, he calls by the name 'amal.'
להטות מדין דלים ולגזול משפט עניי עמי, להיות אלמנות שללם ואת יתומים יבוזו - To turn aside the poor from judgment and to rob the judgment of the poor of My people, so that widows may be their spoil and they may plunder the orphans. The phrases here, the statements here, are parallel. 'Those who legislate laws of iniquity' corresponds to 'to turn aside the poor from judgment.' And not only that, but 'they write documents of oppression and the writers write out oppression' corresponds to 'so that widows may be their spoil.' That is, what we explained, that they legislate laws of iniquity, of falsehood, why? So that through this they can turn aside the poor from their judgment. They establish all sorts of laws so that in the end the poor person will not receive what is his. For example, they establish that you get tax breaks, but only on condition that your income ceiling is 15,000 shekels and above. From here you receive tax breaks. Sir, this is the law, what do you want? This is the law. What did they actually do? They robbed the poor, but it all comes from the force of the law. Or they make all sorts of laws and all sorts of conditions for acceptance, for example, for acceptance to a workplace, or acceptance to tenders. You want to submit a tender and so forth. The threshold conditions are such that if you are, for example, chareidi, you cannot pass the threshold conditions. Sir, this is the law, these are the requirements of the law, the law requires such and such. What can I do that you do not meet the criteria? Sir, this is the law. The law does not recognize yeshiva studies, it does not recognize this as higher education. Why are yeshiva studies less higher education than someone who studied ancient Chinese? Why is that higher education, and the one who studied dance, that is also considered education? And in contrast, the one who studied in the faculty of sports, that too is education, but the one who studied Torah, that is not considered education. Sir, this is the law. This is what he comes to say, the legislators who legislate laws of iniquity to turn aside the poor from judgment. He makes a law like this so that you will not be in the criteria, you will not meet the threshold conditions. They legislate laws of iniquity so that through this they turn aside the poor from judgment. 'And to rob the judgment of the poor of My people,' through this they rob what the poor of My people are entitled to in judgment.
The Malbim says, what is the difference between 'din' and 'mishpat'? Generally 'din' expresses the claims. There are litigants, each one argues his claims. 'Mishpat' is what the judge determines regarding what they claimed. What they say and the arguments between them is called 'din.' 'To turn aside the poor from judgment,' and besides that also, in the end, 'to rob the judgment of the poor of My people.' So when the judgment and the ruling arrives, that is the decision, that is the 'mishpat,' he robs the poor of My people. As Justice Cheshin said in his day, may his merit protect him and his orphans, he said in his day that those who sent their children to Talmud Torah schools, they knowingly gave up on what the state established, that whoever studies until three or four o'clock, that is, has a long study day, will merit a hot meal. So they said, since the parents decided to send themselves to recognized non-official education, they on their own initiative established and decided that they do not want and are not entitled to be part of the state's benefit, because the state's benefit was designed solely for those who are in the general education system. Thus he said without embarrassment, without feeling that perhaps there is a double standard here, because what can you do, it is about chareidim, not about Arabs. If it were Arabs, then surely for their sake and their honor the state would have legislated the law. And he further added in his picturesque language that the chareidi cord did not go astray for nothing, and all sorts of other learned legal arguments. And the main thing, to rob the judgment of the poor of My people. What can we do, sir? The criteria, the criteria, sir, the legal advisor does not approve, the legal advisor... A state of law, what do you think of yourself? You cannot do whatever you want.
