Comentario citado sobre Isaías 40:16

So it is with any [of the prophetic words] that God commanded to be written. As stated in Bereshis Rabbah 85, “The Book of Daniel was not written in chronological order, so that people should not say that it was merely a historical account. [Rather, it is] in order for all to know that he [Daniel] uttered [these words] through Divine inspiration.” The meaning of this midrash is, since [the Book of Daniel] was not written in chronological order – the way in which it would be written if it originated in the human intellect – it is then understood that this book contains concealed matters, and for this reason it needed to be written in this manner. If this was said of the Book of Daniel, which is in the Hagiographa and written in Aramaic,¹⁴The Mishnah refers to Hebrew as Lashon ha-kodesh, “the holy tongue,” in order to distinguish it from Aramaic or other “secular languages” spoken by the Jewish people (see Sotah 7:2–4; 8:1). how much more so are the books of the Prophets which are even greater in holiness [written in an ambiguous way, as they conceal hidden matters]. It is because of this [Divine plan] that there are many verses in which because of either extraneous or missing words, the language does not appear to be [written] in a precise manner. All of the thirty-two rules of aggadic exegesis¹⁵These rules are distinct from Rabbi Ishmael’s thirteen rules of biblical exegesis, although some of the latter are contained within the thirty-two rules of aggadic exegesis, which are attributed to R. Eliezer ben R. Yosi ha-Gelili and can be found at the end of Tractate Berachos. The following are a few examples of these rules: 1. Other items or individuals may be included in a scriptural statement by the use of particles such as “es.” Since “es” is used in Gen. 21:1, “And God remembered Sarah as He had said,” we infer that all barren women were remembered together with Sarah. 2. Some words function as a limitation, such as “ach,” which is usually translated as “only.” It states in Gen. 7:23, “and Noah ach (only) remained alive.” We infer from this that Noah was coughing and spitting blood. Since ach is a limitation, we infer that something was wrong with Noah. 3. Gezerah shavah, an analogy through the use of identical words. We infer that the prophet Samuel was a Nazirite because the word moreh (razor) is used concerning both Samson and Samuel, and since it is known that Samson was a Nazirite, we learn that Samuel was a Nazirite as well. and all the toil of the more straightforward expounders of Biblical text [do not provide] sufficient explanations, or elevate one’s understanding [of the verses],¹⁶The Netziv uses a play on words regarding the verse in Isa. 40:16, “Lebanon does not contain sufficient fuel, nor are its beasts sufficient for burnt-offerings.” By exchanging the ayin of ba’er with an alef, “fuel” becomes “explanation.” The word olah, meaning “burnt-offering,” can also be translated as “enhancement.” so that one could understand why it was written in an ambiguous manner [and what it intended to teach].