According to the Malbim, the chapter before us is a direct continuation of the previous chapter. The Holy One, blessed be He, informed Achaz that a son would be born whose name would be "Immanuel" - a sign that Hashem would be with His people and would not abandon them. In the midst of those words, a parenthetical statement intervened: "Hashem shall bring upon you, and upon your people, and upon your father's house, days that have not come since the day Ephraim departed from Judah." That is to say, it was mentioned parenthetically that Achaz did not rely on the word of Hashem but instead sought help from the king of Assyria. Therefore, the sign of "Immanu El" (God is with us) would not be fulfilled in its entirety during his days, and he himself would suffer from the king of Assyria: you relied on him - you will suffer through him. Now the text returns to the point where it left off: just as a son was born named Immanuel, so too a son will be born named "Maher-shalal-chash-baz."
The sign of "Immanu El" will now be fulfilled only partially; Hashem will grant you a slight respite, and only in the days of Chizkiyahu, which will be a wonderful and exalted era, will the prophecy be realized in its fullness, allowing you to proclaim whole-heartedly, "God is with us." In your time, Achaz, this will not be fully realized, for Hashem told you that He is with you, yet you stated that you do not rely on Him, but rather on Assyria. In the days of your righteous son - it will be fitting for God to be with you.
וַיֹּאמֶר יְהֹוָה אֵלַי קַח־לְךָ גִּלָּיוֹן גָּדוֹל וּכְתֹב עָלָיו בְּחֶרֶט אֱנוֹשׁ לְמַהֵר שָׁלָל חָשׁ בַּז׃ - And Hashem said to me: Take yourself a large parchment, and write on it with a human stylus: "To Maher-shalal-chash-baz."
Hashem commands the prophet to make a sign and portent that Rezin, king of Aram, and Pekach son of Remalyahu will fall, and that sign is the naming of the second son to be born: "Maher-shalal-chash-baz." The Radak explains later that they did not call him by all of these names together, but rather it is a dual name - either "Maher-shalal" or "Chash-baz," since they convey the exact same meaning.
What is a gilyon? The Malbim explains that it is a thick, rigid parchment. A megillah (scroll) is so called because it is rolled (gelulah), just as we roll Megillat Esther; a "flying scroll" (megillah afah) is not literally flying, but rather folded (kefulah), as it was customary to fold it. A gilyon, by contrast, is derived from disclosure (gilui): a stiff parchment upon which people would draw figures or write text and hang it on the wall so that it would be revealed (galui) to all, much like our public posters or billboards today. A megillah is rolled; a gilyon is displayed openly for all.
Rashi explains: In a clear script so that any person (enosh) reading it may run, even if he is not wise. In the Holy Tongue, the word enosh generally denotes an ordinary, common level of human being, as in the phrase, "What is man (enosh) that You are mindful of him, and the son of man that You visit him?" That is to say: write words there that require no great erudition or intellect to comprehend. The Targum similarly tends toward this interpretation: "a clear script," plain and understandable to everyone.
The Radak explains differently. Since this vision occurred through prophecy, one might have thought that the entire writing on the parchment was seen by him only in a prophetic vision and was not performed in reality. For according to the Radak, many prophecies are of this nature: the Holy One, blessed be He, commands the prophet to perform an act, but the prophet does not perform it publicly in reality; rather, everything takes place within the prophetic vision. Such was the case with Isaiah walking naked and barefoot - could one imagine that a prophet would literally walk that way? Similarly, with Hosea, who was commanded to take a wife of harlotry and bear children of harlotry - could one imagine that a sublime, holy prophet, whose base desires hold no sway over him whatsoever, would actually marry Gomer daughter of Divlayim? Rather, in a prophetic vision he was told to take her, and in a prophetic vision he took her and bore children, and in a prophetic vision he was told to divorce her, to which he responded: "Master of the Universe, now that I have children from her, how can I cast her out?" To which he was answered: "And yet you ask that I cast out My children!" Likewise, Ezekiel was commanded to pass a razor over his head and his beard - yet there is a Torah prohibition against shaving with a razor; rather, everything occurred in a prophetic vision. Therefore, one might have presumed that here too everything occurred solely in a prophetic vision, which is why it states "with a human stylus" (cheret enosh) - a physical human being, a literal act, that he should go out and perform it openly in the real world.
