Chapter 20 of Yeshayahu is a short chapter containing an extraordinary prophecy delivered at a very specific time: three years before the king of Assyria arrived to lay siege to Yerushalayim. The prophecy is not conveyed through words alone, but is accompanied by a physical action that the prophet is commanded to perform, and therein lies its entire secret. Let us examine the verses in order, with the explanations of Rashi, Radak, and Malbim.
בִּשְׁנַת בֹּא תַרְתָּן אַשְׁדּוֹדָה בִּשְׁלֹחַ אֹתוֹ סַרְגוֹן מֶלֶךְ אַשּׁוּר וַיִּלָּחֶם בְּאַשְׁדּוֹד וַיִּלְכְּדָהּ׃ - In the year that Tartan came to Ashdod, when Sargon king of Assyria sent him, and he fought against Ashdod and captured it.
Tartan was one of the generals of the king of Assyria. Three years before the king of Assyria came to Yerushalayim, Tartan came to Ashdod and captured it. At that very moment, this prophecy was spoken to Yeshayahu: Know that at the end of three years, the king of Assyria will lead away the captives of Egypt and the exiles of Cush and bring them here. And when will this occur? When he lays siege to Chizkiyahu and Yerushalayim, and then hears that war has broken out in his realm, and he will go and wage war with the king of Cush and with Egypt, capture prisoners and take silver and gold from them, and return here to wage war - and then one hundred and eighty thousand troop commanders will fall at the entrance to Yerushalayim.
Radak explains: Sargon is Sancheriv. And our Sages of blessed memory said that he had eight names. The Gemara in Masechet Sanhedrin (folio 94a) states: Let Chizkiyahu, who has eight names, come and exact retribution from Sancheriv, who has eight names. Chizkiyahu's eight names are derived from the verse: "For a child is born to us, a son is given to us, and the government is upon his shoulder; and his name was called Pele-Yoetz-El-Gibbor-Avi-Ad-Sar-Shalom." The Gemara asks: But doesn't he have another name, Chizkiyah? And it answers: Chizkiyah is not an intrinsic name, but descriptive of his state, that "Kah (God) strengthened him." Alternatively, Chizkiyah, because he strengthened Israel toward their Father in Heaven.
And corresponding to him, Sancheriv: Tiglath-pileser, Pilneser, Shalmaneser, Pul, Sargon, Asnappar the Great and Noble. The Gemara asks: But isn't there Sancheriv? That is the classic name everyone knows, yet you do not count it? And it answers: Sancheriv is not a formal name, but a description, meaning that his conversation is strife (sichato riv) - that is, all his speech and deeds were conflict and war. Alternatively: because he spoke arrogantly and blasphemously (sah venichar) against the Almighty, speaking against Hashem with haughtiness and contempt: Who is Hashem that He can withstand me? I have conquered and I have done this!
בָּעֵת הַהִיא דִּבֶּר יְהֹוָה בְּיַד יְשַׁעְיָהוּ בֶן אָמוֹץ לֵאמֹר לֵךְ וּפִתַּחְתָּ הַשַּׂק מֵעַל מׇתְנֶיךָ וְנַעַלְךָ תַחֲלֹץ מֵעַל רַגְלֶךָ וַיַּעַשׂ כֵּן הָלֹךְ עָרוֹם וְיָחֵף׃ - At that time Hashem spoke through Yeshayahu son of Amoz, saying: Go and untie the sackcloth from your loins, and remove your shoe from your foot; and he did so, walking naked and barefoot.
This needs to be understood: when one is told to "untie the sackcloth," it implies that sackcloth was already upon him until now; if so, where was this sackcloth mentioned previously? Removing shoes is understandable, as everyone wears shoes, but not everyone walks around in sackcloth. Radak explains: that sackcloth had been worn around his loins ever since the exile of the Ten Tribes. From the time the tribes were exiled, Yeshayahu was mourning for them and observing mourning practices. Now Hashem says to him: Untie that sackcloth, remove your shoes, and walk naked and barefoot.
"Naked" does not mean completely naked. Targum Yonatan translates it as pachiah (ragged), corresponding to the phrasing in the Shulchan Aruch, "a poche'ach may recite the Priestly Blessing." A poche'ach is someone wearing torn or skimpy clothing, like someone walking in an undershirt or the like, and this is referred to as "naked."