The goal, 'so that widows may be their spoil and they may plunder the orphans.' This they did in order that widows may be their spoil. They would go and forge contracts so that widows would be their spoil. That is, when a woman's husband passes away, suddenly a person comes and says to her, madam, perhaps your husband did not reveal all his business to you, but you see, he owes me 50,000 dollars. Please, the apartment. Here, you see, it is written here. Now does she know what her husband owed? Does she have any idea? She has no idea, she does not know anything. They would forge, and through this widows would be their spoil. And through this, 'and they may plunder the orphans.' And through this they would plunder the orphans, to take them as slaves. Note that 'spoil' (shalal) and 'plunder' (bizzah) are two different things. This we already learned in the past, and I will go back and explain. We saw in chapter 8 that 'shalal' expresses war, everything that remains, the enemy fled, what remains is called 'shalal.' From the moment we begin to pursue and each one puts into his pocket, that is already called 'bizzah,' plunder. What each one takes for himself is called 'bizzah.' What remains on its own when the enemy flees is called 'shalal.' And this is what appears several times in Megillat Esther, 'and their spoil,' what they fled and left behind, 'for plunder.' This each one went and plundered, each for himself. So the widows are their 'shalal,' since I produce a contract, the contract says your husband owes me such and such, consequently everything that falls, everything that remains falls to me as spoil, like ripe fruit into my hand. Afterwards I go and take action and plunder the child of the widow, taking him for myself as a slave. And the creditor comes to take my children for himself as slaves. Why? The father remained in debt. This is already called 'bizzah,' plunder, each one comes and plunders for himself. 'And they may plunder the orphans.'
ומה תעשו ליום פקודה ולשואה ממרחק תבוא? על מי תנוסו לעזרה ואנה תעזבו כבודכם? - And what will you do on the day of reckoning, and for the ruin that will come from afar? To whom will you flee for help, and where will you leave your honor? You who do such terrible acts of wickedness, what will you do on the day of reckoning? The day on which the Holy One, Blessed be He, will reckon your sins. And not only that, but 'and for the ruin that will come from afar.' On that day there will be two terrible things. First, there will be a 'sho'ah,' ruin. 'Sho'ah' is a sudden calamity. When there is a calamity that I prepare for, then somehow I can get through it. But if it is a calamity that comes in an instant, a calamity that comes in one moment, like for example the fire in the Carmel forests. If there had been all sorts of small fires, here a person died, here God forbid another person died, they would have prepared, the firefighting array would have been better. But thank God, for 50 years we did not have such things, for 60 years we did not have such things. Suddenly in one day 40 people are killed, this is called a 'sho'ah' that comes all at once, a sudden calamity. So they did not prepare in order to seek deliverance from it, we were not properly ready to know how to cope the moment there is such a calamity. Another matter, when there is a 'sho'ah' that comes from a faraway place, we do not know its nature, we do not know where to flee. When the 'sho'ah' comes from a nearby place, then I am aware of what it is about. Let me give you an example. In his day when suddenly we had a problem with Saddam Hussein, so what did people do? They took and put masking tape on the windows, they took masks, they took Nitropin, I don't know... and it was all completely unnecessary. Why? Because it is 'ruin that will come from afar.' If they had told us we have a nearby ruin here, then whatever Egypt has we know, whatever Hamas and Hezbollah have we know. But when it comes from afar I do not know what he is preparing for me, I do not know what surprises he has. I do not know what he is preparing for me. When it comes from afar, then besides the problem that it is surprising, I have an additional problem, that I do not know what this surprise includes. Some thing that I did not prepare for, perhaps suddenly it will be something phosphoric, perhaps suddenly it will be something poisonous, gas, we do not know. And this is what he says, to whom will you flee for help, what will you do on the day of reckoning and for the ruin, first it will be ruin, second it will come from afar. You do not know where to flee, to whom will you flee for help and where will you leave your honor?