The Malbim explains differently: Hashem is commanding him to draw on the parchment figures of men fighting, pillaging, and taking spoil. In ancient times, it was common practice to depict battles - as seen in ancient depictions of men on horses with spears and arrows - for war was a symbol of heroism, power, and inner fortitude. And this is the intent of "and write on it with a human stylus: to Maher-shalal-chash-baz": that the illustration should depict that in the near future Aram and Ephraim, namely Rezin and Pekach son of Remalyahu, will become spoil and plunder.
And what is a cheret? The Malbim explains that this refers to the script utilized by the sorcerer-scribes (chartumim) in ancient times: they would depict concepts and ideas through mutually agreed-upon symbols - animals, birds, human figures, trees, and the like. This is the script known as hieroglyphics, often termed pictograms, the writing system of the ancient Egyptians. Anyone who looks at photographs from Giza, the site of the pyramids, sees upon the walls depictions of birds and people bearing offerings - all those drawings are their form of writing, through which they deciphered the message. This is also the meaning of "and fashioned it with a graving tool (cheret)" said concerning the Golden Calf: that he first sketched for himself a design and blueprint, a kind of diagram, and afterward formed the calf. With a cheret one can draw animals or human figures, and "a human stylus" (cheret enosh) means: I command you to write by drawing figures of human beings. And what will be seen in the drawing? "To Maher-shalal-chash-baz" - depicted men fighting, killing, and looting. For this reason, a "large parchment" was required, so as to draw two camps upon it: a conquering camp and a conquered camp, the victor and the vanquished, with Aram and Ephraim being the vanquished.
On the surface, there seems to be a redundancy here: "maher" (hasten) is synonymous with "chash" (speed), and "shalal" (spoil) is synonymous with "baz" (plunder). The Malbim explains that there is a distinction. Shalal refers to the property left behind after the enemy is defeated and flees; when people actually come and seize it, that is bizzah (plunder). As long as the property lies abandoned in its place, it is called shalal, related to the expression "ki yishal zeitecha" - when your olives drop off - something that has fallen, dropped away, and remained behind; but when it is taken, it is called plunder. Therefore, you find the verb "bazaz" acting upon the noun "shalal": "and the spoil (ushelal) of their cities we plundered (bazonu) for ourselves." Furthermore, shalal also connotes distribution - "I will divide the spoil" (achaleik shalal) - and you never find "to despoil plunder" or "he will divide plunder," but always to plunder the spoil. Similarly, "and your life shall be to you as spoil" - slipped away and remaining alive from among the slain. At times, shalal appears even outside of wartime, as in "like one who finds great spoil." Thus, the verse means: everything will become abandoned spoil, because the property owners will perish, and consequently, others will be able to come and plunder it.
Likewise, there is a difference between "maher" (hasten) and "chash" (quicken): "maher" relates to time - soon, without delay; "chash" relates to alacrity in action. These are two distinct concepts. If someone called me and I came immediately, but walked at a leisurely pace, I hurried (miharti) in terms of time, but did not act swiftly (chasti); and if I did not set out right away, but once I did, I ran, I acted swiftly, but did not hurry in time. Here, the precision is magnificent: regarding the spoil, it says "maher," meaning the spoil will fall into their hands soon of its own accord, for time elapses on its own; and regarding the plundering, it says "chash," meaning that the plunderer, the human agent, will act with great alacrity - they will move swiftly to plunder, because the goods will fall into their hands so quickly.
וְאָעִידָה לִּי עֵדִים נֶאֱמָנִים אֵת אוּרִיָּה הַכֹּהֵן וְאֶת־זְכַרְיָהוּ בֶּן יְבֶרֶכְיָהוּ׃ - And I will take for Myself faithful witnesses to testify: Uriah the priest, and Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah.
