meta: {"file": "/data/tomer/Sefaria-Export/txt/Tanakh/Commentary/Malbim/Writings/Malbim on Job/English/merged.txt"}
text: Malbim on Job
  מלבי"ם על איוב
  merged
  
  This file contains merged sections from the following text versions:
  -Malbim's Job, trans. Jeremy I. Pfeffer. Ktav, 2003
  -
  
  Malbim on Job
  
  Introduction
  
  This holy book, as is clear from its composition, is a formal debate about the apparently unfair workings of Divine Governance.2<i class="footnote">The Hebrew term is הנהגה – Governance, i.e., how God governs the world. The alternative term השגחה used is translated as 'Providence'; it is generally taken to indicate individual Providence.</i> <i>For there are righteous people who suffer the deserts of the wicked (Ecclesiastes 8:14),</i> <i>while there are wicked ones whose paths prosper…they grow and even produce fruit (Jeremiah 12:1-2).</i> <i>Yea, they vex God, yet escape capture (Malachi 3:15).</i> 
  This then is the question: 'Why do the righteous suffer and why do the wicked prosper?' The Talmudic Sages noted that even Moses, master of the prophets, had been baffled by this problem and had pleaded with God, '<i>Show me Thy Glory</i>.'3<i class="footnote"><i>Exodus </i>33:18. Malbim misquotes. The verse that actually appears in the Talmud (<i>Berachot</i> 7a) is 'Inform me of Your ways' (<i>Exodus</i> 33:13).</i> For it is by reason of this question that <i>apostates have broken away (TB Megillah 25b; TB Sanhedrin 38b)</i> and denied Providence, asserting that the world is ownerless; that there is neither reward nor punishment, neither justice nor Judge, and thus God's honor is besmirched. As Maimonides wrote in his <i>Guide for the Perplexed</i> (Part 3, Chapter 16): <i>What induced philosophers to refute Providence and to deny its existence is that at first thought we notice an absence of system in human affairs. Some pious men live a miserable and painful life, whilst some wicked people enjoy a happy and pleasant life.</i>
  According to the Talmudic Sages, Moses was the author of the Book of Job (TB Baba Batra 14b). The Midrash explains that he wrote the book in order to comfort the Children of Israel during their suffering in Egypt.4<i class="footnote">The specific Midrashic source for this assertion has eluded detection. Perhaps Malbim is referring to the Midrash (<i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 5.18) that the Israelite slaves in Egypt possessed scrolls which they would read for relaxation during the day of rest - the Sabbath - that Moses had persuaded Pharaoh to grant them by arguing that it would increase the productivity of their labor. Other than the general promise that God would redeem them, the exact contents of these scrolls and what happened to them is not recorded by the Midrash. However, in his glosses on the passage in the Talmud that ascribes the composition of  <i>Job</i> to Moses (<i>TB Baba Batra</i> 14b), Rashi notes that Moses also composed <i>Psalms</i> 90 to 101. One of these compositions, <i>Psalm</i> 92, is headed '<i>A Psalm for the Sabbath Day</i>'. However, the Psalm makes no mention of the Sabbath. It does, however, relate to the same topic as<i> Job</i>, namely, the prosperity of the wicked and the suffering of the righteous.</i> Moses was the first to research and elucidate this problem. Employing the techniques of analysis and philosophical contemplation, he examined and investigated this subject before the Word of God was revealed to him. He recorded the results of his intellectual efforts and meditations in this book, in the form of a debate, wherein he mustered all the opinions and theories that can be rationally surmised in this matter.
  And so this story about <i>the greatest man in all the East (Job 1:3)</i>, of whom God Himself testifies that there is <i>no-one like him on earth, as sincere and genuine in his fear of God and avoidance of evil (Job 1:3 &amp; 1:8)</i>. This saintly man is handed over to Satan, to be tormented. His wealth and property is destroyed and his children all die. Finally, he himself is struck down with the most dreadful bodily afflictions.
  Convinced of his own innocence and that has neither sinned nor transgressed, he deems these visitations to be both unjustified and unwarranted. Notwithstanding, <i>he continues, and with integrity</i>, (Job 2:9) <i>to believe in true faith (Isaiah 25:1)</i>, that no injustice, lack of knowledge, power or will can be attributed to God, Blessed be He, whose Perfection is absolute. He is thus driven to conclude that this evil could not have ensued from God's Providence; that He does not oversee the deeds of individual persons, nor does He mete out their reward or punishment, their benefaction or their hurt. For He has delegated this task to the universal governance ordained during the six days of Creation—the governance of the Cosmos.5<i class="footnote">הנהגת המערכת - governance of the Cosmos. As Malbim uses the term, it encompasses both Natural Astrology, which determines the movement of celestial bodies, and Judicial Astrology which determines how these movements affect sublunar (terrestrial) life.</i> Thus, God remains <i>just and true (Deuteronomy 32:4)</i> <i>and no guilt is to be found in Him (Psalms 92:16; Ezekiel 28:15)</i>. For since a person's deeds, whether righteous or evil, are all determined and apportioned by the governance of the Cosmos, he has no freedom of action and deserves neither reward nor punishment for his acts of volition, just as mill-stones, turned by flowing water, are neither rewarded if they grind the corn nor punished if they crush the head of someone who comes too close. And so, Job sets forth to campaign, <i>and stringing his arrows, he lets fly (Psalms 11:2)</i>, and employing powerful philosophical arguments, founded on pillars of inquiry and study, he attacks belief in Providence, in Divine reward and punishment, physical or spiritual, and in the existence of free-will.
  He is challenged in combat by three <i>champions, archers (1 Chronicles 12:2)</i>, on the side of Faith, resolved to demonstrate and prove that there is <i>a God who judges the earth (Psalms 58:12)</i>; <i>whose eyes watch over the ways of men, rewarding each according to his path, as his deeds warrant (Jeremiah 32:19)</i>; that man is master of his own deeds and has freedom of choice; and that God, through His personal Providence, is the sole Ruler of all the world's affairs, there being no other. And so they too, with wisdom and knowledge, <i>pinned their colors to the mast (Psalms 74:4)</i> in a spirit of investigative and philosophical contemplation. However, the heretic's arguments and proofs triumphed over their answers and so these <i>skilled bowmen turned and fled in the hour of battle (Psalms 78:9)</i>, <i>for the enemy prevailed</i>.6<i class="footnote"><i>Lamentations</i> 1:16. There is here is a play on the name Job in Hebrew – איוב, and the Hebrew word for enemy – אויב: the 'enemy' is Job! In seeking a possible explanation for why God had allowed such terrible afflictions to befall Job, some of the Talmudic Sages (<i>TB Baba Batra</i> 16a) speculated on the possibility that He had confused איוב (Job) with אויב (enemy). However, these musings are all refuted by their colleagues.</i>
  At this point, an accomplished and erudite young warrior <i>presents himself and audaciously (Psalms 20:9)</i> joins the campaign, full of spirit. <i>His tongue speaks mighty things (Psalms 12:4).</i> <i>The great were astonished by him,</i> <i>silenced and unable to reply (Job 32:15);</i> <i>tongue tied (Job 29:10).</i> 
  And following him, the voice of the Lord thunders forth, revealed <i>out of the Tempest (Job 38:1),</i> <i>hewing out flames of fire (Psalms 19:7),</i><i>The heavens proclaiming His righteousness:</i> <i>"For God, He is the Judge – Selah" (Psalms 50:6).</i> 
  It is well-known that in a book written in the style of a symposium (a philosophical dialogue7<i class="footnote">According to Malbim, the literary form of the debate in <i>Job</i> is that of a philosophical dialogue and so he expects to find in it all the features of this form.</i>) in which several persons participate and contend with one another, each basing his arguments on a particular philosophy, the number of different opinions being expressed corresponds to the number of speakers,. Were just two points of view being examined, the author would not have specified more than two participants, one posing the questions and the other replying to them. Accordingly, each of the three protagonists that the author [of the <i>Book of Job</i>] arrays against Job must represent a different method of inquiry, distinct from that of his companions. And, furthermore, the approach adopted by the fourth and last protagonist must be a wholly different one.
  Recognizing this to be so, Maimonides in his <i>Guide to the Perplexed</i>, and likewise <i>all the upright in heart (Psalms 94:15)</i>, sought to identify each debater with a particular philosophical standpoint. However, when they tried to explain and interpret the book's actual text accordingly, <i>none of these worthies succeeded (Psalms 76:6)</i>. For at first sight, there appears to be <i>a great confusion which destroys (Exodus 8:20)</i> any systematic pattern the book may have, from its beginning to end. Not only is order not maintained, as it should be in a scholarly debate, but neither are questions asked or answered to the. The topics should follow on from one another by way of ordered and systematic statements, in a logical and rational progression. Answers should relate to the questions previously asked and subsequent questions should be a rebuttal of the replies previously given. But everything is confused and disconnected.
  Furthermore, each of the protagonists appears to repeat statements that have been previously made, two or even three times. Each encroaches on the territory of the others, <i>stealing each others words</i> (Jeremiah 23:30) and ideas, and even contradicting what they themselves have said elsewhere. For example, in his final speech Bildad states: <i>What right has a man to require of God, and what privilege has he who is born of woman, that He should stop the moon from shining; the stars too, because he has found them wanting? Yea, for mortal man is but a grub and the son of man is maggot-feed (Job 25:4-6).</i> However, this passage is a repetition of remarks already made by Eliphaz on two previous occasions (Ch. 4:17-19 and 15:14-16). And besides, Job had already responded to this, twice, <i>and had made such nonsense of his words</i> (Job 24:25) that Eliphaz had not repeated it again in his third speech. So why does Bildad end his final exposition with these very same words, which in any case are so far removed from his way of thinking?
  Moreover, how can Job reply to him: <i>it is the lot of the wicked man - it is from God;</i> <i>...that if he has many sons - it is for the sword;</i> <i>...though he heap up money like dirt;</i> <i>...he may prepare, but the just shall wear it? (Job 27:13-17)</i> For these are the very words of his opponents and their reply regarding the punishment of the wicked. He had <i>been in full cry after them (Jeremiah 12:6)</i> throughout the debate; <i>his bow had remained resolute (Genesis 49:24)</i>. So why does he himself now <i>break the bow's flashing shafts (Psalms 76:4)</i> and speak as had his opponents, contradicting everything he himself had said previously?