בלתי כרע תחת אסיר ותחת הרוגים יפולו. בכל זאת לא שב אפו ועוד ידו נטויה - Without crouching under the captives, and under the slain they will fall. For all this His anger has not turned away, and His hand is still outstretched. This is the continuation of what he said in the previous verse. To whom will you flee for help? Only to crouch under the captives. Where will you leave your honor? Only to crouch and fall under the slain. And the Malbim explains and says, look, there is a situation of catastrophe, of the killing of many people, and a person searches for a way how to escape this reality. There are two ways. One way is a person who seeks to save his life, he is willing to surrender himself to the enemy, he is willing to raise a white flag, he is willing to raise his hands, the main thing is to stay alive. And there is a person who says no, more important to me than saving my life is saving my honor. I do not want to fall like sheep to slaughter, but rather it is more important to me to be engraved in the pages of history as a hero, and I choose honor and choose death over life. So likewise he says to them, if you seek help, if you seek help to save your life, to whom will you flee for help? To whom will you flee so that he will help you to save your life? You have no help and salvation except to crouch, only to crouch under the captives. What is your only help and salvation? It is to bow the knee before the enemy who will take you as a captive. Your life indeed will be saved, but you will fall into the hand of the enemy. And if you want to seek, as he said at the end of the previous verse, and where will you leave your honor? If you want to preserve your honor, you have no choice but to crouch and fall under the slain. Rather, to crouch and fall under the slain, and then through this your honor will be preserved. But what happened? You have no life, the person is killed. His honor is preserved, but where is his honor? Where is the person? The person is dead. That is to say, whatever you choose, the choice is bad. Your situation is so terrible on that day, that whatever you choose, you are still in the most difficult situation. Either your honor remains but you are dead, or you remain alive but degraded, you crouch as captives taken into captivity by the hand of the enemy.
From verse 5 he now moves on to speak about Ashur. Ashur is an empire that we will see further on, one that the kingdom of Israel wanted to form a connection with. When they saw that Aram fell, that Pekach ben Remalyahu fell, then the people of Israel said, do not worry. For if you remember, they said, the bricks fell but us, what? We will build ourselves with hewn stones, we will have a better house. They cut down the sycamores, but now we will plant cedars, which are much stronger. Aram fell, no matter, Ashur will come. But he says, Ashur, they do not know that this Ashur, this Ashur is the instrument in My hand to exact punishment from them. They thought to bring them so that through them they would have a partnership to fight against Yehudah, and Israel themselves will be exiled through Ashur.
הוי אשור שבט אפי ומטה הוא בידם זעמי - Woe, Ashur, the rod of My anger, and the staff in their hand is My fury. Woe, Ashur, 'hoy' as we said is an expression of crying out, I call to Ashur. Ashur is only the rod of My anger. Ashur thinks it has a kingdom of its own, that it has power of its own. It does not know that it is only the rod, the stick of My anger, of My wrath, of My fury. My anger burned against the nations and I wanted to strike them. Who is the stick with which I strike? It is Ashur. Ashur is the rod of My burning anger and My wrath. And he adds and says, 'and the staff in their hand is My fury.' He comes and says, even his rod and his rule are not unlimited, but rather the staff that is in his hand is My fury. He can strike with this stick only in the place where I am furious. He can strike with this staff only in the place upon which, upon whom I am angry or whom I curse. The Malbim says that it is written 'anger' (af) and it is written 'fury' (za'am). So 'af' is connected to wrath. Burning anger is connected to wrath. And we said there is a difference, there is an internal one, there is an external one. In contrast, 'za'am' comes to express a curse. 'How shall I curse whom God has not cursed, and how shall I rage against whom Hashem has not raged.' 'The one whom Hashem rages against shall fall there.' 'Za'am' expresses a curse, that is, out of anger one curses that thing. 'Shevet' is a stick and 'matteh' is also a stick. The only difference is that when one strikes with a 'matteh' it is more painful than striking with a 'shevet.' Therefore he says Ashur is the rod of My anger, but the staff in their hand is My fury. The meaning is when I am furious and I want to curse, then he becomes also in the category of a 'matteh,' for a 'matteh' strikes harder than the 'shevet.' And likewise the Malbim says, note that the 'shevet' and the 'matteh' come to express rule as well. When they want to say a person rules, they say the scepter of rulers is in his hand, the scepter of rulers. This comes to express rule. And in contrast there is also the 'matteh' of rulers, 'a staff of strength, a scepter to rule.' What is the difference? When they say 'shevet,' they are speaking about the king. He is the scepter of rulers. The staff of strength in his hand, those are the officers, who are the ones who administer the blows. Again you see, the 'matteh' is the greater blow than the 'shevet' which expresses the weaker blow. So Ashur is the rod of My anger, and the staff, when the staff in their hand is My fury, when there is a fury of a desire to curse, then all he can do is act only according to My fury. And by My fury he cannot act according to his own fury or according to whom he thinks or whom he sees fit to be angry at.