Hashem instructs the prophet to appoint trustworthy witnesses to sign the scroll to affirm all his words, and these are Uriah and Zechariah. The Malbim explains the deeper symbolism here: the inscription upon the scroll portrays catastrophe coming upon Ephraim, and the ultimate purpose of this calamity is to rescue Judah - which is the essence of the son named Immanuel, that God will be with us and save us. Thus, this prophecy encompasses two opposing elements: on the one hand, salvation for Judah, and on the other hand, devastation for Ephraim, the Kingdom of the Ten Tribes. Therefore, He appointed two witnesses who themselves prophesied opposing messages: Uriah prophesied doom in the days of Jehoiakim, just as Jeremiah did, while Zechariah prophesied messages of goodness and consolation.
This is precisely the intention of Chazal. They ask: How could Uriah the priest be joined with Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah, given that they lived in two completely different eras? Rather, Uriah was a sign for Zechariah: if you see that the prophecy of Uriah has been fulfilled, anticipate the fulfillment of the prophecy of Zechariah. Uriah of Kiryat-jearim prophesied against this city and against this place according to all the words of Jeremiah - harsh prophecies of destruction - and for this reason Jehoiakim killed him. Zechariah, by contrast, prophesied in the second year of Darius: "Old men and old women shall yet sit in the streets of Jerusalem." If you see the prophecies of doom come to pass, wait patiently, for the prophecies of Zechariah will be fulfilled as well. According to this, the Malbim explains, it becomes clear why specifically these two were mentioned: both symbolize opposing prophecies - destruction on the one hand and rebuilding on the other - corresponding to the fact that here too, there is destruction for Ephraim and salvation for Judah.
וָאֶקְרַב אֶל־הַנְּבִיאָה וַתַּהַר וַתֵּלֶד בֵּן וַיֹּאמֶר יְהֹוָה אֵלַי קְרָא שְׁמוֹ מַהֵר שָׁלָל חָשׁ בַּז׃ - And I approached the prophetess, and she conceived and bore a son; and Hashem said to me: Call his name Maher-shalal-chash-baz.
"The prophetess" refers to the wife of the prophet Yeshayahu. And who is this son? The commentators differ on this point. Rashi explains that this is the very same son who was called Immanuel, and Scripture is now describing his birth and the naming commanded by Hashem, for it carries the identical message: the son who symbolizes that the Holy One, Blessed is He, will be with us is also the son who symbolizes that spoil and plunder will arrive swiftly. Rashi derives this from the chronology of the years: everything occurred in the same year, and it would be impossible for both Immanuel and then Maher-shalal-chash-baz to be born in a single year.
The Malbim contends that this is not necessarily so, and in his view, this is a different son. First, according to what he explained earlier, "Behold, the maiden is pregnant and will bear a son" - "harah" implies that she was already pregnant, and when He spoke to him she was already in her ninth month. Thus, it is entirely possible for both sons to have been born in the same year: one at the beginning of the year and the other at the end. This is by no means unheard of; there are people whose records show two children born in the same year, one in the first month and one in the twelfth month. Second, according to one opinion, "Behold, the maiden is pregnant" was said regarding the wife of Ahaz, not the prophet's wife, in which case there is no difficulty at all: there it refers to the wife of Ahaz, while here, "and I approached the prophetess," refers to the wife of Yeshayahu.
Here the Malbim addresses a difficulty: Regarding the fall of Rezin king of Aram and Pekach ben Remalyahu, who laid siege to Yehudah, two signs were given - the writing on the scroll and the birth of the child named Maher-Shalal-Chash-Baz. Yet regarding the salvation of Yehudah, only one sign was given - the son who would be called Immanuel. Why?
We have already explained in previous lessons that we are not speaking here of a "mophet" (wonder) but of an "ot" (sign). A mophet is something supernatural, a miracle; an ot is a token or omen, giving a tangible sign that something will indeed happen. The Malbim explained that when a prophet performs a sign, an actual physical action accompanying the prophecy, it demonstrates that the prophecy will materialize under all circumstances. That is why Yeshayahu walked barefoot and stripped of his outer garments, and Yirmiyahu was commanded to buy a linen belt and wear wooden yoke bars - all these serve to symbolize that the prophecy will surely come to pass. Once the matter has materialized to some degree and descended from the abstract realm of thought into the physical realm of action, it is a sign that it will certainly be fulfilled.