  Many other strange and amazing things can be seen throughout the book. Consequently, in their attempts to elucidate the text, commentators have been forced to assume difficult and strange interpretations: <i>Darkness confounds them (Psalms 18:12)</i> <i>and fog envelopes them</i> (Job 38:9). <i>Neither lamp nor sun</i> (Psalms 74:16) <i>to light up the night</i> (Psalms 105:39); <i>and to show how brightly it shines in the sky above</i> (Job 37:21) <i>under God's heaven</i> (Lamentations 3:66). 
  The pathway I have cleared in explaining this book leads the reader directly <i>to a city of habitation (Psalms 107:7)</i>, bringing him to a place of <i>rest and inheritance (Deuteronomy 12:9)</i>, where he will discover <i>hidden treasures (Isaiah 45:3)</i>; <i>for a wise word is a precious jewel (Proverbs 20:15)</i>.
   Reader, behold this book, now open before you, written by a genius of unrivaled wisdom, in which, through the medium of a debate, he conducted extensive and profound researches; elucidating each issue rationally and with extraordinary philosophical insight.
  The protagonists stroll far and wide through the <i>Garden of Thought</i>, <i>pressing oil between the rows (Job 24:11);</i> <i>revealing all its precious gems (Job 28:10).</i> Everything that thought can either deduce or infer from such investigations <i>they poured forth, like water from a deep well;</i> <i>seeded in an abundance of moisture (Numbers 24:7).</i> 
  Each adopts a specific philosophical system upon which he takes up his position; <i>as in a fortress; (Psalms 61:4)</i> <i>counter attacking with great courage (Isaiah 28:6)</i> <i>with all available ammunition (Job 36:19).</i> 
  Each stands on his own ground. <i>The one does not jostle the other (Joel 2:8) </i><i>nor remove his neighbor's boundary mark (Deuteronomy 19:14).</i> 
  As I will show, none of the participants repeats anything twice, nor is anything mentioned before it should be or out of place. The ideas and the topics discussed intertwine like the boughs of a tree curling up out of its roots; <i>spreading branches, stretching out sprigs and bursting forth shoots (Ezekiel 17:6).</i> 
  And so there is no <i>superfluous talk</i>, (Proverbs 17:7) nor anything that is extraneous, remote or forced in the book. Its order and composition, its style and insights, are the mark and proof that it embodies God's wisdom and was written with inspiration from on High by that person [Moses] <i>like whom there has been no other in Israel</i>. (Deuteronomy 34:10.) 
  Not only does each protagonist adopt and expound a philosophy different from that of the others, but each also draws on a distinctive source, so that <i>the river flowing from the Eden of their wisdom divides into four separate founts (Genesis 2:10).</i> 
  Eliphaz garners the waters of his wisdom from those exalted fluids suspended by the Sovereign's Fiat;8<i class="footnote">The elevated waters are those above the firmament, i.e., the heavens - השמים (<i>Genesis</i> 1:6-8). Eliphaz claims to have prophetic knowledge; to have heard 'the whisper of a sound'</i> through a revelation from on high and a prophetic vision, <i>just the whisper of a sound (Job 4:16)</i>.
  Bildad is the exponent of tradition<i>.9<i class="footnote">Bildad's knowledge is traditional knowledge, the accumulated wisdom and experience of previous generations.</i> He pours forth his sources (Proverbs 5:16)</i>, from the well dug by the princes; unearthed by the wise men of antiquity, <i>by the scepter and their maces (Numbers 21:18).</i> 
  Zophar taps <i>strange, cold, flowing waters (Jeremiah 18:14)</i> from the founts of understanding and philosophy, and on the basis of abstract perception, by examination and drawing from what is subsequent that which was prior,10<i class="footnote">i&gt; What is subsequent - the observed physical phenomena; what was prior - the underlying principles, universals or general qualities:<i>We do not think that we know a thing until we are acquainted with its primary conditions or first principles and have carried our analysis as far as its simplest elements. Plainly therefore in the science of Nature, as in other branches of study, our first task will be to try to determine what relates to its principles. The natural way of doing this is to start from the things which are more knowable and obvious to us and proceed towards those which are clearer and more knowable by nature. So in the present inquiry we must follow this method and advance from what is more obscure by nature, but clearer to us, towards what is more clear and more knowable by nature. </i>(Aristotle's <i>Physics</i> 1, Ch. 1).</i> as is the method of the Peripatetic philosophers,11<i class="footnote">Here, Zophar is identified as a follower of Aristotle, but Malbim interprets his speech in the first cycle in terms drawn eclectically from Kantian philosophy.</i> he assembled<i> his loft in heaven</i>, <i>its construction founded on earth (Amos 9:6)</i>. 
  Elihu raises deep water <i>from great depths (Genesis 7:11)</i>; from the concepts (Forms or Ideas) implanted in the soul from its Original Source. In his opinion, it is they that are the foundations of comprehension and, like Plato, it is in them that he finds the origin of truths.12<i class="footnote">According to Malbim, Elihu, like Plato, finds sure knowledge in his soul. However, the theological truths that Elihu finds there are very different from the philosophical truths, the Ideas or Forms, postulated by Plato.</i> <i>It is upon them that he lays his foundation (Job 38:6),</i> <i>setting his mind as the mind of God (Ezekiel 28:2).</i> And with the Divine force thus in his soul, <i>– his Beloved is for him as a bunch of myrrh – (Song of Songs 1:13)</i> to stand in for Him,13<i class="footnote">This is a play on the Hebrew name Elihu - אליהוא - whose literal meaning is 'He is my God'.</i> to answer and to debate, <i>and to establish the sanctuary of His wisdom, as it is on High. (Psalms 78:69)</i>. 
  As I will be presenting separate introductions for each of the 19 orations, which, when taken together, constitute a comprehensive prolegomenon, all I will do here is just <i>sketch an outline (Ezekiel 9:4)</i> of the book, one that briefly describes its general structure, its principles and postulates, its roots and branches. <i>Climb to the top of this hill,</i> <i>lift up your eyes and view the land;</i> <i>its length and breadth (Deuteronomy 3:27).</i> <i>You will cross this Jordan river on a dry path, and inherit that land.</i> <i>And it shall be your possession, for I have given it to you.</i> (Deuteronomy 32:49). 
  Inasmuch as Job maintains his belief that no wrong or shortcoming can be attributed to God, and to assert that God governs but evil can nevertheless befall a righteous person or good betide a wicked person would be to imply an unfairness, lack of power or absence of knowledge on His part, he is driven to conclude that such decrees <i>do not emanate from the decisions of the Most High (Lamentations 3:38),</i> but from the blindfolded governance of the Cosmos (and therefore there is no injustice attributable to Him). He formulates this, his fundamental thesis, in the form of a compound hypothetical syllogism,14<i class="footnote">The fact that the syllogism is not of Israelite origin, and was popular amongst Greek philosophers and medieval Christian scholastics up until the Renaissance, apparently did not worry Malbim. He also did not see it necessary to explain why the sages of Israel, after Job, did not continue to use this system of logic (Rosenbloom, p.199).</i> of the following form:
  Major Premise: If God governs, no righteous person would perish or suffer, nor would any wicked person prosper.
  Minor Premise: However, we have seen righteous persons who perish or suffer, and wicked persons who prosper.
  Conclusion: Therefore God does not govern.
  The premises involve two circumstances, one that refers to a righteous person who perishes and the other to a wicked person who prospers. Therefore, two separate hypothetical syllogisms are involved:
  1. If God governs, no righteous person would perish or suffer. However, we have seen righteous persons perish or suffer. <i>Ergo</i>, God does not govern.
  2. If God governs, no wicked person would prosper. However, we have seen wicked persons prosper. <i>Ergo</i>, God does not govern.
  Accordingly, the debate with the three companions is divided into three cycles:
  In the first cycle of speeches (Ch. 4–14), the first syllogism concerning the existence of a righteous person who suffers or perishes is discussed.
  In the second cycle of speeches (Ch. 15–21), the second syllogism concerning the existence of a wicked person who prospers is discussed.
  In the third cycle of speeches (Ch. 22–31), both syllogisms are discussed in an attempt to find a single answer to the two questions.
  The First Act:
   The compound hypothetical syllogism is formulated negatively, for it is by the negation of what should be its outcome [i.e. that no righteous person perish or suffer], that the existence of the presupposed cause [God's Governance] is belied. Such a syllogism can only be refuted by disproving one or other of its two premises. If however both of them hold, then its conclusion is undeniable. Therefore, this syllogism can only be disproved in one of the following three ways:
  (i) By refuting the major premise, i.e., if it can be shown that even though God does govern it is nevertheless conceivable that a righteous person could perish or suffer.
  (ii) By refuting the subject of the minor premise, viz. the existence of righteous persons: if it can be shown that they are not really righteous.
  (iii) By refuting the predicate of the minor premise, viz., that righteous persons perish or suffer: if it can be shown that they do not really perish and/or do not really suffer.
  The debaters differ by reference to the option each addresses: 
  Eliphaz and Bildad refute the minor premise - options (ii) and (iii) respectively; In refuting the subject of the minor premise, Eliphaz argues that though a person may not be so wicked that he deserves to perish completely, he may also not be so very righteous that he does not deserve some suffering. He must have committed some sin for which he justly deserves to suffer. In refuting the subject of the minor premise, Eliphaz argues that though a person may not be so wicked that he deserves to perish completely, he may also not be so very righteous that he does not deserve some suffering. He must have committed some sin for which he justly deserves to suffer. Refuting the predicate of the minor premise, Bildad argues that the righteous person is not really suffering, for by way of 'an exchange' the afflictions are really for his ultimate good and prosperity. Just as a man would willingly accept some minor adversity, were he to be compensated for it with great wealth.15<i class="footnote">Malbim's interpretation of the speeches made by Eliphaz and Bildad in the First Act accords with that given by Maimonides. However, each has them representing different philosophical systems. According to Malbim, Eliphaz represents prophecy and Bildad is the spokesman of traditional theology, whereas Maimonides has Eliphaz representing Torah and Bildad representing Mu'tazilite philosophy. This rationalist Islamic philosophy postulated a law of exchange or reciprocity, according to which in return for the undeserved suffering a righteous person endures on earth, he is assured of compensation in the next world. God permits this suffering because, in His Wisdom, He knows that it will ultimately be good for the person's soul, as it will be recompensed for it in the Hereafter.</i>
