Abarbanel on Isaiah
- _.1.1.1
["Translator"'s note: This translation might not be fully accurate since it was made using Chat GPT] I begin by explaining the book according to its prophecies with the help of the one who teaches man knowledge.
- _.1.1.2
The first prophecy extends from the beginning of the book until “The matter that [Isaiah the son of Amoz] saw” (Isaiah 2:1), and it contains five sections. The first section is “the vision of Isaiah” (Isaiah 1:1). The second section is “hear the word of the Hashem” (Isaiah 1:10) The third section is “Come now, and let us reason together”(Isaiah 1:18). The fourth section is “How has the faithful city become a harlot!”(Isaiah 1:21). The fifth section is “Therefore says the Master”(Isaiah 1:24). I have seen fit to start with this prophecy because of the six questions that it raises:
- _.1.1.3
The first question is why was this prophecy placed at the beginning of the book, if Isaiah’s first prophecy was in the year of King Uzziah’s death? As it is stated “Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?” (Isaiah 6:8) and Isaiah responded, “Here I am, send me” (Isaiah 6:8). This is also stated in Midrash Mechilta and agreed upon by the commentators, so it would have been appropriate for that prophecy to be the beginning of the book. The answer given by the Sages that there is no before or later in the Bible is not satisfactory, because the question always remains as to why the prophecies were written out of order. It cannot be answered that this prophecy was not placed at the beginning of the book because Isaiah sinned by saying “I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips”(Isaiah 6:5), as he was punished for it, as is mentioned in Yevamot, because this is a method of interpretation. Rather, in this prophecy, which begins his book, he reproaches and denounces Israel more than in any other prophecy by calling them a sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, offspring of evildoers, and so on.
- _.1.1.4
The second question on what it says “The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz”, If this statement included all the prophecies in this book, as it appears from its plain meaning, how could he refer to all of them as ‘the vision’ in the singular form? It would have been more appropriate to say ‘the visions of Isaiah’ according to the phrase ‘your young men shall see visions’ (Yoel 3:1) or ‘the words of Isaiah,’ as in the case of Jeremiah, who did not use the term ‘vision’ for all of his prophecies, but only for one prophecy, like “The vision of Obadiah” (Obadiah 1:1) which is one prophecy.
- _.1.1.5
The third question asks what did Isaiah see to write in the beginning of his book such a harsh rebuke and vision that rebuked Israel? It would have been appropriate for the beginning of his words to be gentle, just as our master Moses did in Egypt and on Mount Sinai at the beginning of his prophecy, speaking words of appeasement to Israel, and only at the end of his words, in the song of Ha’azinu, did he rebuke them with harsh words, similar to the rebuke in Isaiah’s prophecy, as will be explained in the commentary on the Book of Isaiah....
- _.1.1.6
The fourth question is regarding what was said here, “which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem,” as if his prophecies were only about the people of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, but this is not the case, for he also prophesied many times about the kingdom of Israel. Even in this first prophecy, he spoke about the kingdom of Israel, as it says “Israel does not know, my people do not understand.” So why then did it say “which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem,”, it would have been appropriate to also mention the kings of Israel who he prophesied about in their time, as it says in Hosea “The word of the Lord that came to Hosea son of Beeri during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, kings of Judah, and during the reign of Jeroboam son of Jehoash king of Israel”? Additionally, why wasn’t King Manasseh mentioned, since Isaiah also prophesied during his reign? Furthermore, we find that Isaiah prophesied about other nations as well, such as Egypt, Babylon, and Moab. So why did it only mention Judah and Jerusalem?
- _.1.1.7
The fifth question in the statement “Your new moons and appointed feasts my soul hates” troubled me, because the Torah commands us regarding these appointed times, saying “These are the appointed feasts of the Lord, holy convocations.” How can it be said that He hates them? And if one were to say that it was because of their sins, it would not be fitting to say that He hates the new moons and appointed feasts, but rather their wicked deeds. Additionally, why did it mention “your new moons and appointed feasts” and not also mention “your Sabbaths”?