Now, a prophecy of impending doom or misfortune is not guaranteed to come to pass, but if a physical sign was performed for it and it was brought into tangible form, it must come to pass. A prophecy of good, by contrast, is always fulfilled; Hashem never retracts a benevolent prophecy, with the sole exception of "set a mark upon the foreheads of the men" (Yechezkel 9:4), and besides this, the Gemara states that the Holy One, Blessed be He, has never retracted a prophecy for good. For this reason, a prophet is tested through prophecies of good: if he uttered a prophecy of misfortune and it was not fulfilled, it is no proof that he is a false prophet; but if he uttered a prophecy of good and it was not fulfilled, he is indeed a false prophet.
This clarifies the matter: the salvation of Yehudah was a prophecy of good, so a single sign was sufficient - the son named Immanuel. But the downfall of Rezin and Pekach was a prophecy of misfortune, which is not guaranteed to be fulfilled, since Hashem sometimes relents from a harsh decree. Therefore, two signs were required for it: the writing upon the tablet, and the birth of the son named Maher-Shalal-Chash-Baz - two reinforcements to ensure its certain fulfillment.
כִּי בְּטֶרֶם יֵדַע הַנַּעַר קְרֹא אָבִי וְאִמִּי יִשָּׂא אֶת־חֵיל דַּמֶּשֶׂק וְאֵת שְׁלַל שֹׁמְרוֹן לִפְנֵי מֶלֶךְ אַשּׁוּר׃ - "For before the child knows how to call 'my father' and 'my mother,' the wealth of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria shall be carried away before the king of Assyria."
Now the meaning of the name "Maher-Shalal-Chash-Baz" becomes clear: even before the child learns to call "my father" and "my mother" - that is, in the very near future - the wealth of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria will be carried away. Who will carry it away? It is the way of Scripture to speak concisely without specifying, and according to the peshat the reference is to the king of Assyria, as it is written: "And the king of Assyria went up against Damascus and took it" (II Melachim 16:9). And regarding Samaria: after Pekach ben Remalyahu was killed and Hoshea ben Elah reigned, Shalmaneser king of Assyria came up, and Hoshea became his servant and paid him tribute, at which point he plundered Samaria. All this took place by the fourth year of Achaz. Thus we see: very soon, the spoils of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria will be taken before the king of Assyria.
The Malbim offers a more precise grammatical reading. If we adhere closely to the wording of the verse, the explicit subject is the child: "For before the child knows," followed by the third-person verb "yisa" (he shall carry away) - and an implicit third-person verb always relates back to the subject explicitly mentioned beforehand. Just as if one were to say, "Reuven left the house," and then, "he went to the station, he bought a ticket" - every "he" refers back to Reuven. However, it is difficult to grasp how a child who does not yet know how to call father and mother could carry away the wealth of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria! The Malbim explains that this is spoken as a poetic figure of speech: the child embodied in the prophecy, whose very name denotes this prophetic event, is regarded as if he himself carries away the spoil and acts out the entire downfall. Just as the previous chapter spoke of Immanuel saying "before the child shall know" to characterize the state of the entire nation, so too here: the birth of this child symbolizes the downfall, and this sign and portent is, as it were, the one exacting retribution from them and plundering their spoil.
וַיֹּסֶף יְהֹוָה דַּבֵּר אֵלַי עוֹד לֵאמֹר׃ - "And Hashem spoke to me again, saying:"
Hashem spoke to him further concerning Rezin king of Aram and Pekach ben Remalyahu. The Malbim explains that at that time there was a conspiracy within Yehudah: there were those who wished to cast off the yoke of the House of David and align themselves with Pekach ben Remalyahu and Rezin. As is well known, there are always those who seek to align themselves with whoever is riding high and victorious. Achaz was at an all-time low, whereas Pekach ben Remalyahu king of Ephraim and Rezin king of Aram were riding a wave of success, and so they said: Let us join with them. To this, the prophet comes and delivers a special prophecy to warn the people against conspiracy and rebellion, and to inform them: Know that the kingdom of Ephraim will soon perish, and then the kingdom of the House of David will be exalted. Why hitch your wagon to a crumbling kingdom that is already a lame duck? After all, Hoshea ben Elah, who succeeded Pekach ben Remalyahu, was exiled shortly thereafter by Shalmaneser.