  Zophar refutes the major premise - option (i): Repudiating the major premise, Zophar contends that even under God's government a righteous person could appear to suffer and perish. In the formulation of this premise, it was assumed that 'just' or 'unjust' are what our senses and experience consider them to be; and, likewise, that, our intuition can tell what 'perishing' or 'prosperity' are. However our senses perceive only the superficies of things; how they stimulate our sense organs and not the truth of what they are in themselves. We do not know what is inherently just or unjust, nor whether what we call perdition, suffering or prosperity is their true essential quality. For we perceive only the incidentals; we can only say that this is how we perceive the essence of the quality to be, through our senses. We cannot claim that our perception of the essence of an object is its true essence. This notion was known to the ancient philosophers.16<i class="footnote">The reference may be to the ancient Greek skeptics (Xenophon <i>et alia</i>) who maintained that appearances never give us the reality of objects or to the Ash'arites with whom Maimonides had identified Zophar. Their mistrust of sense-perceptions, led the Ash'arites to deny the existence of causality or of any natural laws whatsoever. Hence, they asserted that everything happens through Providence, though man can decide whether or not to 'catch a ride' on it. And so, though he is not the cause of his acts, man chooses to perform them willingly or unwillingly. Ash'arism is the dominant theology in Sunni Islam.Alternatively, the reference could be to Joseph Albo, who states in the opening to his <i>Sefer Ha-Ikkarim</i>:…human reason is not capable of comprehending things as they really are...There must be something higher than human intellect by which praiseworthy acts can delineated and real opinions comprehended, in a manner that leaves no room for doubt.</i> Modern thinkers too,17<i class="footnote">The reference is undoubtedly to Immanuel Kant. In the eclectic tradition of Jewish theologians, Malbim seized upon Kant's revolutionary ideas about the subjectivity of space and time, viz., that they are the transcendental framework of our consciousness, and his distinction between 'phenomena', the external properties of an object which are accessible and can be comprehended by the mind, and 'noumena', the object's essential and eternal properties which are beyond human comprehension, and adopted this new epistemology, wherever it was useful, in support of his theological opinions and beliefs. Malbim was not the only Jewish orthodox writer who found Kant an aid to his theology (Rosenbloom, p.192-197).</i> in their critique of the nature of human understanding, <i>have found some discernment in it (Jeremiah 23:20).</i> (The introductions to the second, fourth and sixth orations).
  Undaunted, Job rebuffs everything they have to say. 
  He<i> clearly proves (Deuteronomy 4:35)</i> to Eliphaz that if a righteous person is made to suffer for some small sin, the very purpose for which man was created, viz. the attainment of perfection, is negated.18<i class="footnote">This idea of perfection is related to the Aristotelian concept of entelechy. Malbim's source for this might well have been the following passage from Albo's Ikkarim III,2.There are two kinds of perfection, a first and last. The first is that perfection which a thing has as soon as it comes into being: the existence of existence. The other is the perfection which is only a potential in the thing, and which it attains only when its potentialities are actualized. Aristotle had distinguished between the first and second entelechy. Knowledge as opposed to ignorance is the first entelechy; the second entelechy is reached when one makes use of the knowledge.</i> Besides, his own case was one of a righteous man who had perished completely.19<i class="footnote">Job asserts that his case is not just one of a righteous person suffering, but of a person being totally demolished by what had happened to him. The issue of exactly what is required for the attainment of perfection, whether it is the observance of the entire set of the Commandments - all 613 of them, or whether the keeping of each individual Commandment has an element of perfection in it, is discussed below, in the Introduction to the Third Oration, in the light of Albo's interpretation (Ikkarim Part 3, Chapter 29) of the dispute between R. Yochanan and Resh Lakish over the interpretation of Isaiah 5:14 (TB Sanhedrin 111a).</i> 
  He demolishes Bildad's arcane theory in five different ways, <i>each like surf breaking upon the water (Hosea 10:7) </i>,
  and pours great scorn on Zophar's philosophy. He argues that man's mind was created with the ability to attain clear perceptions; his sense-perceptions are real perceptions and are the essential qualities of things. Man was not created to be made a fool of; a dreamer in an imaginary world. He is a citizen of the real world. It is inconceivable that his Creator made him for a joke and a prank;20<i class="footnote">Below, in the Introduction to the Seventh Oration, Malbim reasons that the covariance of human observations—the fact that different independent observers of an event agree with one another, or can be reconciled with one another—is proof of their truth. When discussing whether or not objective reality is an illusion, Descartes had maintained that though it is only through our mind's interpretations of our sensory experiences that knowledge of a world external to us comes, they are not all that exists: 'God, being perfect, would not be a deceiver; He would not make us believe in the existence of a material universe if it were not real' (M. Kline, p.7).Spinoza too had asserted the absolute reality and adequacy of human knowledge: Mens humana adaequatum habet cognitionem aeternae et infinitae essentiae Dei. (Ethics, Prop.XLVII, Part 2). And so, according to Spinoza, all that exists, including God Himself, is immanent and accessible to our senses and intellect. In his Investigation of the Laws of Thought (p.40), Boole states:...if the laws in question are really deduced from observation, they have real existence as laws of the human mind, independently of any metaphysical theory which may seem to be involved in the mode of their statement. They contain an element of truth which no ulterior criticism upon the nature, or even upon the reality, of the mind's operations, can essentially affect.However as regards metaphysics he adds:…as respects both the determination of the laws of thought, and the practical use of them when discovered, we are, for all really scientific ends, unconcerned with the truth or falsehood of any metaphysical speculations whatever.</i> <i>for pointless burdens and hallucinations (Lamentations 2:14)</i>, <i>emptiness and chasing the wind (Ecclesiastes 1:14).</i> 
  Apart from this, other subjects that arise out of the previous investigation are interwoven into their discourses: 
  For example, Bildad had argued that the absence of Divine Governance would be both unfair and a perversion of justice. To which Job counters, in the fifth oration, that it would not be so if one considers the reality of the overall 'becoming and demising'21<i class="footnote">The Hebrew term is עולם ההויה וההפסד הכללי. This concept is Aristotelian -  - translated variously as 'becoming and demising', 'creation and destruction' or 'generation and corruption' (Aristotle Categories 14,1). They are two of the categories of sublunar motion or change identified by the Aristotelian system, the others being growth, diminution, transformation and locomotion. The sublunar realm comprises the minerals, plants, animals and rational beings, all of which are composed of matter and form. The sublunar world (as distinguished from the celestial one) is constituted of the four elements, earth, water, air and fire and is subject to generation and corruption, i.e., to changes in the form of the objects found in it. The distinction between matter and form and their meaning is the subject of much philosophical debate. In simple terms, it can be said that an ingot of gold has its form changed when it is made into jewelry while its matter remains unchanged. According to Maimonides, the demise of physical objects is a circumstance of their matter and not of their form. Man's body is matter and his soul is form. The body dies; the soul is immortal.</i> nature of the world. 
  In the same speech, Job elaborates all the arguments raised by philosophers against Governance that are cataloged in the <i>Guide for the Perplexed</i> (Part 3, Chapter 20), including the paradox of knowledge and free-will, along with everything else that is derived from this. <i>Ranging deep and wide (Isaiah 30:33)</i>, <i>he passed them under his staff (Leviticus 27:32; Ezekiel 20:37)</i>, and employing powerful arguments he shows that if we assume the existence of free-will, we must deny God's knowledge of contingent particulars, otherwise the philosophers will demolish us with proofs that <i>smash with hatchet and hammer (Psalms 74:6)</i>. However, if we assume that everything depends on the governance of the Cosmos and man is constrained in his acts by reason of predetermination, then God's knowledge remains immutable.22<i class="footnote">This is one of the central issues of traditional theology. Governance requires that God has knowledge of all events. However, the knowledge associated with a free-willed event does not exist before the event is made to happen. If God is an absolute unchanging Unity, as He surely must be, how can we ascribe to Him knowledge of such events: new knowledge, which did not exist before the event? To do so is to imply that He is not unchanging, for a being is changed when it acquires knowledge. On the other hand, not to do so is to imply that He is ignorant of the event i.e. imperfect. Hence, the perfection and unchanging Unity of God require that there be no undesignated events, i.e., no new knowledge, and consequently no free-will.</i>