בגוי חנף אשלחנו ועל עם עברתי אצונו לשלול שלל ולבוז בז ולשומו מרמס כחומר חוצות - Against a hypocritical nation I will send him, and against the people of My wrath I will command him, to spoil spoil and to plunder plunder, and to make it a trampling like the mire of the streets. 'Against a hypocritical nation I will send him,' the fact that I gave him a scepter of rulers is so that I can send him against a hypocritical nation. A hypocritical nation means Israel, the Ten Tribes. Against that hypocritical nation I send Ashur. The Malbim says, 'chanef,' hypocrite, is a person whose inside is not like his outside. But he does not do evil openly. Like the flatterer. When I flatter you, what am I actually doing? I smile at you, hello, how are you? While in my heart I am saying may he die. This is called 'chanef.' 'Chanef' is very bad, since he actually behaves with hypocrisy, but he does not do evil openly. So 'against a hypocritical nation I will send him, and against the people of My wrath I will command him.' Corresponding to what he said, that 'the staff in their hand is My fury,' he says 'against the people of My wrath I will command him.' He does not have rule to strike everyone, but only against whom I have wrath. Against whom do I command him? Against whom do I order him to strike? Against those against whom I have wrath. 'Evrah,' wrath, as we explained, means anger. It is the tribe that I cursed and raged against, it is the tribe of Efrayim, and not the tribe of Yehudah who were righteous. So all of Ashur's power is only against Efrayim, those against whom I had fury, not against the tribe of Yehudah, for the tribe of Yehudah were righteous. As is remembered, for Ashur came against Yehudah and in one night 185,000 army commanders fell. So against whom was the Holy One, Blessed be He, angry? Only against Israel. He cannot strike whomever he wants.
And even against those with whom Hashem was angry, Hashem says he has no permission to destroy them, but only 'I will command him to spoil spoil and to plunder plunder.' You have no power to kill them, this I did not command, but rather what? To take their spoil and to plunder them. 'And to make it a trampling like the mire of the streets.' I did not give him permission to harm their bodies, but only to make it a trampling like the mire (chomer) of the streets. That he should trample it like clay that is fit for building. When they wanted to build, they would build with 'chomer,' what today we would call clay. The Malbim says, there is a difference between 'tit' and 'chomer.' What is the difference? The 'tit,' says the Malbim, is what is found at the edge of the seas, the streams, in pits, there mud gathers. The 'tit,' says the Malbim, is not fit for anything. In contrast, the 'chomer' is the earth that softens in water and afterwards, when it is put into the furnace, it becomes molded and solidified. From this they make jugs, what today we call clay. The Malbim says, the Holy One, Blessed be He, as it were, said regarding Ashur, I did not give him permission to destroy them, but only to make it a trampling like the mire of the streets. He should trample it like clay that is fit for building, that there is still a possibility to raise it up from its ruins. Because it is the clay of the streets, from the clay one can rebuild jugs anew. But I did not tell him that he should trample them to make them a trampling like the mud of the streets, this I did not give him permission for. To nullify them entirely so that they will not be fit for anything, no. For after all, the whole purpose that the Holy One, Blessed be He, chastises is to bring them to repentance. So I brought them upon the Ten Tribes, perhaps they will not need to be exiled, perhaps they will repent, perhaps through his trampling them like clay, from this clay it will be possible to create anew jugs, new earthenware vessels. But not in order to destroy them and lose them.
