Commentaire sur Isaïe 1:1

the vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz Said Rabbi Levi: We have a tradition from our ancestors that Amoz and Amaziah, king of Judah, were brothers.

חזון The vision of. The נ is not radical.¹The root of חזון is חזה to see; in חזון the radical ה is omitted, and וֹן is added, as in קדמון ,זכרון ,חשבון.

which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem Now, did he not prophesy concerning many nations, viz. the prophecy of Babylonia (ch. 13), the prophecy of Moab (ch. 15)? Thus you learn that this is not the beginning of the Book, and that the Book is not given its name for this prophecy. So we learned in the Baraitha of the Mechilta (Exod. 15: 9,10): “In the year of King Uzziah’s death” (6:1) is the beginning of the Book, but there is no early and late in the order [i.e., the order of the chapters is no indication of the chronological order. (Others read: There is no early and late in the Book—Parshandatha.] The context proves this point, for, on the day of the earthquake (see Zech. 14:5), the day Uzziah became a metzora (see 2 Chron. 26:19), it was said: “Whom shall I send and who will go for us?” And I said, “Here I am; send me” (6:8). We learn that this was the beginning of his mission, and this prophecy was said afterwards. And concerning this alone, it is stated: which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem, just as Scripture says concerning each nation, “the prophecy of such and such a nation.” Here too, Scripture writes: “which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem.” Since they are harsh reproofs, he calls them “chazon,” which is the harshest of the ten expressions by which prophecy is called, as is stated in Gen. Rabbah (44:7), and proof of this is the verse (infra 21:2), “A harsh prophecy (חָזוּת) was told to me.”

The son of Amoz. There exists an opinion, though a solitary one,²This is the opinion of R. Johanan (comp. Midrash Rabba, Leviticus 6), and Ulla (comp. Talmud Babli, Megilla 15a). that when the father of a prophet is mentioned by name, he also was a prophet; another³R. Levi said, ‘ We know by tradition that Amoz and Amaziah were brothers.’ (Talmud Babli, Megilla 10b.) opinion is, that Isaiah was a member of the royal family, that his father Amoz and Amaziah⁴Amaziah was king of Juda, before Uzziah, 835—806. were brothers, and that the evil-disposed of Israel were unable on that account to do harm to Isaiah, as they did to Jeremiah (vid. Jer. 38); but in fact Isaiah did not escape persecution, for he says, I gave my back to smiters, etc. (1. 6). Irrespectively of all traditional explanations, we may say that the father of a prophet, if mentioned by name, was a man of some distinction, whose character rendered him conspicuous among his fellow-men; sometimes he was himself a prophet, at others not, e.g., David, the son of Jesse (2 Sam. 23:1). David was the man of God (2 Chron. 8:14), Jesse was not. It is with prophecy as with royalty; comp. Jehu, king of Israel, the son of Nimshi (1 Kings 19:16); Nimshi was not a king. We read, it is true, In the vision of Isaiah, the son of Amoz, the prophet⁵A. V. The prophet, the son of Amoz. (2 Chron. 32:32), where the qualifying term, the prophet, may as well be referred to Amoz as to Isaiah; but from the words, To Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amoz (2 Kings 19:2), we learn that Isaiah was the prophet. ⁶This is not so evident as I. E. seems to believe; since from the same two verses just the opposite inference is made, Midrash Rabba (Leviticus 6); namely, that both Isaiah and Amoz were prophets, because the epithet, the prophet, is in the one verse closely joined to the former, in the other to the latter. Ibn Ezra, who recommends the accents as an excellent guide for the reading and understanding of the Bible (comp. 5:9), should have gathered better evidence from the accents. אמוץ has a disjunctive accent, and is to be separated from the following הנְביא ; were they to be joined, their accents would be in the following way, ישעיה֨ו בן־אמ֣וץ הנביא Thus the forefathers of Zephania are named (Zeph. 1:1), because the king Hezekiah was one of them.

in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, [and] Hezekiah, kings of Judah. These four kings he buried, [i.e. he outlived,] in his lifetime. On the day Uzziah became a metzora, the Shechinah rested upon him, and he prophesied all the days of these kings, until Manasseh arose and killed him. (And this prophecy was said in the days of Hezekiah after the ten tribes were exiled.)

Concerning Judah and Jerusalem. The greater part of Isaiah’s prophecies refer to the cities of Judah, which were to be taken by the king of Assyria, and to Jerusalem, which was to be delivered out of his hand; the whole of the second part of the Book of Isaiah has as its subject the exile of Judah, the other tribes not being mentioned here at all.

In the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah. Isaiah very probably commenced his prophetical career in the last year of King Uzziah, as shall be explained below (6:1). In strict regard to the words of the text, we think that he died in the days of Hezekiah; for had he lived in the days of Manasse, the son of Hezekiah, it would certainly have been stated in this verse. Some say that Isaiah was slain by Manasse, because he exclaimed, Mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts (6:5).⁷Manasse is said to have tried and condemned Isaiah for having declared that he had seen the Lord, in contradiction to the words of the Law, There shall no man see me and live (Exod. 33:20); comp. Talm. Babli, Yebamoth 49b; Talm. Jerushalmi, Sanhedrin 10:2. If this statement is based on tradition,⁸Simeon ben Azai (Talm. Babli, Yebamoth 49b) bases this statement on notes found in a Megillath Johasim, a sort of family record; the question, however, still remains whether those notes were derived from any ancient and trustworthy authority. it may be accepted.