Radak explains: This matter is not to be understood literally, as though God commanded the prophet to actually walk about naked and barefoot, Heaven forbid. After all, the greatest person we know is not even equal to the small fingernail of a prophet; and if it would be unthinkable for a Gadol Hador to walk around in an undershirt or even in short sleeves, all the more so is it inconceivable to describe a prophet walking around unclad. From here we derive a fundamental principle that will accompany us in subsequent chapters as well: likewise, what God said to Hoshea, "Take for yourself a wife of harlotry and go to her," and what He said to Yechezkel, "pass a razor over your head and your beard," and what He commanded him to eat barley cakes baked over cow dung. All these and similar instances are not things God commanded His prophets to carry out physically; rather, everything took place in a prophetic vision. The prophet would see in the prophetic vision that God was commanding him to do this, and he would do so within that vision.
Therefore, when you read "and he did so," or "and he took Gomer daughter of Divlayim," do not mistakenly think, Heaven forbid, that a holy prophet of God joined with an immoral woman, God forbid, and fathered children with her. That is certainly unthinkable; rather, it all occurred in a prophetic vision. And even though time extends - as in this prophecy, where "three years" is mentioned, and as in Hoshea's prophecy, "and he took... and she conceived and bore a son... and she conceived and bore a daughter" - all of this was one extended vision. There is no need to think that the prophecy physically lasted for years; just as in a dream a long period of time can pass within a few seconds, so it is with prophecy: the prophet perceives an entire process, whereas in reality the actual time is short. This is the view of Radak. It is important to emphasize that others disagree and understand these matters literally - that when God told a prophet, "Go, do so," the prophet went and performed it physically.
Malbim aligns with Radak in that the sackcloth had been upon his loins since the exile of the Ten Tribes, and he was now commanded to loosen it. However, Malbim interprets the act literally, yet avoids Radak's difficulty: he did not walk around like this for three years, but for only a single day or a brief hour inside his own house. A single moment at home suffices, and there was no need for him to walk around in this manner for three years. And why it was necessary for the act to be carried out physically, we shall see below.
Rashi cites Targum Yonatan: "and you shall bind sackcloth upon your loins," and explains according to the Targum, namely: place the sackcloth upon yourself, rather than remove it. What compels this explanation? Because up to this point, we have not found that he was commanded to gird sackcloth; and if he was never told to put on sackcloth, what would he be removing, and where did he get sackcloth from? Radak and Malbim explained that he had put it on himself over the exile of the Ten Tribes, but Rashi does not explain it that way, and therefore interprets the intent as putting on sackcloth. This is especially supported by the context: he was told to remove his shoes, and removing shoes signifies mourning. If we are dealing with signs of mourning, then on the contrary, why remove sackcloth? One should add it, for a mourner dons sackcloth.
However, according to this, the wording of the verse poses a difficulty: why does it say ufittachta ("and loosen") rather than vehinnachta ("and put on") or vekasharta ("and tie")? After all, pituach implies removal, as in the phrase, "Let not him that girds boast like him that ungirds" - one who girds puts on the belt, and one who ungirds removes it. Rashi's explanation here is very novel: ufittachta is an expression related to pituchei chotam (engravings of a signet), as in "engraved like a seal, 'Holy to the Lord'" and "engraved with seal engravings." When you take the sackcloth and tighten it firmly around your loins, the contours of the body show through the sackcloth, like an engraved stone that has incisions and embossments carved into it. That is to say: tighten the sackcloth until it appears like engraved reliefs.
And what of the phrase me'al motnecha ("from upon your loins"), which seemingly supports Radak and Malbim that it is to be removed? According to Rashi, it should have said al motnecha ("upon your loins"). Rashi explains: me'al motnecha means "higher than your loins," above your loins. Place the sackcloth, not "from off your loins" in the sense of removal, but in the area above the loins.
