See Clearly

On the Shabbos that immediately proceeds Tisha B’av, or in the case of this year coincides with it, the Haftorah we Lein begins with the words “Chazon Yeshayahu ben Amotz”. Accordingly, the Shabbos has become known as “Shabbos Chazon”. The practice of “naming” this Shabbos based on the Haftorah is not new—the Rama in Hilchos Tisha B’Av does so, but in a way that ever so slightly different than common parlance: he calls it “Shabbos Shel Chazon.” Interestingly, he calls the Shabbos after Tisha B’av “Shabbos Nachamu”, after the first word in that week’s Haftorah, using the familiar construct. It seems, then, that the addition of the word “Shel” when speaking about this Shabbos is meaningful—it would imply that this is a Shabbos of Chazon. The implication is that on the Shabbos prior to Tisha B’Av our mood and outlook is to be defined by this word, so as to prepare us for the coming week. This being the case, it is clear that we must fully understand the implication of this term so that we may use it to frame our mindset for Shabbos as well as Tisha B’Av itself.

The Haftorah itself comes from the first Perek of Sefer Yeshaya and, as fits the time in which we read it, includes a most brutal Tochacha of Yehudah and Yerushalayim. It is almost impossible to read the Pessukim of the Haftora without emotion, as the Navi speaks in such stark terms about the state of Klal Yisroel. We are described as “Zera Meraim Banim Mashchisim” whose appearance in the Chatzros Hakodesh is unwanted, we the “Ramos Chatzerei”. Our divergence from the Derech Hayashar has rendered our Korbanos unwanted, and our fate has been determined: “Enachem MiTzarai V’Enkima M’Oivai”. All this, the most cutting criticism and the most desperate warning, are proceeded by the opening Passuk: “Chazon Yeshayahu ben Amotz.”

Although the Pessukim of the Haftorah appear at the very beginning of Sefer Yeshaya, it seems that they appear out of chronological order. The Mechilta in Parshas Beshalch notes that the first Nevuah that Yeshayahu received is one that appears later in the Sefer. There are others that take a different approach, but if we are to subsume the view of the Mechilta, as Rashi here does, we must of course understand why the Nevuah of Chazon Yeshayahu is placed at the beginning of the Sefer. The Mechilta itself uses there Pessukim as an example of “Ain Mukdam U’Meuchar BaTorah”, the concept that Pessukim may sometimes appear out of order, but does not explain why in this case a later Nevuah appears first.

The Gr”a, in his Pirush on Sefer Yeshaya, notes that this Passuk is an introduction to the Sefer: the biographical information tells us who the Navi was and when he lived, while the word “Chazon” tells us the purpose of the Sefer—it is a Sefer Nevuah. if we were to better understand the word, Chazon, then we may understand why this Nevuah is specifically chosen to be the first in the Sefer, so that the term “Chazon” can set the tone.

Metzudos tells us that the basic meaning of the word Chazon is “Inyan Re’iah V’Habata”, it refers to a sight or vision. There does however seem to be an implied meaning as well, as Rashi here notes that the word Chazon is used for this Nevuah of very harsh Tochacha, because “Chazon...Kasha M’Asarah Leshonos Shenikrah Nevuah”. Clearly, in the view of Rashi, the use of the word Chazon is not incidental—the use of the Lashon that is “Kasha MiKulan” befits the nature of the Nevuah. Certainly, however, we cannot assume that the literal meaning of the word Chazon, “Inyan Re’iah V’Habata”, and its implication “Kasha MiKulan”, are unrelated. In order to perhaps further understand the true meaning of this word, we must look at the Medrash on which the words of Rashi are based.

Chazal in Beraishis Rabba tell us of ten Leshonos used to describe an interaction between HKBH and a human, including Dibur, Amira, Tzivuy, Massah and of course Chazon. The Medrash then brings the opinion of R’ Eliezer: “Kasha Shebekulan…Chzaon”, that the term Chazon is the harshest of them all. After citing other opinions as to which Lashon is “Kasha”, the Medrash concludes: “Gadol Kocho Shel Avrom SheNidaber Imo B’Dibur U’viChazon”, Avrohom Avinu must have had a great Koach, because Hashem spoke to him using two of the terms that are mentioned as “Kasha”: Dibur and Chazon. The Passuk to which the Medrash refers appears in Parshas Lech Lecha, at the beginning of the Bris Bein HaBesarim, when the Torah tells us: “Haya D’var Hashem El Avrom B’Mechzeh.”

If we look at that Passuk, which ends with the words “Al Tirah Avrom…Sechorcha Harbei Me’od” a question arises: if Chazon is a Lashon that is “Kasha”, why is it used here? If he purpose of this Nevurah was to allay Avrohom’s fears—there are various Chazal that suggest why he may have been afraid—why would it be done with a Lashon Kasha?

The truth is that the concept of Chazon as a Lashon Kasha, which Rashi here takes for granted, seems itself to be in question.

Abarbenel, in his introduction to Sefer Yeshaya, notes that there are many places that the word Chazon is used for good Nevuos, such as “Chazon Ovadiah” which is a Nevuah of Nechama. He therefore submits that the term Chazon refers not to the tone of the Nevuah but to its quality: a Chazon is an especially clear vision. The Nevuah of Yeshayahu, he explains, was on a higher level than other Neviim, who received their Nevuos as dreams of a sort.

Similarly, Malbim, in his Pirush on the words “Haya D’var Hashem El Avrom B’Mechzeh” explains that Chazon is a “Madreigah Meyuchedes Min HaNevuah”, a special level of Nevuah in which the Navi sees everything “B’Ayin HaLev”.