And he, in contrast, what did Ashur do? 'But he does not intend so, and his heart does not think so, for it is in his heart to destroy and to cut off nations, not a few.' And he, Ashur, does not intend so. He did not imagine to himself that he is only the rod of My anger. These statements here too, the Malbim says, are parallel. Corresponding to what we said, 'Ashur, the rod of My anger,' and 'against a hypocritical nation I will send him,' he says 'but he does not intend so.' He does not feel, he does not sense that he is only the stick in My hand, the stick of My anger. He does not feel that his power stems from Me, he feels that he has independent power. And corresponding to what he said, 'and the staff in their hand is My fury, against the people of My wrath I will command him to spoil spoil,' he is only the staff of My anger and only against whom I will be angry can you harm, he says 'and his heart does not think so.' He thinks that the purpose in his going is not to bring them to repentance, but rather in his opinion the purpose of his going is to eradicate, to eliminate, to destroy. For 'it is in his heart to destroy.' The Malbim says, corresponding to what Hashem limited in his mission with three conditions, and told him, first, not to go to destroy but only, as we said, in order to repair, to bring them to repentance, that they should be like the clay of the streets, not like the mud of the streets. The second thing, to rule over their money, He told him to spoil spoil, not to rule over their lives. The third thing, not to harm the righteous but only to harm the sinners, 'against the people of My wrath I will command him,' those against whom I have wrath. But 'he does not think so,' rather what does he think? 'For it is in his heart to destroy.' First, he does not come to bring them to repentance, he comes to destroy them. To destroy them means, the Malbim explains, to destroy them from their religion and their God, to nullify them from their religion. The second thing, 'to cut off nations.' Not only to take money, but also to kill them, to cut off the nations themselves. The third thing, 'to cut off nations, not a few.' I sent him to cut off only a portion, the wicked, but where does he go? On everything, on the whole pot. He goes for not a few, he wants to cut off everyone. Everyone is equal in his eyes, righteous and wicked alike.
The Malbim says, what is the difference between 'yachshov,' will think, and 'yidmeh,' will imagine? 'But he does not intend so, and his heart does not think so.' What is the difference between a person thinking and a person imagining? The Malbim says, there is a difference between the power of imagination and the power of thought. The imagination takes its images from the senses. That is the imagination. Its meaning is, when I feel something, I do not know what it is, I say it is soft like rubber, for example. So now I begin to imagine, what does the rubber remind me of? And I begin to think about what it could be, what is it? Is it boots, is it a tire, what is it? This is called the power of imagination. From the senses I take and begin to imagine. Now it may very well be that I will err, and therefore the imagination many times misleads a person, since it may be that I imagined it to be one thing, while at the same time it resembles another thing. In contrast, the power of thought does not take its foundations and premises from the senses, but rather takes them from the intellect. That is to say, I analyze something with the power of thought according to the premises that I have, from the prior knowledge, not according to the senses, but according to the prior intellectual knowledge that I have. Let me give an example. Of the power of imagination it is written, 'Do not imagine in your soul to escape in the king's house.' Do not think, what you see according to the senses, here, I have a royal palace here, I will be saved here. But this is a false imagination. As we said, the imagination many times expresses falsehood, error. You only imagine it in your soul. And so, 'you imagined that I would surely be like you.' Here too you thought that I would surely be like you, here too a false imagination, a misleading imagination. From this verb, says the Malbim, comes also the expression 'damah,' resembled. 'Man resembles a breath.' Yes? 'They thought (dimu) to kill me.' Here too, 'they thought to kill me.' Whoever remembers where this was? The concubine at Giv'ah. 'They thought to kill me' and in the end they killed my concubine, right? 'They thought to kill me.' He says, they did not really, they did not want to kill him, but it only seemed so. It only seemed so. 'Nidmeh' means it is not really so, it only seemed so. In contrast, something that is real is the thought. Because the thought, as we said, its premises are from the intellect. I analyze something and according to it I arrived at the thought. And then usually it is close to the truth. The thought is closer to the truth than the imagination. Therefore it is written regarding Esther, 'who thought about the Jews to destroy them.' His thought had almost been implemented. He could have done it, thoughts passed in his heart, it was not merely a misleading imagination.