  Zophar also addresses this issue in the framework of his thesis that our knowledge is not real knowledge. This being so, he argues that <i>a fortiori</i> it is impossible for us to know anything about God's Knowledge. His views accord with those expressed by Maimonides in his solution to this matter (<i>Guide</i> III. 20, 21), namely, that the word 'knowledge' when applied to God, may He be Blessed, and to us, is a homonym, and we can no more comprehend His Knowledge than we can His Essence.23<i class="footnote">Maimonides wrote:The homonymity of the term 'knowledge' misled people;...the words are the same but the things designated by them are different; and therefore they came to the absurd conclusion that that which is required for our knowledge is also required for God's knowledge. (Guide to the Perplexed, III:20)The knowledge by which God governs is beyond human comprehension, God's knowledge being of His essence and not an attribute ascribed to Him. New human knowledge has no effect on God's knowledge - they are different entities. Just how they differ is not explained by Maimonides, but in his commentary to Isaiah 29:16 Malbim explains the difference between them in quasi-Kantian terms. Kant had postulated that time and space are an integral part of the mechanism of human consciousness, and that they have no independent existence. Man's knowledge exists in time and space. Malbim argued that God's knowledge is not a function of time and place and so it is inherently different from man's.</i> (The introduction to the sixth oration) 
  In his scornful dismissal of Zophar and his philosophical thesis, Job's view corresponds with that taken by Gersonides in <i>The Wars of the Lord</i>, where he argued that the term 'knowledge' applies equivalently to Him, may He be Blessed, and to us, priorly and posteriorly, and is not just a homonym. It being understood, at the same time, that it is impossible that His knowledge be designated as what, in us, is confusion or error.24<i class="footnote">Gersonides wrote:It would seem that His knowledge, may He be Blessed, is equivocal with our knowledge by priority and posteriority...The term 'knowledge' is said of God, may He be blessed, priorly, and of any other being posteriorly...There is no difference between God's knowledge, may He be Blessed, and our knowledge except that God's knowledge, may He be Blessed, is more perfect than our knowledge...Therefore it is impossible that His knowledge should be designated as what with reference to us is opinion or error or confusion. (The Wars of the Lord, Part 3, Chapter 3. - Norbet M. Samuelson translation).Knowledge is divided into universals and particulars. God has absolute knowledge of universals which are eternal and are not subject to change, but He has prior knowledge only of those particulars which are derived from the universals; He does not have prior knowledge of those which arise from free-will and caprice. Some events therefore are pre-determined and some contingent. However, His subsequent knowledge of contingent events is perfect, so He remains perfect.A third solution suggested to this problem is the Neoplatonist postulate of a Logos, a transcendental intellect standing between God and man to whom knowledge and Providence is ascribed rather than to God himself.</i> Accordingly, Job remains steadfast in his opinion <i>and does not abandon his position</i>, (Isaiah 46:7) denying both Governance and the possibility of free-will. He brings as evidence that we often see people coerced to act in a certain way, even <i>the sons of one man together</i>, (Psalms 133:1) such as when an heretical sect25<i class="footnote">Possibly a reference to the Reform and Liberal Jewish movements with whom Malbim fought a running battle throughout his working life.</i> <i>rises over them (Judges 18:9),</i> <i>leading them astray (Job 12:17 &amp; 19),</i> <i>and their hands are helpless to save them (Job 5:12).</i> (The introduction to the seventh oration). 
  And with this the combatants return to camp after the first cycle of speeches.
  The Second Act 
   The companions cannot refute the second syllogism—that which relates to the prosperity of the wicked—by disputing the subject of the minor premise as Eliphaz had done in the First Act. For though we may suppose that a righteous person may have sinned in secret, it cannot be suggested that a wicked man is really a saint. Nor, after Job had so scornfully dismissed the principles of his philosophy, is there any point in returning to the attack led by Zophar on the major premise; no purpose is served in trying to convince someone on the basis of assumptions and principles that he repudiates. Consequently, they all now turn their attention to the predicate of the minor premise, namely, that the prosperity of the wicked is not genuine, though each chooses a different tack. With regards to Job, they all now consider his case to be <i>an example and a byword (Ezekiel 14:8)</i> of that of a wicked man who had prospered. This had become clear to them from the great effort he had invested in his attempt to undermine the corner-stones of faith and the spirited rhetoric and carefully construed arguments he had employed. Evidently, he must have held these ideas for some time and so they now relate to him as being a wholly <i>wicked person who rejects God (Psalms 10:13) </i>.
  Opening this round of speeches, Eliphaz asserts that the prosperity of a wicked person is not real, for his heart is ever filled with fear and trepidation. Like Job, who had been in constant dread, a wicked person's conscience is never at peace, <i>for he has raised his hand against God and mutinied against the Almighty. (Job 15:25)</i>. 
  Bildad asserts that a wicked person does not really prosper, for in the end, like Job, he is cut short from the land of the living, either in terms of his physical continuance, namely, his children and possessions, or in terms of his personal perpetuation: his good name, his reputation and his soul. 
  Zophar declares that <i>he will be suddenly and irreparably broken (Proverbs 6:15)</i>, and die without warning and by a strange death. This too had happened to Job, for he had been brought low suddenly and without warning.26<i class="footnote">A similar sentiment is found in Psalms 73:1-2:Fret not because of evil-doers, nor envy those that act unrighteously. For quick as the grass they wither, and like the greenery of plants fade away.</i>
  Seeing that all three are addressing the same point, viz. the predicate of the minor premise, Job puts off replying until they have all finished. He then <i>demolishes all their arguments (1 Samuel 3:19)</i> by pointing out that they are drawing conclusions about a general matter from the case of a single individual. However, his original question had addressed the general issue of why the wicked usually prosper and they had not directed their responses to this. For there are wicked people who are both at ease and self-assured (contrary to what Eliphaz had said); and amongst them there are those who are both well-established and successful (just the opposite of Bildad's assertion); and also those who are contented all the days of their mortal life and die without suffering (and not as Zophar predicted). And so <i>all their arguments are irrelevant (Job 21:34)</i> (The introduction to the thirteenth oration).
  As to the reliance they had all put on punishment being reserved for the wicked in the world of the souls, Job retorts that since God had created man such that he cannot comprehend the essence of the soul or its meaning, <i>a fortiori</i> he has absolutely no understanding of its reward or punishment. Consequently, this must be a matter of faith. However, their debate was supposed to be based on reasoning and inquiry, not on faith, which in any case could never convince a skeptic or unbeliever.27<i class="footnote">According to Spinoza, that part of the mind which consists of adequate ideas is a part of the infinite mind of God. Thus, the mind is eternal and knows it is, though the eternity thus predicated does not mean indefinite persistence in time, for eternity is not commensurable with time; it is a special kind of existence. Morality is not based on the mind's eternity.Virtue is its own reward, and needs no other. This doctrine, which appears, as it were, perfunctorily in so many systems of morals, is by Spinoza insisted on with almost passionate earnestness; few things seem to have moved him to more scornful denial than the popular creed, that supernatural rewards and punishments are necessary as incentives to virtue. (R.H.M.Elwes, p.XXX)</i> 
  And with this <i>the battle reached its peak (1 Kings 22:35)</i> in the second cycle of speeches.
  The Third Act 
   The companions are all forced to recognize that Job's arguments are sound and unassailable, against which <i>the rushing flood (Daniel 11:22)</i> of their replies could not stand. Nevertheless, two of them28<i class="footnote">Only Eliphaz and Bildad; Zophar does not participate in the third cycle.</i> make one final effort <i>to repair the shattered altar (1 Kings 18:30)</i> of their theses. Both seek a single remedy for the two issues being discussed, viz. the suffering of the righteous and the prosperity of the wicked. Both now acknowledge that Job was right when he said that God ought to reward the righteous and punish the wicked immediately; neither should He make the righteous suffer because of some minor sin or in order to compensate him later; nor should He should let a wicked person appear to prosper even for a moment but should wipe him off the face of the earth at once. But each finds a reason why Providence cannot govern in such a manner.
  Eliphaz reasons that were this to happen, worship [of God] would be imperfect as there would be no place for free-will nor for reward and punishment. For the righteous would just worship [God] <i>in order to be rewarded (Avot 1:3)</i> and the wicked would only be restrained from doing wrong for fear of the immediate retribution that awaits them. Therefore, God has to conceal the matter and so the righteous sometimes suffer even for some minor sin and the wicked are rewarded for some slight merit. As a result people err, thinking there is neither Judge nor justice, and the righteous who worship [God] do so without any expectation of reward, whilst the wicked plot their evil untroubled. As it is written: <i>It is because sentence for a wicked act is not carried out promptly that men do evil so boldly (Ecclesiastes 8:11).</i> 
  Bildad's explanation is that a righteous person may sometimes be born under a malevolent astrological sign and a wicked person under a benevolent one. Thus, the luck of their birth determines whether they will be poor or prosperous and God cannot change the nature of the whole world because of just one individual.
  Both assert that any shortfall in God's reward of the righteous or punishment of the wicked in this world (arising from either of the above two reasons), will be made good by God many times over in the Eternal World, where there is neither worship nor choice, neither luck nor the governance of the Cosmos. (The introductions to the fourteenth and sixteenth orations).
  Job is not silenced, even by these words, <i>upon which they wasted so much energy (Jeremiah 46:11)</i>. He has his replies ready. 