Taking all this into account, how are we to understand the word “Chazon”, which, as the Gr”a explains, sets the tone for Sefer Yeshaya? If it is always a Lashon Kasha, why is it used at the beginning of the Bris Bein HaBesarim, and if it simply denotes clarity in the Nevuah, why was it vital for us to know that Yeshayahu received his Nevuos in this manner? What do we gain by learning that the Nevuos of Yeshayahu were especially clear and vivid?

Perhaps we can resolve these two implications of the word “Chazon” based on an idea brought by the Maharal in Gevuros Hashem, his Pirush on the Haggadah.

In a discussion about the development and leadership of Moshe Rabbeinu, the Maharal brings a Medrash in Shemos Rabba which asks a question: why did the origins of Moshe’s leadership, his encounter at the Sneh, have to take place in the Midbar? The Medrash explains that there was a message being sent through this location: “Amar HKBh L’Moshe Attah Asid L’Haalos Yisroel MiMitzrayim B’Zechus Mi SheDibarti Imo Bein HaBesarim”. Chazal tell us that the Midbar was a reference to Avrohom, whom Hashem spoke to, because it was in his Zechus that Yisroel would leave Mitzrayim. The connection between Avrohom and the Midbar seems a bit tenuous however, as the Medrash links the term “Dibur” to Midbar.

The Maharal explains the Medrash based on a Klal that appears throughout his writings: the Midbar, a place of desolation, signifies the Middas Din. In most cases, when discussing this concept, the Maharal notes that it is “Yaduah L’Kol”, meaning that it is intellectually understood rather than being based on Divrei Chazal. The Bris Bein HaBesarim, he continues, also had an aspect of Din: after the animals were split, a heavenly fire passed between them. Fire, it is easily understood, is also a representation of the Midas HaDin. Thus, when Chazal connect the Midbar to the Bris Bein HaBesarim it is not only because of the term Dibur, but because of the Middas HaDin that was present in both.

The question that follows is why Middas HaDin was necessary in the Bris Bein HaBesarim. As we noted, this was an overall positive Nevuah, in which the fate and resilience of Avrohom and his offspring were assured, why was there an element of Din?

As we know, the central theme of the Bris Bein Habsarim was the promise that the descendants of Avrohom, would inherit Eretz Yisroel: “VDor HaRevii Yoshuvu Hena”. The Maharal explains why HKBH specifically wished to make this promise using Middas HaDin: “She’Az Yiskayem BiVadai”, for then it was certain to happen. The nature of Middas HaDin, Maharal explains, is that it is static—if a promise is made through the Middas Hadin it must occur. Elsewhere he explains that this is because something can only be determined through Din if it is present and visible, it exists. Therefore, when something is done through Middas Hadin it is as though it already happened.

As part of this discussion, the Maharal also explains that the word Chazon, defined by Chazal as a Lashon Kasha, is a Lashon of Din. Thus, the use of the term Chazon, in the Passuk “Haya D’var Hashem El Avrom B’Mechzeh”, is another element of Din present in the Bris Bein Habsarim, because Chazon is a Lashon of Din. It emerges, then, that the idea of Kasha Mikulan is not abstract, it does not mean that Chazon denotes a sad or difficult Nevuah, but one that comes through Din.

This understanding of the word Chazon is extremely helpful, as it answers the majority of our questions. When a Nevuah is said through Chazon, it comes with all aspects of Din. Because Din only applies to that which already in some way exists, a Nevuah of Chazon is especially clear and vivid, as Abarbanel and Malbim explain. It also has the other aspect of Din however, in that it is unchanging. If a Navi receives a Nevuah through a Chazon, the Nevuah cannot be reversed—it will in some way come true. Thus, when the subject matter is negative, a Chazon is especially chilling, or Kasha, as in the case of Yeshaya.

Maybe, however, the connection between the Chazon of Avrohom and that of Yeshayahu is instructive as well. When Avrohom received the Nevuah of the Bris Bein Habsarim it came through Din, a Middah that has negative connotations, but for a positive reason: so that it would be unflinching. Later, Moshe is told about the Geulah of Klal Yisroel in the Midbar, a place of Din, to show that despite the intervening pain and suffering, the Nevuah of Avrohom, given through Din, will still come true. Din, then, is not an absolute negative—in the long run it is for our own good, though at times we only see half the picture.

Chazon Yeshayahu ben Amotz, the Navi received a Nevuah that was indeed Kasha MiKulan, as it foretold the eventual Churban and Galus. But it is given in a way that harkens back to the Nevuah of Avrohom Avinu, the original case of Din that, in the long run, was for our benefit. The Bris Bein Habsarim predicted the Shibud, but also the eventual Geula and Yerushas HaAretz.

Perhaps this is the message which sets the tone for all for Yeshayahu’s frightening Nevuos, as well as our Shabbos and Tisha B’Av. As much as we suffer, and as much as we must pay for our misdeeds, there is a Dayan Emes, the Din that we experience has an ultimate purpose. While at times we only feel the reality of VaAvdum V’inu Osam, the eventuality of V’Acharei Chen Yetzu B’Rechush Gadol is in the offing.

When we read the Nevuah of Yeshayahu, with all its raw emotion, when we sit on the floor and contemplate the words of Eicha and the Kinnos, we are meant to remember the message of the Chazon: as much as today we live in the world of “Eicha Haysa L’Zonah Kiryah Ne’emana”, well within our reach are the days of “Tzion B’Mishpat Tipadeh V’Shaveha B’Tzadaka”