Here he says of the imagination, he says he imagines it to be a rod. As it were, he, they imagine themselves like a stick. 'But he does not intend so, and his heart does not think so.' We explained, 'but he does not intend so,' he thinks that he is a rod, but he thinks that he is in his own hand. I am not from Hashem, not from His power, blessed be He, but rather I have independent power. 'And his heart does not think so.' 'And his heart does not think so,' that is, he thinks that I can really act as much as I want. While, as we said in the first verse, that the thought that the Holy One, Blessed be He, intended in sending him was only against whom I will send you. So firstly, he does not imagine at all that he is sent from Hashem. Secondly, he does not imagine at all that not only is he sent from Hashem, but that he can harm only whom Hashem commanded him to harm. That is thought, and this too he does not think so. So firstly, he does not imagine at all that he is sent from Hashem. Secondly, he does not imagine at all that not only is he sent from Hashem, but that he can harm only whom Hashem commanded him to harm. That is thought, and this too he does not think so.
כי יאמר הלא שרי יחדיו מלכים - For he says, are not my princes all together kings? He explains to you why Ashur does not understand that he is the rod of Hashem's anger and the stick of His fury. Why? For he says, are not my princes all together kings? He says, how is it possible that you say that my rule is not from my power? For my power is so great that each one of my princes has a great army and has a rule like a king. Look how many princes I have, how much government I have, how many important people are in my kingdom. I have power of my own, from the multitude of the camps and the army that I have. From this my power stems, not from someone else. 'Is not Kalno like Karkemish? Is not Chamat like Arpad? Is not Shomron like Damesek?' And Ashur continues and claims, 'is not Kalno like Karkemish.' I do not believe that I am a staff in the hand of Hashem. I do not believe that I have no power to act except from His hand, blessed be He. But he says, I will prove to you that it is not so. 'Is not Kalno like Karkemish.' Just as I conquered the city of Karkemish, so I conquered the city of Kalno. And so I conquered Chamat like Arpad, Shomron like Damesek. Arpad and Chamat, Damesek and Shomron. Is it possible that in all these cities there was not one city that did not sin? Surely there is one city among them that were not wicked. And with all this you see that I conquered them too. What does this show you? It shows you that I am not a stick in the hand of Hashem, but rather by my power, by my might I conquered them all. And if you say yes, they all sinned and therefore they were punished, and you are still a stick in the hand of Hashem, then each nation according to the size of its iniquity should have had a corresponding size of punishment. And behold you see that I conquered them all equally. Even if you say that they all sinned, surely their sin was not equal. From this there is proof that it was not their sin that caused their destruction, and I am not a stick in the hand of Hashem, but rather my free choice. Thus Ashur claims.
כאשר מצאה ידי לממלכות האליל ופסיליהם מירושלים ומשומרון - As my hand reached the kingdoms of the idol, whose graven images exceeded those of Yerushalayim and Shomron. He continues and claims, and if so, I have an a fortiori argument that I can also conquer Yerushalayim. After I succeeded and my hand reached to conquer whom? The kingdoms of the idol and their graven images. These kingdoms that I conquered were kingdoms that were idol worshipers persistently, and not only that, but they even dedicated their kingdom to those idols and named their kingdoms after the idols. The kingdom of such and such idol, the kingdom of another idol. So he says, surely if these idols had power, they would have stopped me. And behold you see that I conquered the kingdoms that glorified the idols to the highest degree and named the kingdom after them, the idols as it were had an interest to fight their fight, and they did not fight their fight. And I succeeded and prevailed against them, against the idols and against their graven images, and I will soon explain the difference. And these were more, these were more than the graven images of Yerushalayim and Shomron. So if I conquered these kingdoms that were persistent and abundant in idol worship, all the more so Yerushalayim, for they are not so persistent in the worship of their god.
