ישעיהו, פרק נ״ג, פסוק ד׳

A dramatic moment of historical awakening unfolds as onlookers experience a profound shift in perspective. Those who witnessed the severe suffering of the servant suddenly realize that their lifelong interpretation of his agony was entirely mistaken. Rather than looking at a sinner rightfully punished by divine providence, they now recognize a complex reality where the suffering either stems from their own actions or serves to atone for them. A sharp contrast emerges between their past assumptions and the newly revealed truth [רש"י, אבן עזרא]. The servant is recognized as bearing a heavy burden of weakness, disease, and torment [מצודת ציון, אבן עזרא].

The primary approach among commentators is that the nations of the world are describing their historical attitude toward Israel. However, there are differing views on exactly how this suffering and pain transferred to the servant. One perspective argues that the nations actively and directly caused Israel's suffering. In this view, the sickness and lowliness were not inherent traits of Israel, but rather the result of poverty, oppression, and torture forced upon them, sometimes in an effort to make them abandon their faith. Even though the nations were the ones inflicting the pain, they mistakenly believed that the suffering was a natural consequence of Israel's own sins [מלבי"ם, מצודת דוד, אבן עזרא].

Conversely, another approach presents a concept of atoning suffering. According to this view, the torment and illness should have rightfully struck the nations of the world because of their sins and false beliefs. Instead, Israel suffered in their place, effectively atoning for the sins of the world [רש"י, שד"ל, ביאור שטיינזלץ]. This raises a profound theological question regarding how one nation can bear the punishment of another. Addressing this, [רד"ק] explains that Israel was not literally punished for the sins of the nations. Rather, this reflects the subjective realization of the nations in the future. When they finally understand that their beliefs were false and that Israel held the truth, they will feel that they were the ones who deserved to suffer, viewing Israel's painful exile as a ransom and atonement on their behalf.

The fundamental error of the observers was their assumption that the servant was hated by God and subjected to divine torment because of his own personal guilt [רש"י, מצודת דוד, ביאור שטיינזלץ]. In describing him as being struck by God, commentators emphasize a critical distinction in the Hebrew reading to avoid a grave misunderstanding. The phrasing must be understood strictly as the servant being struck by God. A misreading of the vowels could disastrously imply that God Himself is the one being struck, a notion that must be carefully avoided [מנחת שי, שד"ל, אבן עזרא].