  To Eliphaz he avers that his worship of God never was, nor ever would have been, in expectation of the benefits it might bring him.29<i class="footnote">Job's motives for worshipping God are discussed in the Talmud (TB Sotah 27b), where conflicting opinions are expressed. One is that he worshipped God out of love, another that he worshipped Him out of fear. In a further comment (TB Sotah 31a), Job's worship is even likened to that of Abraham, who worshipped God out of love.</i> It had not been such when he had prospered, nor would it ever have been such had his prosperity continued. He had only ever worshipped Him out of love, with no ulterior motive. So why was he now being denied favor?  Furthermore, are there not evil people, as savage as <i>wolves at nightfall,</i> (Zephaniah 3:3 and Habakkuk 1:8) destroyers of the world, who live far away from the rest of mankind, in deserts and on distant islands, where God could wipe them out, removing their evil from mankind, without affecting free-will? For <i>their dwelling-places are in thick darkness</i> (1 Kings 8:12.) and so their destruction would never become known to anyone.30<i class="footnote">Perhaps Malbim is hinting at the scourge of piracy which was only finally eliminated in 1830 by the joint action of the American and European navies.</i>
  Turning to Bildad, Job points out that his assertion that people's fate, i.e., their well-being or misfortune, is determined by the stars and that God will not interfere with this, not even in consideration of human acts of righteousness or evil, just reinforces his [Job's] own thesis. Furthermore, according to Bildad's own philosophy,31<i class="footnote">That of the Peripatetics (Aristotelian).</i> there exist things that are independent of and beyond the governance of the Cosmos,32<i class="footnote">Everything in the celestial sphere that is above and outside the sublunar world. </i>So could not <i>judgments be prepared for scorners (Proverbs 19:29)</i> by means of these sublunar elemental agencies—fire, flood-waters, earthquake and tempestuous winds—leaving the Universe to carry on as usual?
  As for their conjecture, that any shortfall in material reward or punishment will be made up in the world of the souls, something that <i>no eye has seen (Isaiah 64:3)</i> and which cannot be ascertained through philosophical inquiry nor substantiated by knowledge, he laments this grievously. It would have been proper for this Divine wisdom concerning man's Governance to have been made readily accessible to his intellect, seeing that both his happiness and prosperity depend on it. But instead, it has been so hidden away that <i>Abaddon and Death say: 'In our ears, we have heard it rumored' (Job 28:21-22)</i>, and he must be consoled by a world after death, and by faith, and fear of God. For the wisdom has vanished, no longer to be found in the land of the living. And the embrace of intellect is of no comfort to man; <i>from his follies and disappointments on this God-cursed earth (Genesis 5:29).</i> (The introductions to the fifteenth and seventeenth orations<i>.</i>)33<i class="footnote">The debate has produced no solution to the question of why the righteous suffer or why the wicked prosper. Nor has any satisfactory explanation been found by the protagonists for the catastrophic series of events suffered by Job and his family. All the debaters agree on one point; that God is just. None of them suggests that the reason for Job's afflictions might be God wishing to prove a point. The truth, known to the reader all along, that it was a 'diabolical' trial of Job's integrity, sanctioned by God, ironically, because He Himself had flaunted Job's perfection to Satan - 'a guileless and upright man' - did not occur to the debaters. Who would believe such a story? At this stage, they would probably all endorse the conclusion drawn by R. Yannai when he said: 'It is beyond our power to understand why the wicked are at ease, or why the righteous suffer' (Avot 4:15).</i>
  The Final Act 
  The last debater [Elihu] is the one who reveals the truth about Job's suffering—the matter related at the opening of the story concerning the sons of God and Satan—namely, that it was a trial. Moreover, that Job had indeed worshipped God out of love and had passed the test of prosperity, serving the Lord without any expectation of riches. Towards the end of his speech, at the close of his argument, Elihu, the last of the protagonists, reveals to Job the true reason for his suffering: that it had been a trial. How, as was related in the Prologue, Satan had presented himself before God; that Job had indeed served God out of love, worshipping Him without any ulterior motive; that he had passed the trial of prosperity and that God had now wanted to try him with poverty, in order to see <i>whether his step would veer from the path</i> (Job 31:7) <i>when so many disasters and calamities befell him</i>.<i>34<i class="footnote">Deuteronomy 31:21. 'The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Job: 'Which do you want: poverty or suffering?' Job replied: 'I would rather any affliction in the world but not poverty. When I go to the market and I haven't even a prutah [a small coin] with which to buy anything, what will I eat?' When he began to suffer and to cry out, Elihu said to him: 'Why are you crying out? Didn't you accept any suffering so long as it wasn't poverty?'' (Exodus Rabbah 31:12)</i></i> For he would then have been tested in both ways, and would have been like the sons of God who transcend the flesh. But on the basis of the evidence he had in fact failed this trial, <i>for he had spoken wickedly against the Lord</i>.<i>35<i class="footnote">Isaiah 32:6. 'Had he controlled his anger and not complained against Providential justice...then just as we now say in our prayers 'God of Abraham, God of Isaac and God of Jacob' we would also say 'God of Job'' (Pesikta Rabbati 49, 20). However, Job is a man, and no man is an angel: 'There is no man in the world so righteous that he always does good and never does bad.' (Ecclesiastes 7:20)</i></i>
  Apart from this, Elihu rebukes Job for his assertion that no breach of the Creator's Statute would be involved were God to delegate general governance to the Cosmos, this being a requisite of the 'becoming and demising' world. He demonstrates the error and contradiction in this notion. He also points out his crass stupidity in calling God to order, seeking to teach Him how to punish the wicked; he berates him at length over this. He then goes on to explain that God created man with a built-in instinct for reward and punishment. Hence, if a righteous person suffers and a wicked one prospers, it is because <i>man's own contrariness has led him astray (Proverbs 19:3)</i>; he has not kept that natural law with which he was endowed. For man was created for this: to bring evil-doers to justice and to destroy them; <i>and to raise the prestige of the righteous (Psalms 75:11)</i>. But since this law is not enforced in human society, <i>why does his heart fret against God (Proverbs 19:3)</i>? They [the peoples of the earth] have so sinned in their souls that evil has triumphed over good, overturning the purpose of creation. For they were brought into being to uphold natural justice, <i>to do judgment for the oppressed (Psalms 146:7)</i> <i>and to banish all evil-doers (Deuteronomy 13:6)</i>. 
  As regards Job's complaint that God has hidden wisdom from mankind and has not endowed the human race with the ability to ascertain what is beyond nature,36<i class="footnote">שאחר הטבע - beyond nature: metaphysical.</i> that which the senses cannot attain, he [Elihu] replies that in this matter too, God has not forsaken man. For He has planted these concepts in man's soul by means of the innate ideas set in the human soul from the moment of its formation. These are the truths to be found in every soul, bestowed upon it by God. For every man has stamped on his soul that there is a Creator who is absolutely perfect, <i>a faithful God, devoid of injustice (Deuteronomy 32:4)</i>, who rewards and punishes; that he has freedom of choice; and [thirdly] that his soul lives on after separating from the body. These ideas are fundamentals, stamped on each soul; they are its inheritance from God.37<i class="footnote">These theological truths, no matter how widely they are held, are not what Plato intended by his concept of Ideas or Forms. A different example of Malbim's understanding of this philosophical concept is found in his commentary on Isaiah 40:14, where he states that the 'principle of contradiction', viz., the principle that it is impossible that a quality should both belong and not belong to a given class of things, which Aristotle described as the fundamental axiom of all philosophy, is one of the 'primary intelligences planted by God in man's nature'.</i> Just as man builds his understanding of Nature upon his senses and experience, so he builds his understanding of the metaphysical upon the Ideas implanted in his soul.38<i class="footnote">Kant denied the possibility of a metaphysics and consequently of the validity of any of the traditional proofs—ontological, cosmological or teleological—of the existence of God. The existence of God is not denied, indeed He is a necessary condition in Kant's system, but He is not an object of demonstrative knowledge.Using the science of formal symbolic logic that he had invented, Boole showed that without the assertion that 'whatsoever is absolutely necessary at all is absolutely necessary in every part of space, and in every point of duration', no ontological proof of the existence of God is possible. Boole wrote:Probably this principle will be found to lie at the basis of every attempt to demonstrate, a priori, the existence of an Infinite Being...It is not possible, I think, to rise from a perusal of the arguments of Clarke and Spinoza without a deep conviction of the futility of all endeavors to establish, entirely a priori, the existence of an Infinite Being, His attributes, and His relation to the universe. The fundamental principle of all such speculations, viz., that whatever we can clearly conceive, must exist, fails to accomplish its end, even when its truth is admitted. For how shall the finite comprehend the infinite? Yet must the possibility of such conception be granted, and in something more than the sense of a mere withdrawal of the limits of phenomenal existence, before any solid ground can be established for the knowledge, a priori, of things infinite and eternal (Boole, p.217).</i>