- _.1.1.8
The sixth question is regarding the mixed nature of the statements mentioned here, from bad to good and from good to bad. For they said “Woe to the Egyptians, my people, and to the Assyrians, the work of my hands, and Israel, my inheritance!” This is a bad prophecy. But then they say “And I will restore your judges as at the first, and your counselors as at the beginning; afterward you shall be called the city of righteousness, the faithful city.” This is a good prophecy of comfort. But then it quickly reverts to a bad prophecy with the statement “And I will break the oppressor, for the virgin daughter of Zion has despised you and laughed you to scorn.” The mixed nature of these statements creates confusion between good and bad and does not follow a logical pattern.
- _.1.1.9
And behold, I am explaining the scriptures in a more detailed manner, all of the questions.
- _.1.1.10
Overall, the purpose of this prophecy is to rebuke the people of Judah and Jerusalem for their wickedness and encourage them to repent to avoid the exile and destruction that will come upon them. The prophecy also contains messages of comfort and hope for the future, including during the reigns of Ahaz and Hezekiah. This will be further explained in the interpretation of the verses.
- _.1.1.11
Overall, the purpose of this prophecy is to rebuke the people of Judah and Jerusalem for their wickedness and encourage them to repent to avoid the exile and destruction that will come upon them. The prophecy also contains messages of comfort and hope for the future, including during the reigns of Ahaz and Hezekiah. This will be further explained in the interpretation of the verses.
- _.7.14.1
"Therefore, the Lord will give you a sign," meaning, since you do not want to ask for a sign from Him — even though He is our God, and there is none besides Him — He will give you the sign on His own, without you needing to request it. Pay attention to the fact that it says "sign" (אות) and not "miracle" (נס), "wonder" (פלא), or "portent" (מופת). This is because God was not going to perform an extraordinary, supernatural miracle for Ahaz and his people, given that they had not requested one. Without a request, Ahaz did not merit an exceptional miracle. If he would be saved from the kings of Aram and Israel, it would be due to the merit of his son Hezekiah, his ancestors, and the merit of Jerusalem itself. That salvation would be sufficient, without the need for additional signs, wonders, or great miracles. Thus, the prophet says, "The Lord will give you a sign" — meaning a symbolic sign to ensure the prophecy is not forgotten. I believe this sign could be understood in one of two ways: The sign is what Isaiah says next: "Behold, the young woman is pregnant and will bear a son, and she will call his name Immanuel." This could mean that Ahaz's wife, or perhaps his beloved daughter, was at the beginning of her pregnancy — possibly something Ahaz did not yet know. The prophet revealed that she was pregnant and would bear a son, and of her own accord, she would name him Immanuel. This would serve as a sign that God would be with Ahaz, aiding and saving him from these kings. Rashi interpreted "the young woman" as referring to the prophet’s own wife, and the sign would be that she would give birth to a son and name him Immanuel, signaling divine assistance and deliverance. However, this interpretation is difficult, since the text refers to her as "the young woman" (עלמה), not "the prophetess" (נביאה) — as she is later called in Isaiah 8:3. Therefore, it makes more sense to interpret the "young woman" as Ahaz’s wife or daughter.
- _.7.14.2
The term "young woman" is used because she was of few years, as a young boy is called an elem and a young girl is called an alma — whether she is a virgin, married, or single. The term relates to her youth, not her marital status. Additionally, it would not make sense to think that this child, called Immanuel, was Hezekiah, since Hezekiah was born nine years before his father Ahaz ascended the throne. Ahaz ruled for 16 years, and Hezekiah was 25 when he became king. It seems this prophecy occurred about two years into Ahaz’s reign. So, the "young woman" was likely a second wife that Ahaz married after Hezekiah’s mother, and the child would be her son. Or, as I suggested, the "young woman" could be Ahaz’s daughter — recently married, still young, and beloved to him. The prophecy revealed that she was pregnant (something unknown to Ahaz) and would bear a son, naming him Immanuel as a divinely inspired sign of what would occur in the land. It is also possible that the phrase "and she will call his name Immanuel" refers back to Ahaz himself, with the "tav" suffix indicating the second person, not a feminine ending — implying that despite Ahaz’s wickedness, he would give the child this name. A parallel example is found in the prophecy about Josiah's birth, where a man of God declared, "Behold, a son shall be born to the house of David, Josiah by name" (1 Kings 13:2). This level of prophetic specificity — even foretelling the name — emphasizes the completeness and strength of the prophecy, showing divine knowledge even over voluntary human choices like naming a child.
Sefaria Community Translation. Via Sefaria (sefaria.org), Sefaria-Export. Version source: https://www.sefaria.org Licence: CC0. Source.