To them, and from his perspective, the Creator of the world and the rest of the idols are equal, may his mouth be filled with dust. So if I succeeded in conquering these, all the more so Yerushalayim, who are not really worshipers of Hashem. Rashi explains a terrible thing. Rashi says, what is 'as my hand reached the kingdoms of the idol, whose graven images exceeded those of Yerushalayim and Shomron'? According to the Malbim I explained that even kingdoms with their idols who were greater than Yerushalayim and Shomron, I was able, all the more so Yerushalayim and Shomron I will be able. But Rashi says, from here we learn that the wicked of Israel would supply the images of their idols to all the nations around them. And after the worshipers of the graven images of Shomron and Yerushalayim fell into my hand and their graven images did not save them, so Shomron and Yerushalayim will not be saved. Terrible and dreadful. The Land of Israel was a production center for graven images and idolatry. And who supplied idolatry to the kingdoms of the idol? From Yerushalayim and Shomron. The factories were here, not in China. From here they supplied the idols to all the rest of the nations. So he claims, on whom do you have to rely? You say, 'hey, we are the production center.' Sir, I have already seen how well your merchandise works. Here, where did you supply? To all those places you supplied idols. Did your idols work? Did your idols function? Did they succeed in saving those kingdoms that bought idols from you? So I will succeed in conquering you too, even though you are the manufacturers of those idols.
הלא כאשר עשיתי לשומרון ולאליליה, כן אעשה לירושלים ולעצביה - Surely as I did to Shomron and its idols, so I will do to Yerushalayim and its images. What will you say? Come now, do you compare these idols, for 'elil' is from the word 'el,' from the word 'lo,' no, there is no power in it, to the God of the heavens and the earth? What is there to compare? He says to them, if so, come and let me bring you an additional proof. For I did to Shomron and its idols. Now Shomron is from the people of Israel. And here we are before the conquest of Yehudah. This is during the siege on Yehudah, after years earlier he already conquered Shomron. If Shomron, which is the kingdom of the Holy One, Blessed be He, the kingdom of Israel, I succeeded in conquering, and the God of Israel did not save them, then if so, Yehudah too I will succeed in conquering and the God of Israel will not succeed in saving them. But what was the mistake? He did not notice, he says it in his own words: 'as I did to Shomron and its idols.' Shomron abandoned Hashem, they had idols, and therefore you succeeded in conquering them. He means to say, 'both their God and the idols did not save them.' You are mistaken. The moment they took idols, they abandoned their God, so the Holy One, Blessed be He, already has no interest in saving them, and on the contrary, you are their punishment. But in contrast Yehudah, Yehudah is still righteous. Yehudah is the generation of Chizkiyahu. We will see further on what righteous people the members of that generation were. So there their God has an interest and a desire to protect His people.
The Malbim says, what is the difference between 'elilim,' idols, and 'atzabim,' images? 'So I will do to Yerushalayim and its images and its idols.' The Malbim says, the 'atzabim' were named for the craftsmanship, as it is written 'the despised image.' The meaning is the craftsmanship of the images, afterwards it was named this, this was the form of their work, after this they were called 'atzabim.' There is an interpretation of the Sages that they grieve (ma'atzivim) their worshipers. That they grieve their worshipers means one sacrifices to it and offers incense to it and bows to it and prays to it, and inherits grief. This god would not give him anything. And 'elilim' means there is no substance in them, as in 'you are all worthless physicians.' Who said this? Who said to whom 'you are all worthless physicians'? 'You will surely heal a wound easily.' 'You are all worthless physicians' Iyov said this to his friends. He said this to his companions. You have all sorts of solutions, why I suffer, because of this, you did this, you did that. You are worthless physicians, seeking easy remedies that have no substance. And therefore, of the idols of Shomron that he conquered, he knew that there is no substance in them. And therefore he says 'surely as I did to Shomron and its idols,' I already conquered Shomron and we already saw plainly that it is 'el,' it is 'lo,' it is nothing, there is no substance in it. But those of Yerushalayim, those he has not yet conquered, so therefore he calls them 'and its images.' The meaning is that same craftsmanship that you worship, regarding this, as they say, I have not yet checked whether I can conquer it or not. I believe I can, but still one cannot call it an idol from the aspect of 'lo,' there is no substance in it, I do not yet know, I have not yet tried to conquer it. But therefore he defines it in the category of 'atzabim.'