  Elihu concludes his address by arguing that man's intellect is also incapable of attaining a complete understanding of the natural sciences. This being so, <i>how can he presume to climb God's mountain</i> (Numbers 14:44) and obtain a correct and full understanding of that which is beyond Nature.39<i class="footnote">Traditional theology presumed that metaphysics is more important than physics. The implication here is that metaphysics is also more difficult to understand than physics, and so if man cannot understand the latter, a fortiori, he cannot comprehend the former. In traditional theology, the design revealed by science is viewed as evidence of the existence of an Intelligent Creator. This teleological argument is found in numerous medieval sources:Just as the garment testifies to [the existence of] the weaver...so does the universe testify to [the existence of] the Holy One, blessed be He, who created it' (Midrash Temurah, 3). But if the design is evidence of His existence, then the clearer this design becomes the more redundant and irrelevant that Intelligent Creator is made. As Gillespie has written:...the empirical proof that God was also an active force as a moral agent in the universe was derived from the supposed necessity of assuming that divine interventions accounted for the physical phenomena which were inexplicable on purely scientific grounds. The proof of the existence of God, therefore, was based on what science had accomplished, and the proof of His continued activity on what it had not...as more and more events in physical history were explained naturally, there were fewer episodes to be explained supernaturally and fewer empirical illustrations of God's immediate control over the material world' (Genesis and Geology, p. 220).Governance and supernatural explanations may indeed have little or no place in modern western man's understanding of his physical environment, but, however improbable they may seem, they are still the only non-medicinal therapy there is for his fears and uncertainties. Belief in an improbable and untestable notion is the one alternative an individual has to the stimulating or tranquilizing drugs he otherwise needs, in order to see himself through 'the valley of the shadow of death' that he must daily traverse.</i> He should be satisfied that these priceless perceptions of the integrity of God's judgments, of reward and punishment and of the immortality of the soul, are to be found in his soul, impressed upon it from its incipience. And apart from this, Divine messages are at times communicated to him in a vision or dream. <i>For God has not abandoned him in the valley of darkness (Psalms 23:4),</i> <i>without a Divine lamp to enlighten his soul and to illuminate the night (1 Samuel 3:3).</i> 
  The debate is closed by God Himself, when He appears40<i class="footnote">The appearance of God Himself seems to confirm Elihu's final point that man has not been abandoned by God, at least so far as Job is concerned.</i> <i>out of the Tempest (Job 38:1)</i>. He [Job] then sees through prophetic vision, which transcends the perception of the senses, that God oversees humankind and its deeds, and that his soul is a Divine emanation41<i class="footnote">בת אלהים - literally 'daughter of God'. This concept appears in the Zohar (II,96b):The Lord discerns each holy soul, and taking each in turn to Himself, embraces and fondles her 'dealing with her after the manner of daughters' (Exodus 21:9), even as a father acts towards his beloved daughter, embracing and fondling her and presenting her with gifts.In his glosses on Genesis 2:9, Malbim discusses the relationship between the soul and the body. He concludes that before Adam had eaten the forbidden fruit, when he was still an immortal being, his body and soul were distinct entities, linked symbiotically. His soul had lost none of its independence and was just clothed in his body, a clothing that it could put on or take off at will. The merging of man's body and soul into a single entity only happened after Adam sinned: Before he sinned, Adam's soul had not been integrated with his body, but just resided in it. And so his prophecy was like that of Moses.The Talmudic Sages (TB Yevamot 49b) asserted that whereas Moses beheld the Divine as through a clear mirror, the other prophets did so through 'a mirror which does not shine'. Malbim explains that the souls of all the prophets were to some degree fettered to their bodies. However, whilst still living, Moses had managed to release himself from all bodily needs, thereby liberating his soul (Rosenbloom p.379-383).</i> and continues living after separation from the body, cleaving to its God. For during a vision, the soul possesses the same nature it has after its separation [from the body], at that moment when it returns <i>to the treasury of life (1 Samuel 25:29)</i> with the Lord its God, when it no longer has need of either the discernment of intelligence or the confirmation of comprehension, not even of faith. For what is seen with the prophetic faculty is unequivocal knowledge, unerring, beyond consciousness and intellect42<i class="footnote">'The essence of prophecy is an attachment to, or communication with, God, which is experiential in nature' (D. Bleich, p. 273). Spinoza wrote: 'Prophecy, or revelation, is sure knowledge revealed by God to man' (Theologico-Political Treatise, R.H.M.Elwes translation, p. 13). Prophecy is God revealing 'His secret to His servants the prophets' (Amos 3,7). But becoming a prophet does not mean a loss of human personality; the prophet remains an individual.The Talmud (TB Megillah 14a) states that the number of persons who will have prophetic experiences during the course of Jewish history will be twice the number that left Egypt at the Exodus, i.e. 2   600,000 = 1,200,000 men above the age of twenty and in addition a similar number of women and children. The vast majority will not bear specific divine messages and not all those that do will bear messages of eternal import. This is not to imply that their prophetic experience is of a lower quality than that of the prophets whose messages constitute the prophetic books of the Bible. 'A maidservant saw at the [crossing of the Red] Sea what Ezekiel and all the other prophets never saw' (Mekhilta, Shira, 3).There is no consensus amongst the Talmudic Sages and the medieval Jewish philosophers as to the qualities which make a man suitable to be a prophet, nor whether prophecy is restricted to the Land of Israel. However, it is generally agreed that prophecy ceased shortly after the destruction of the First Temple and the Exile of the Jews from the Land of Israel.In his glosses on Jeremiah 1:5 Malbim writes that in order to achieve the status of a prophet a person must satisfy two requirements: (i) he must be predisposed by the excellence of his nature, intelligence and temperament for prophecy; (ii) he must prepare himself to receive the prophecy by the goodness of his deeds and the holiness of his life-style. However, when no suitable prophets are available but God needs one to deal with an emergency, as for example in the case of Gideon, He chooses the best available candidate and endows him with the necessary qualities to fulfill his mission.</i>. It is in this way that those truths which are beyond the reach of our senses are made known by God; through revelation and prophecy. This is God's grace to mankind, for in this way were the truths and foundations of belief revealed in sure knowledge through the Master of the Prophets, <i>with whom God spoke face to face (Exodus 33:11)</i>, <i>and to whom He showed His Glory (Exodus 33:18.)</i>. 
  The book concludes by telling us that Job had in fact never stopped believing all of this. He had never really doubted either Providence, reward and punishment or free-will. Everything he said was an act - that of a researcher looking for a way to establish these articles of faith through the exercise of intellect and inquiry.43<i class="footnote">'The intention of Job is not to present us with a full answer to the question; why are there righteous people who suffer and wicked ones who prosper? In principle, Job teaches us that a person who fears God does not waiver from his path, despite it becoming clear to him that a person's fate does not always accord with his deeds, but is determined by God according to other factors unknown to him.' (Haham, p. 12).Dreadful occurrences, such as the torture and death of the ten rabbinical martyrs and the desecration of R. Akiva's body (TB Menachot 29b) are explained by the Talmud as being Divine decrees, beyond questioning and human comprehension. The Sages are drawn to conclude that 'there is death without sin and suffering without iniquity' (TB Shabbat 55b).In his comments on Job 42:7, Malbim explains that Job's three companions, Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar, had also been acting; when they put forward the various orthodox theological arguments used to defend Providence; they had not really believed them. Job had in fact already pointed this out to them (see The Introduction to Seventh Oration and Ch. 13:9-11). Furthermore, whilst Job had not really believed what he said, they in their hearts had in fact agreed with the heresies he expressed. Consequently, they are rebuked by God: 'You did not speak correctly about me, as did my servant Job' (Job 42:7).The reader might prefer the more straightforward interpretation that 'the honest complaint of Job is preferable to the hypocritical certainties of his friends.' (Moshe Halbertal, The New Republic, April 1994)</i> This being so, <i>he found favor in God's eyes and He returned all that he had lost, even doubling it (Job 42:10-11).</i> 
  And now that I have made all this known to you; and after giving thanks to God <i>for the mercy He has bestowed upon me (Psalms 117:2)</i> by enlightening me and imparting it all to me; and after praying that<i> He may guide me in the paths of righteousness (Psalms 23:3)</i> <i>and teach me His ways for His Name's sake. (Isaiah 2:3)</i> I will now set off ahead of you and make the crooked places straight (Isaiah 45:2), <i>I will bring you treasures from the darkness, and the hidden riches of secret places (Isaiah 45:3).</i> <i>May the Lord accomplish His purpose for me, forsaking not the work of my hands (Psalms 138:8).</i> <i>Open my eyes, that I might perceive the wonders of Your Torah. (Psalms 119:18). </i>
  Signed on Rosh Chodesh Tammuz 5627
  Meir Leibush Malbim
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  From the portrait of the man Job with which the story opens, it is clear that no rational explanation can be given for his afflictions; no interpretation by which their occurrence was a normal event. For when poverty and suffering befall a person, it is normally for one of six reasons:
  1.	By reason of the nature of his body and its constitution. These causes can be divided into two sub-groups:  a.	Natural causes: If a person is a glutton, he weakens his body and wastes his money as a result of his bad traits. But Job was both sincere and upright.  The term 'upright' implies that he was virtuous in both thought and action, for such was his nature. But even an upright person may falter such as when he sees that as a consequence of his virtue he may be harmed or may have to forgo some benefit or other. However, a sincere person is one who, by definition, performs his deeds with sincerity, i.e., without regard for his own advantage, and who always stands as firm as a rock, never faltering. b.	Providential causes: Even though someone is by nature a sincere and upright person,  he may incur suffering and poverty if he is not also God-fearing, <i>keeping His statutes, commandments and laws</i> (Exodus 16:28);  or if he does not vigilantly eschew the evils proscribed by God, even though under the legal ordinances dictated by civilized ethics they may not be considered as such. However, we are told, in advance, that Job was both God-fearing and one who shunned wrongdoing.
  2.  A person may waste away if he is childless, having neither family nor home: <i>without help or support; strangers swallowing him up</i> (Hosea 8:7); and those looking to inherit him ruining him. But — 
  
