x-mailing-list: daf-disc...@shemayisrael.com(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.)
_
THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
d...@dafyomi.co.il
[REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL]
Re: Yeshayahu 7: Nevu'ah of Birth of Chizkiyahu
David asks:
This is a moradike kashe. Given all the information in Sefer Melachim 2
and Divrei Hayamim 2 perek 28 about the ages of Achaz and Chizkiyahu, how
is it possible that the nevua of Yoshayahu in 7:14 could refer to the birth
of Chizkiyahu. It is mefurash that he became king at the age of 25 and that
his father Achaz was king at the age of 20 for 16 years. Thus when Achaz
was facing the Assyrians as king Chizkiyahu was already around 9 or 10
years old!
There are no references that I could find that Achaz lived longer than 36
years, or that he made Chizkiyahu a king when he was 15 years old, 10 years
before. It is inconceivable that Chizkiyahu could have been king during the
lifetime of his father with all the impurities around for 10 years.
And such an arrangement is mentioned nowhere.
Thus, the only teyruts I could think of is that the consolation of
Yeshayahu to Achaz is not meant as a nevua for the future, but a reminder
of what happened with Chizkiyahu's original birth 10 years earlier.
Looking into this further according to the shita that the nevua was about a
son of Achaz, the Redak and Abarbanel suggest it might be another wife's
son, not Chizkiyahu. This person is never described in Chazal or Tanach, so
how could the birth of such a son be so important, especially to a person
like Achaz?!
What are your thoughts about this?
The Kollel replied:
David, I agree that this is an excellent Kushya!
1) In fact, it is asked by Rashi. Rashi to Yeshayahu 7:14 writes that the
baby born cannot be Chizkiyahu because Chizkiyahu was born 9 years before
his father became king. Therefore, Rashi says it must be referring to a
different son of Achaz.
2) However, this son was very significant to Achaz. The point is that the
birth of this son was a great test to Achaz. The test was: did he trust in
Hashem? To our regret he failed the test. The reason we do not see a
description of this son elsewhere is because Achaz missed his tremendous
chance.
3) The Os that Hashem was giving to Achaz was a sign that He wanted to
help Achaz if only Achaz would believe in Hashem. Achaz was fighting
Retzin, the king of Aram, and Pekach ben Remalyahu, the king of Yisrael.
Hashem was giving a sign to Achaz that Imanu Kel -- Hashem is with us.
This wonderful boy would eat butter and honey, would do only good things,
would shun all bad things. This was symbolic of what Achaz was capable of
doing if he wanted to. Rashi writes that Ru'ach ha'Kodesh would rest upon
them if only they would go in the ways of Hashem and the Torah. If Achaz
would utilize his great potential and abilities to do good things, then
Hashem would save him from his enemies.
4) This is what we are told in verse 16. The two hostile kings would leave
Eretz Yisrael if Achaz would act properly.
The Kollel added:
1) I found a Midrash Rabah which does understand that Yeshayah 7:14
refers to Chizkiyahu. This is in Bamidbar Rabah 14:2. The Midrash states
that there were four people in history who recognized Hashem on their own
initative. They are Avraham Avinu, Iyov, Chizkiyahu, and the Mashi'ach.
2) The Midrash writes that the proof that Chizkiyahu recognized ha'Kadosh
Baruch Hu on his own is from Yeshayah 7:15: He will eat butter and honey
from his own intelligence. We see that the Midrash understands that the
Nevu'ah of Yeshayah refers to Chizkiyahu.
3) I am not going to try too hard to reconcile this with the chronological
facts, because we have already seen that the Rishonim we cited (Rashi,
Radak, Abarbanel) wrote that the Nevu'ah cannot be referring to Chizkiyahu.
It seems, therefore, that they probably understood that the Midrash Rabah
is not to be taken literally, but is a Derash.
4) However, after making that comment, I could also support your idea,
David, that this was not a futuristic Nevu'ah, but actually was intended
for Chizkiyahu, who had already been born. It may be possible to support
this from the way the Mefarshim explain the word Os in 7:14. The Gra here
writes that this Os is not a Mofes. This seems to mean that it is not
something supernatural, but rather a Siman. It is a sign from Hashem, Who
knows from the beginning what is going to happen in the end. The Malbim
also writes that there was nothing supernatural about this Os. Rather,
the fact that the child was called Imanuel was a sign that Hashem is with
us.
5) Along these lines it might be possible to understand the Midrash that
the child