יַעַן כִּי מָאַס הָעָם הַזֶּה אֵת מֵי הַשִּׁלֹחַ הַהֹלְכִים לְאַט וּמְשׂוֹשׂ אֶת־רְצִין וּבֶן־רְמַלְיָהוּ׃ - "Because this people has refused the waters of Shiloach that flow softly, and rejoices in Rezin and the son of Remalyahu."
The Malbim explains that the prophet is speaking allegorically. It was their custom to anoint kings beside a spring of water, as was done with Shlomo, whom they brought down to the Gichon - and they hurried to anoint him there immediately because of the dispute with Adoniyah the son of Chagit, who exalted himself to reign, for there are many potential hindrances between here and the Gichon. The kings of the House of David were anointed beside the spring of Shiloach, whose unique quality is that it flows gently: a quiet spring, not a rushing torrent of mighty waters. This symbolized that their reign would be a tranquil, quiet, and peaceful monarchy, free from upheavals and wars. Yet the people despised this quiet kingdom, and in what did they rejoice? "And rejoices in Retzin and the son of Remalyahu" - they sought to ally themselves with Retzin and Pekach the son of Remalyahu.
Rashi explains, based on the Midrash, that the prophet is prophesying here about Shevna and his faction, who sought to rebel against Chizkiyahu and despised him. And why did they despise him? Because they saw that he did not choose a royal banquet table, but rather ate vegetables and engaged in Torah, not conducting himself with royal pomp and ceremony. A king was expected to serve at his table feasts fit for Shlomo in his day, yet he ate a meager meal of greens. "Where are you running? Sit and eat!" - "In kollel, my chavruta is already waiting for me." He has no time; he must run. Of him it is said: "The righteous eats to satisfy his soul."
On the other hand, they saw Pekach ben Remalyahu, king of Ephraim, consuming forty se'ah of fledglings as dessert after the meal. This does not mean he ate them all alone, but that he served them at his table, and many people sat at his table - now that is a royal table! And they would mock Chizkiyahu, saying: Is this man worthy to be king? He is no king; Retzin and Pekach ben Remalyahu are kings! It was not that the eating itself was the primary thing, but rather that they conducted themselves with royal dignity and majesty; that is how a kingdom should look, they have royal stature, style, and grandeur. And this is the meaning of "and rejoices in Retzin and the son of Remalyahu."
The Holy One, blessed be He, said to them: Do you lust for diners and consumers? I will bring upon you many who will devour! Behold, Hashem is bringing up against you the mighty waters of the River, instead of the gentle, tranquil waters of Shiloach. Do you want them? You shall receive them. Do you want eaters? They will come and devour everything here. A harsh prophecy.
וְלָכֵן הִנֵּה אֲדֹנָי מַעֲלֶה עֲלֵיהֶם אֶת־מֵי הַנָּהָר הָעֲצוּמִים וְהָרַבִּים אֶת־מֶלֶךְ אַשּׁוּר וְאֶת־כָּל־כְּבוֹדוֹ וְעָלָה עַל־כָּל־אֲפִיקָיו וְהָלַךְ עַל־כָּל־גְּדוֹתָיו׃ - Therefore, behold, the Lord brings up against them the mighty and abundant waters of the River, the king of Assyria and all his glory; and he shall rise over all its channels and go over all its banks.
Since you did not desire the Spring of Shiloach that flows gently, but rather Retzin and the son of Remalyahu, who are like a rushing river, Hashem will bring up against you the mighty and abundant waters of the River. This refers to the kingdom of Assyria, whose kings were anointed beside the Euphrates River. And the Euphrates is nothing like the Gichon: it is a raging, turbulent river, signifying a fierce and aggressive empire. "Mighty" - in terms of quality; "abundant" - in terms of quantity. Corresponding to "mighty," the verse says "the king of Assyria," who was an exceptionally powerful monarch; and corresponding to "abundant," it says "and all his glory" - lest you think he would arrive with only an elite unit, he comes with his entire army and vast legions.