  Verse 2
  
  Job had seven sons and three daughters; <i>his children were like olive saplings around his table</i> (Psalms 128:3), <i>a shield and a fence</i> (Jeremiah 46:3; Ezekiel 39:9; Psalms 35:2).  
  3.  Impoverished persons may crumble: <i>poverty is the undoing of the feeble</i> (Proverbs 10:15) and <i>a poor man's brothers all spurn him</i> (Proverbs 19:7). But — [Job owned seven thousand sheep...]
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  4.	If a man is humiliated and disgraced in the eyes of the public he may break down; <i>crushed in the gate, with none to save him</i> (Job 5:4).  But Job was a famous and respected man, the greatest man in all the East.
  5.	A man can be destroyed by family dissension, as when brothers bear malice towards one another <i>and fabricate hatred</i> (Proverbs 12:20) in his house. This is what the enmity between Joseph and his brothers did to the patriarch Jacob. But Job's family lived in harmony and affection: [His sons held regular feasts etc.]
  
  Verse 4
  
   
  6.  Lest it be said that Job was punished for the sins of any of his household or because he did not censure them, we are told how punctiliously he supervised them, and sanctified and purified them from any sin: [He would rise early in the morning and offer burnt-offerings, one for each of them, for Job said: 'Perhaps my sons sinned'...] 
  
  
  Verse 5
  
    Having eliminated or dismissed all the normal explanations that might possibly be offered for Job's afflictions, the Prologue now goes on to relate the real reason why these great afflictions befell him.
  
  Verse 6
  
  Maimonides has explained that all that is bad, whether it be personal or general, is associated with 'matter'. All objects or bodies that exist and decay, are only subject to this decay by reason of their matter; for as regards their form, or the essence of their form, they are indestructible.2<i class="footnote">According to Maimonides the destruction of physical objects results from their matter and not their form. The body of man is matter and his soul is form. The body alone dies; the soul is immortal.</i>   The essential nature of matter is its property of always being able to assume a new form. And so form can only be destroyed coincidentally, i.e., on account of its intimate association with matter, such as when a physical object assumes a new form. Maimonides continues: <i>It is therefore clear that all corruption, destruction or defect comes from matter. Take, for example, man; his deformities and unnatural shape of limbs; all weakness, interruption, or disorder of his actions, whether innate or not, originate in the transient matter, not in the form. All other living beings likewise die or become ill through the matter of the body and not through its form. Man's shortcomings and sins are all due to the matter of the body and not to its form; while all his merits are exclusively due to his form. Thus the knowledge of God, the formation of ideas, the mastery of desire and passion, the distinction between that which is to be chosen and that which is to be rejected, all these man owes to his form; but eating, drinking, sexual intercourse, excessive lust, passion, and all vices, have their origin in the matter of his body</i>.3<i class="footnote">Guide for the Perplexed Part 3, Chapter 8</i>  Accordingly, we are told how the 'sons of God', who are the forces found throughout creation, His sons and His handiwork, were in attendance before the Lord. All of them, since He is the Lord who sustains and who is the source of all existence; for maintaining existence is continual creation. They are joined by Satan, who is the force of extinction and the source of evil, decay, sin and everything else that obliterates and damages. As Maimonides explained:  <i>It does not say: 'And the Sons of God and Satan came to present themselves before the Lord'; for this sentence would have implied that the existence of both was of the same kind and rank...it only states that he joined them. Satan does not attend God of necessity and a priori, for he has no role in existence, only in extinction and decay. He only joins them because he is needed by the sublunar 'Sons of God', viz., the material forces; for the existence of a material object requires a prior extinction that changed form</i>.4<i class="footnote"><i>Guide for the Perplexed Part 3, Chapter 22</i>. In the sublunar world, an object must first undergo some degree of extinction or destruction before it can assume a new form. Change, therefore, cannot occur in the sublunar world without Satan, the agent of extinction and destruction. On the other hand, he has no role in the immutable celestial world.</i>  Behold, we have a tradition that each of the natural forces of creation is governed by a superior agency that is also its source. These are the 'sons of God' who were in attendance before the Lord; angels that are controlled by and receive their power from God and who are in turn appointed over each of the forces of existence. As the Talmudic Sages said: <i>There is no plant that does not have an angel appointed over it telling it to grow</i>.5<i class="footnote"><i>Bereshit Rabbah 10:6</i>. The Midrashic source actually speaks of 'a destiny in the firmament that acts upon the plant' rather than 'an angel that is appointed over it.' This notion appears in the Zohar (II,171a) too:  <i>Acting as guardians over this world are all the stars of the firmaments, with each individual object of the world having a specially designated star to care for it. The herbs and the trees, the grass and the wild plants, to bloom and increase must have the power of the stars that stand over them and look directly at them, each in its particular mode.</i></i>  Likewise, an ethereal agent has also been appointed over the force of extinction and destruction: Satan, the adversary, the killer and the destroyer. As the Talmudic Sages said: <i>He is Satan, he is the evil inclination, he is the Angel of Death</i> (Baba Batra 16a), He is the accuser, the one permitted to corrupt and destroy. 
  
  Verse 7
  
  And so when God asks Satan from where he has come, he replies that he has been roving the earth, traveling its length and breadth.  For Satan's role as the agent of extinction restricts him to the sublunar world of 'matter'.
  
  Verse 8
  
  When, in His wisdom, God united 'form' and 'matter' in man, He endowed the 'form' with power and dominion over the 'matter' so that it can suppress the latter's appetites, satisfying them only to the extent that morality and ethics allow. Consequently, a godly person who subjugates his 'matter' and conquers his cravings, and whose soul has absolute rule over all his instincts, will be beyond the rule of the force of extinction.6<i class="footnote">The soul and Satan struggle for dominion over the body - matter. If the soul is strong enough it can deny Satan power over the body.</i>  Such a perfect man would be protected by God's Providence from any physical harm. This is the background to the dialogue between God and Satan. God presents Job as being such a paragon, beyond Satan's reach. 
  