וַיֹּאמֶר יְהֹוָה כַּאֲשֶׁר הָלַךְ עַבְדִּי יְשַׁעְיָהוּ עָרוֹם וְיָחֵף שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים אוֹת וּמוֹפֵת עַל מִצְרַיִם וְעַל כּוּשׁ׃ - And the Lord said: Just as My servant Yeshayahu has walked naked and barefoot for three years as a sign and a wonder concerning Egypt and concerning Cush.
What was the purpose of this symbolic action? Malbim explains a fundamental principle that we have addressed several times: any prophecy of misfortune that God proclaims through a prophet does not necessarily come to pass; rather, it depends on the deeds of the people and the conduct of man. If man repents and amends his ways, the harsh decree is averted. For this reason, a prophet is not tested through prophecies of misfortune. As the Rambam writes: if you wish to test a prophet to know if he is a true prophet, as the Torah cautions us to test him initially until his status is established before us, he is tested only through prophecies of good, for God never retracts a promise of good.
However, there is a situation where the Holy One, blessed be He, decrees an adverse decree and does not retract it: when He commands the prophet to perform a physical action alongside the prophecy. The Holy One, blessed be He, does not suffice with speech alone; rather, He tells the prophet: go and perform an action. That very action brings the matter down from the realm of thought and from an abstract, spiritual state into something real, tangible, physical, and earthly, and through this the decree must come to pass and cannot be nullified. This is why we find prophecies where the prophet was commanded to take a flask, write such and such in it, cast it into the river, and say, "Thus shall Babylon sink" - all of these were performed within physical reality. So too with Elisha, who told the king to take arrows and shoot toward Aram, and afterward to strike the arrows on the ground. The purpose of every physical action is to bring the decree down into physical reality, thereby guaranteeing its certain fulfillment.
From here we can understand why the Malbim explains, in contrast to the Radak, that the act was actually performed in reality and not merely in a prophetic vision, and why it was sufficient for him to walk this way for even a single moment in his house: the essential point is that the decree be brought down into the physical realm.
All the more so, the Malbim explains, when the physical act is strange and wondrous in the eyes of the beholders. The stranger and more wondrous the act, the more forcefully its fulfillment is established. Therefore, it is said here that Yeshayahu's walking naked and barefoot would be "a sign and a wonder upon Egypt and upon Cush." A sign means a token and a reminder, whereas a wonder is something beyond the natural order, something strange and unusual for people to witness. So too was the command to Hoshea to marry a harlot. The purpose was to ground the prophecy firmly in reality, and the more astonishing the act, the more it has the status of a wonder, and this itself guarantees its fulfillment.
כֵּן יִנְהַג מֶלֶךְ אַשּׁוּר אֶת שְׁבִי מִצְרַיִם וְאֶת גָּלוּת כּוּשׁ נְעָרִים וּזְקֵנִים עָרוֹם וְיָחֵף וַחֲשׂוּפַי שֵׁת עֶרְוַת מִצְרָיִם׃ - So shall the king of Assyria lead away the captives of Egypt and the exiles of Cush, young and old, naked and barefoot, with bared buttocks, the shame of Egypt.
According to the Malbim, "three years" in the previous verse does not mean that he walked naked and barefoot for three years, but rather that three years from then, this would come to pass. The king of Assyria would conquer Egypt and lead away its captives, and wage war against Cush and lead away the exile of Cush.
A precision in the wording should be noted: the verse says "the captives of Egypt" and "the exile of Cush," and not the reverse. What is the difference between captivity and exile? The Malbim explains that he did not exile Egypt entirely, but merely took captives from it - meaning the core population of Egypt remained in its place, and he carried off captives; whereas Cush was exiled entirely, which is why it says "the exile of Cush."
"With bared buttocks" - Rashi explains that this refers to the place of excrement, as in the verse, "and cut off their garments in the middle, even to their buttocks." And why did this retribution come upon them? Egypt was the son of Cham, along with Put and Canaan, and Cham saw the nakedness of his father and did not cover it. Therefore, the punishment was measure for measure: you shall be naked and barefoot, with bared buttocks.
The Radak raises a question: after having stated "naked and barefoot," why is it necessary to add "with bared buttocks," when that is already included? Rather, "naked" does not necessarily mean completely unclothed; often it means sparsely dressed or poorly clad, like one whose clothes are torn or short. Here, however, Scripture teaches that they would be naked to the extent of exposing their buttocks, as this term refers to the buttocks as well as to the private parts.