"And he shall rise over all its channels and go over all its banks." Sometimes a river fills up and overflows its banks because the channels through which it was meant to flow are dammed up, causing it to flood its surroundings. Here, however, Scripture emphasizes that the channels will remain open, yet it will rise above them and still overflow its banks. To what can this be compared? When rain falls in normal amounts, the river flows smoothly; for it to overflow its banks, it must be dammed up. But when torrential rains fall, even without being dammed, the river overflows its banks and floods, as it cannot contain the volume of water draining into it from all directions. Thus, the notification that the river will overflow its banks without being dammed means that there will be a tremendous downpour. The nimshal is this: the army that will come here, the army of the king of Assyria, will be so immense and vast that it will overflow all its channels - a camp so enormous that, as we will see later, they dried up the Jordan River simply by crossing it.
The Malbim explains that afikim are the conduits through which water emerges, related to the Aramaic word nafik - to go out or bring forth - and they are the places through which the spring flows. Furthermore, it is possible that this root carries two opposing meanings, as is often found in Lashon HaKodesh with contranyms: livro - to create, and levarei - to clear away or uproot, as in clearing weeds; lehashrish - to strike root, and lesharesh - to uproot. So too with afik: on the one hand, hit'apek - to hold back and restrain, and on the other hand, lehafika - to bring forth and release.
וְחָלַף בִּיהוּדָה שָׁטַף וְעָבַר עַד־צַוָּאר יַגִּיעַ וְהָיָה מֻטּוֹת כְּנָפָיו מְלֹא רֹחַב־אַרְצְךָ עִמָּנוּ אֵל׃ - And he shall sweep through Yehudah, overflowing and passing through, reaching up to the neck; and the outspreading of his wings shall fill the breadth of your land, Immanu-El.
There are three stages here. At first, "it will sweep into Yehudah" - passing through only casually, without making much of an impression; then "overflow" - it will spread further, washing away everything in its path; and finally "and pass through" - establishing a permanent presence. Chazal teach that Sancheriv brought three successive armies into the land of Yehudah, and they are reflected in these three terms: swept through, overflowed, and passed through.
"It will reach up to the neck" - once the river establishes a steady course in that place, it will also erode the ground over which it flows and dig deeper, until anyone attempting to cross it will find the water reaching up to his neck. This expresses the sheer force of the deluge, and in the allegory, this river is the king of Ashur.
Not only will it spread in length and depth, but also in breadth: "and the spread of its wings shall fill the breadth of your land." The term "wingspan" describes the distance from wingtip to wingtip, meaning that the deployment of his legions will span the entire width of the land. "Immanu El" - as the Malbim explained earlier, this addresses Yehudah, who is symbolized by the son named Immanuel, indicating that Hashem will be with them and deliver them from distress. In other words: you, Yehudah, a king and a nation will come upon you and inundate you from every direction - in depth, in length, and in breadth, like a raging, surging river.
The chapter continues the prophecy of "Immanu El": The Holy One, blessed be He, commands Yeshayahu to write on a large scroll with a human stylus - in pictographs depicting plundering warriors - and to name his son "Maher-shalal-chash-baz," two omens foretelling the downfall of Retzin and Pekach. This was necessary because a prophecy of misfortune requires reinforcement, whereas a prophecy of good always comes to pass and needs only a single sign. Uriah and Zechariah were taken as witnesses because they represent contrasting prophecies: destruction for Efraim and salvation for Yehudah, with Uriah serving as the harbinger of Zechariah's fulfillment. Yet the people despised the gently flowing waters of the Shiloach - the quiet rule of the House of David - and rejoiced in Retzin and the son of Remalyahu, like Shevna and his faction, who looked down upon Chizkiyahu's modest diet of greens and preferred the lavish royal table of Pekach. Therefore, measure for measure: the mighty and abundant waters of the river, the king of Ashur and all his glory, will overflow their banks, sweep through, flood, and pass into Yehudah up to the neck, and the spread of their wings will fill the breadth of the land.