Isaiah 1:2

Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth, for the LORD hath spoken; I have raised children, and elevated them, but they have rebelled against me.

Rashi: שמעו שמים והאזיני ארץ. Moses had said: האזינו השמים ... ותשמע הארץ ("let the heavens give ear, and let the earth hear"). Why, then, did [Isaiah] change around the language? Our Rabbis taught many midhroshim with regard to this in Poroshath Ha'azinu in the Sifrê (§66); but the H^akhomim disagreed with them, and said (ibid.):

The matter is not [to beexplained according to any of these midhroshim]; rather, at a time when the witnesses are coming to give testimony, if their words are consistent (מכוונין), their testimony stands, but if their words are not consistent, their testimony does not stand. If Isaiah had not come along and enjoined שמיעה upon the heavens, and האזנה upon the earth, then the heavens would have said: "When we were called to testimony in the days of Moses, as he said 'I call [heaven and earth] as witnesses today against you' [Deuteronomy 4:26], we heard only האזנה." And the earth would have said: "I was called only with the language of שמיעה." Thus, their testimony would not have been consistent. Isaiah came along, and switched around the words, such that each of them can now give testimony both with the language of שמיעה and of האזנה.

כי יי דבר -- for the LORD hath spoken that you should be witnesses about the matter. And where did He speak? האזינו השמים ואדברה (Deuteronomy 32:1). Thus is taught in the M^ekhilto (Pisho 21:12).

[כי יי דבר -- for the LORD hath spoken that I warned [Israel] in the days of Moses, and you [O heavens and earth] should come and hear that I am arguing with them, for they have transgressed My warning; I did not act-offensively [סָרַחְתִּי] against them, but rather I raised them and elevated them-- yet they have rebelled against me.]

Isaiah 1:1

The vision of Isaiah ben Amoz, which he envisioned concerning Judah and Jerusalem, in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah.

Rashi: חזון ישעיהו בן אמוץ, etc. Rebbi Lêvi said (Megillo 10b): We have a tradition from our ancestors that 'Omôtz and 'Amatzyo King of Judah were brothers.

אשר חזה על יהודה וירושלים. But did he not prophesy about a number of nations? "The burden of Egypt" (Isaiah 19:1); "the burden of Babylonia" (Isaiah 13:1); "the burden of Moab" (Isaiah 15:1). Thus you learn that this is not the beginning of the book, and the book is not named after this vision. We learn this in a boraitho in the M^ekhilto (Shiro, B^eshallaḥ 7):

The beginning of the book is "In the year of King Uzziah's death..." (Isaiah 6:1), for there is no earlier or later in the sequence. The contents prove this, for on the day of The Earthquake, the day when Uzziah was afflicted with tzora`ath, [Isaiah] "heard the voice of the LORD saying: 'Whom shall I send, and who shall go forth for us?'; and I replied: 'Here I am, send me!'." (Isaiah 6:8) From this we can derive that [this event] must have been the beginning of his mission.

This prophecy [in chapter 1] was said only afterwards, and it is with respect to this prophecy alone that the verse says אשר חזה על יהודה וירושלים. Just as it reports about the burden of each and every nation "the burden of Nation X", so does it say here "he envisioned this vision with respect to Judah and Jerusalem".

Because [this chapter] consists of harsh statements of rebuke, it calls them חזון, which is the harshest of the ten expressions that refer to prophecy, as is stated in B^erêshith Rabbo (44:6); a proof-text for this is the verse חָזוּת קָשָׁה הֻגַּד לִי, "a harsh חזות was told to me" (Isaiah 21:2).

בימי עזיהו יותם אחז יחזקיהו מלכי יהודה. He outlived (קִיפֵּחַ, literally overpowered or buried) these four kings in his lifetime. On the day when Uzziah was stricken by tzora`ath (supernatural skin-disease), the Divine Presence first descended upon [Isaiah]; and he prophesied all the days of these kings, until Menasseh came along and killed [Isaiah].

Discussion question: What can we say about Rashi's use of the idiom קִיפֵּחַ to describe Isaiah's outliving of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah? And why is it necessary to say that Menasseh executed Isaiah? Remember, this detail appears nowhere in any biblical text. How does it help to elucidate this verse?

Introduction

Back in the day, about two years ago, I decided to create (form? produce? invent? fashion) a translation of Rashi's commentary online, in which I would translate each comment of Rashi, focussing on its literary qualities, and I would open up the blog-comments to reactions and suggestions from readers.

I received the following "letter of reccomendation" (הסכמה) in a comment from Avi Shmidman:

I'd like to throw my full support behind [Gabriel Wasserman]'s current endeavor. As we all know, translation is not a mechanical process, but rather a process of understanding and recreation, both in terms of form and content. (For one the most introspective and entertaining treatments of this issue, see Le Ton Beau De Marot by D. Hofstadter).

The primary gain of this endeavor is, of course, for MG, who will be forced to personally grapple with every Rashi in the book of Isaiah. Just perusing or reading Rashi does not force one to commit to a full understanding of the text as does the formation of a translation; therefore, when [Gabriel] has finished, he will have achieved a remarkable understanding of the text of Rashi on Isaiah, something which will serve him in all his future writing.

Beyond this, however, we should also consider issue of form. Rashi's linguistic style has been famously analyzed for its precision, its concision, and its adherence to Rabbinic stylistic structures (see for instance Hazan's article in the Bar Ilan volume entitled 'Iyunei Rashi', or Fraenkel's doctorate regarding the stylistics of Rashi's commentary on Talmud). Yet, the existing translations tend to eschew those principles in favor of content-based analyses. Thus, what we have here is an opportunity for everybody's favority language maven to set to the task of translating Rashi not only for his content, but also for his form, applying the stylistic characteristics of the original in adaptation to English. (On the question of translation of form see Hofstadter at length, and also see Alter's translation of the Bible).

In fact, such a translation endeavor will naturally extend its breadth to the full readership of the blog, as we use the comments forum to debate the most ideal fashion in which Rashi's form can be adapted into the English language, finding the most concise way in which to present Rashi's precise point.

Finally, since [Gabriel] will be enhancing his own understanding of Rashi's methods and style as he moves along, I sincerely hope that he will soon begin appending editorial notes to his translations, commenting on Rashi's motivations for his phraseology and his conclusions, and for his midrashic selection. For this [Gabriel] can certainly apply the extensive published research of Rashi's methods, from Siftei Hachamim to Sara Kamin, and then he can move beyond to develop some methods of his own. And once again, I think that this will turn the blog from a purely informative translation into a den of dynamic discussion. This last stage may have to wait a few months, until MG builds up his momemtum. But I do hope that it will soon take off, propelling Rashi's commentary full-force into the blogosphere.

The project never got off the ground, because I abandoned it after a few days. However, I would like to resume the project now. I shall copy my old translations of the first few comments of Rashi, and then I shall proceed onward to the further comments.

Welcome to my blog, the virtual home of today's online Literary Rashi Project!