The Malbim adds another reason: Egypt is characterized as a lewd woman, and the prophets continually condemned her and spoke of "the nakedness of Egypt." Egypt always symbolized impurity and all matters of licentiousness, possessing the fifty gates of impurity. Therefore, the punishment is measure for measure: "with bared buttocks, the shame of Egypt."
וְחַתּוּ וָבֹשׁוּ מִכּוּשׁ מַבָּטָם וּמִן מִצְרַיִם תִּפְאַרְתָּם׃ - And they shall be dismayed and ashamed of Cush their expectation, and of Egypt their glory.
The Malbim explains that the verses are parallel: "And they shall be dismayed because of Cush their hope," and "and ashamed because of Egypt their glory." Those whose gaze was turned toward Cush to receive help and assistance will now be shattered and broken (yechatu) - for those we expected to help us cannot even help themselves. And those who boasted and said, "Do not worry, we are allies of Egypt, we have a mutual defense treaty with them, we are all set" - will be put to shame. Come and see what became of Egypt, whom you trusted and relied upon, when Sancheiriv arrived to deal with them! The verse is pointing here to Yehudah, who thought they had nothing to worry about because they had Cush and Egypt to lean on; now they will suffer shame and heartbreak, for those they depended upon were shattered first.
וְאָמַר יֹשֵׁב הָאִי הַזֶּה בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא הִנֵּה כֹה מַבָּטֵנוּ אֲשֶׁר נַסְנוּ שָׁם לְעֶזְרָה לְהִנָּצֵל מִפְּנֵי מֶלֶךְ אַשּׁוּר וְאֵיךְ נִמָּלֵט אֲנָחְנוּ׃ - And the inhabitant of this isle shall say on that day: "Behold, such is our hope, whither we fled for help to be delivered from the king of Ashur; and how shall we escape?"
"This isle" refers to Eretz Yisrael and Yehudah. Why is it called an i (isle)? There are two explanations for this. The Radak explains: i, because it borders the sea. An i does not necessarily mean what we call an island today, such as Great Britain, which is surrounded by the sea on all sides; partial border with the sea is enough, and Eretz Yisrael is called an i because it has a border along the sea. But the Malbim says this has nothing to do with what we call an island today: i means a province or region. A proof of this is that the term i is also used regarding Yerushalayim, even though it has no sea at all (aside from the Molten Sea of Shlomo), and yet it is called an i - which indicates that i means a region.
"And the inhabitant of this isle shall say on that day" - meaning the inhabitants of Yerushalayim and the land of Yehudah, who trusted in Egypt and Cush, thinking that they were in the same predicament with us and would help us be saved from Sancheiriv. Then they will see: "Behold, such is our hope, whither we fled for help" - toward them we directed our gaze and expected them to help us be delivered from the king of Ashur, "and how shall we escape?" If they could not even defend themselves, how could we be preserved and saved through them? This will lead them to realize that they have no one to rely on or lean upon, and ultimately, it was the Holy One, blessed be He, Who saved them.
In the year Tartan came to Ashdod, three years before Sancheiriv's campaign against Yerushalayim, Yeshayahu was commanded to walk naked and barefoot as a sign and a portent. The Radak explains that this all took place within a prophetic vision, consistent with his approach to the commands given to Hoshea and Yechezkel. The Malbim explains it literally, though a single day or a brief hour inside his home was sufficient, for the purpose of the physical action was to ground the prophecy in reality and ensure its irrevocable fulfillment. Rashi explains ufitachta from the term for engraving seals (pituchei chotam), meaning he was to bind the sackcloth tightly around himself like a mourner. The substance of the prophecy: the king of Ashur will lead away the captives of Egypt and the exiles of Cush, naked and barefoot with buttocks exposed, measure for measure for the nakedness of Egypt and for Cham who gazed upon his father's nakedness. Hence the message to the inhabitants of Yehudah: whoever pinned their hopes on Cush and took pride in Egypt will be dismayed and ashamed; when they see that even these empires could not save themselves, they will understand that they have no one to lean on other than their Father in Heaven, Who alone is the Savior.