ישעיהו, פרק כ׳, פסוק ב׳

Isaiah receives an unusual and dramatic divine command, requiring him to perform an extreme physical act. This message from God is not merely His personal directive to the prophet, but a profound warning directed at the Israelites regarding the impending disaster destined for Egypt and Cush [רד״ק, שד״ל]. Urged to act swiftly [מצודת ציון], Isaiah is instructed to alter his garments in a way that has sparked deep debate among scholars.

At the time, Isaiah was already wearing sackcloth. This attire was either a mourning practice over the exile of the Ten Tribes or a standard custom among prophets to distance themselves from physical luxuries [רד״ק, אבן עזרא, שד״ל, מלבי״ם, מצודת דוד]. The primary approach among commentators is that God instructs him to untie and remove this sackcloth, which functioned as a belt or outer garment, and to take off his shoes as a clear symbol of mourning [רש״י, מצודת ציון, שד״ל, מלבי״ם באור המילות].

However, an alternative tradition interprets the command in the exact opposite manner. Rather than removing the garment, Isaiah is told to bind the sackcloth so tightly around himself that it would leave deep marks engraved in his flesh. This perspective assumes he was not previously wearing sackcloth and stems from a desire to protect the prophet's dignity, ensuring he would not become a subject of public mockery by walking around with unfastened clothing [רש״י, חומת אנך, שד״ל].

The most significant point of contention revolves around the description of the prophet walking naked and barefoot. The idea of God commanding a prophet to walk completely exposed raises obvious difficulties. One approach resolves this by suggesting the event never occurred in physical reality. Similar to unusual commands given to other prophets, this was an entirely internal experience within a prophetic vision, unfolding instantly in the prophet's mind regardless of how long it seemed to last [רד״ק, אבן עזרא].

Conversely, others strongly reject the idea of a mere vision. For the act to serve as an effective public warning to the nation, it had to be carried out physically and visibly over time [שד״ל, מלבי״ם]. According to this view, the description of nakedness does not imply absolute nudity. Instead, it means Isaiah walked in torn, worn-out clothing [רש״י], or simply without his outer garment and belt. This state left his clothes open and a small amount of skin exposed, placing him in a position of deep public shame [שד״ל, ביאור שטיינזלץ]. A logical proof for this partial exposure is the specific mention of him being barefoot; had he been completely nude, noting the absence of his shoes would be redundant. Yet, a minority opinion maintains that Isaiah was indeed left entirely bare, as the sackcloth he removed had been his only piece of clothing [מצודת דוד].