  Verse 9
  
  Satan scorns this and asserts that Job is in fact motivated only by material self-interest. From philosophical considerations it is clear that worship of God that is motivated by hope of reward or fear of punishment is not a spiritual but a material act. The same can be said of foregoing bodily pleasures. The self-denial of a person who fasts in order to be rewarded is not a product of his 'form' but of his love of 'matter'. Such a person afflicts himself out of love for his body, in the expectation of gain and in order to acquire the means to satisfy his desires.7<i class="footnote">Spinoza's comments are apt here: <i>I see in what mud this man sticks...He is one of those who would follow after his own lusts, if he were not restrained by fear of hell. He abstains from evil actions and fulfills God's commands like a slave against his will, and for his bondage he expects to be rewarded God with gifts far more to his taste than Divine love, and great in proportion to his original dislike of virtue</i>. Again, at the close of the Ethics, he draws an ironic picture of the pious coming before God at the Judgment, and looking to be endowed with incalculable blessings in recompense for the grievous burden of their piety (R.H.M.Elwes, p.XXX).</i> Satan contends that Job's fear of God and his vigilance are not pure-minded. On the contrary, they are based on his expectation of physical reward and his fear of physical injury. And so Satan asks: Does Job fear God for nothing? Do You not protect him, his household and all that is around him? You have blessed everything he does and his possessions have spread far and wide.
  
  Verse 10
  
  ... 
  
  Satan suggests putting Job to a test to determine just what his true motives are.
  
  Verse 11
  
  If he is really sincere, then even were he denied all his Providential blessings, he would still continue in his righteous ways. If, on the other hand, his righteousness was in fact only instrumental, motivated by expectation of reward or avoidance of injury, then, were the blessings removed, not only would he stop acting righteously, there being no good reason to do so any longer, but he would also curse God. For having previously believed his blessings to be deserved, i.e., that he had merited his wealth and possessions by virtue of his righteous ways, he would now blame their removal on the capriciousness of Governance, declaring that God is not a just judge This would clearly prove that his worship had not been out of love. For had it been so, he would not now complain but would balance his good times against the bad.8<i class="footnote">Satan does not question God's description of Job's behavior, viz., that Job is 'a sincere and upright man, God-fearing and vigilant'. Rather he questions Job's motives for this behavior. Job's trials are therefore an attempt to determine what makes him 'tick'. The Talmudic Sages declared: <i>Everything is in the hands of Heaven, except for the fear of Heaven. (TB Berachot 33b)</i>The stone God created, so heavy even He cannot lift it, is man.</i> 
  
  Verse 12
  
  To summarize: It is clear that Job's suffering had nothing to do with any sin or punishment; he was guiltless. As God Himself had testified: ...there is no-one like him on earth; such a sincere and upright man; God-fearing; one who shuns wrongdoing. It was in fact a trial designed to determine the truth about his piety; to see whether he would remain righteous even in poverty. Neither Job nor his three friends were aware of this until it was revealed to them by Elihu.  God agrees to the test. All of Job's possessions are handed over to Satan; only Job himself was to remain untouched. As Maimonides explains <i>(Guide for the Perplexed, Part 3, Chapter 22)</i>: <i>There are people who though unshaken by the loss of their money, would be horrified by the death of their children, driven to death worrying about it; there are others who would not be broken even by the loss of their children, but who are unable to face personal physical pain.</i> 
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  Maimonides has also categorized the types of harm that can befall man:  <i>The evils that befall man are of three kinds: </i>
  The first kind of evil is that which befalls a man because he is subject to genesis and destruction or because he possesses a body...in consequence of changes in the elements e.g. through bad air or thunderstorms or land-slips.
  The second class of evils comprises such evils as people cause to one another e.g. when some of them use their strength against others. 
  The third class comprises those which a person causes to himself by his own action...diseases and afflictions upon body and soul alike. The first two types of harm are now inflicted on Job. He loses all his possessions: his oxen and asses and herdsmen, his sheep and shepherds, his camels and their drivers, and finally his children. All in one calamitous day, disaster following disaster, each worse than the one before. The loss of the oxen, asses and camels, together with their minders, was caused by rustlers and bandits - evils of the second class; the sheep and shepherds and his children were lost as a result of elemental disasters - lightning and whirlwind - which are evils of the first class.
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  But Job stands the test. He neither denies that God governs the world, nor does he criticize this Governance.
  His possessions were not his own outright property; he had not been born with them. They were a gift or a loan from God, who had created them. They had been entrusted to him and had now been taken back. And taking them back was not an evil thing but was just a denial of bountiful good. God must have a good reason for doing this. 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  The scene returns to Heaven where once again the Sons of God are in attendance before the Lord. However this time Satan too is in attendance before the Lord. This is because Job is now to be tried with diseases and bodily afflictions—evils of the third class. The harm visited upon Job so far has been in the shape of elemental disasters or acts of aggression, both of which are beyond the victim's control. However, the diseases and bodily afflictions about to be inflicted upon him are usually the result of the victim's own self-indulgence. A righteous person is not protected from elemental disasters or acts of aggression by the direct action of his righteousness on Nature, for righteousness is not a 'natural' cause but a 'providential' one. He is protected from such evils by Providence, which acts by virtue of his righteousness. As it says in the Book of Psalms: <i>and ten thousand at your right hand; but it will not come close to you. You will look at it with your eyes, seeing the recompense of the wicked. For you are one for whom 'The Lord is my refuge'; You have made the Most High your habitation. No evil will befall you, nor any calamity come close to your home. For He has charged His angels to guard you wherever you go; to carry you on their hands, lest you strike your foot on a stone</i> (Psalms 91:5-12).  However, a righteous person's immunity from the harm caused by over-indulgence is a natural consequence of his righteous lifestyle. In his case, righteousness is a 'natural' cause, for as a result of it he exercises self-restraint. As it says:  <i>The righteous man eats for his soul's satisfaction</i> (Proverbs 13:25). Therefore, by virtue of his nature, Job should be immune from these diseases and bodily afflictions.  When Satan destroyed all of Job's possessions, all that was required of God was that He suspend His Providential protection of them; the rest could be left to Satan, the agency of destruction, who would then be free to act. However, in order for Job to suffer diseases and bodily afflictions, a Providential act would be required. It would not be enough for God to remove His protection from Job and leave him to the mercies of the destructive forces of Satan, for his righteous life-style would still afford him a natural protection from physical decay. This further affliction cannot be brought about just by the removal of Providential protection but will require a Providential act to counter Job's natural immunity. Therefore Satan, the agent of extinction and decay, is here 'in attendance before the Lord', for he is unable alone to bring this last disaster upon Job. This time God's direct participation is needed. 
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  God rebukes Satan for having maligned Job without cause. Job had stood the test; his worship of God had indeed been out of love and without any expectation of reward, and so the calamities inflicted upon his possessions and children had been totally unwarranted.
  
  Verse 4
  
  Satan, however, is unrepentant and unconvinced. He demands a further test, this time one whose torment Job himself must bear. He argues that all that has been shown so far is that Job was not particularly sensitive to the loss of his possessions and children.  'A skin for a skin!' cries Satan. Job's own body has not been touched and it is only for fear that it might be that he has not yet complained against God. For it is well known that a man will always give up an outer 'skin' to save another more precious to him.
  
  Man is a negotiator by nature and so will give everything he has to save his life. No matter how much is taken away from him, so long as he still lives, man always has something left that he will try to protect and for which he will bargain.
  
  Verse 5
  
  However, were You to stretch out Your hand and touch his person, his very flesh; not just skin-deep but so severely that he becomes convinced that his condition is terminal, then he would surely curse You to Your face and damn Governance.
  
  Verse 6
  
  God agrees to this second test adding the rider that Job was not actually to die. The Talmudic Sages observed, in irony, that Satan's frustration at this rider was even greater than all the pain suffered by Job. It was as though he had been told to 'break the cask but to save the wine' (TB Baba Batra 16a).  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  After losing all his possessions and children, Job had still blessed God. But he now just remains silent. This time, he could not bring himself to do so. His wife taunts him: Are you still resolved to be perfect? Bless God once more again and you'll be dead!
  
  Verse 10
  
  Job rebukes her for this but does not bless God again; nor does he curse Him.9<i class="footnote">Malbim elaborates, adding that his wife taunted him: 'Look, when you blessed God the first time and thereby showed that you are faithful with Him, He went on to afflict your body too. So if now you bless him again, He will surely go on to afflict your soul until you die, for there is nothing else left by which He can strike you. And so, since you still maintain your sincerity, why are you silent this time and do not bless over the bad. Bless God now too, and die!''</i>  He asks rhetorically: Besides, can we receive good from God without receiving bad?. At first sight, this appears to be a noble reply and this is how most commentators interpret it. But closer examination shows that in his mind Job was already turning to heresy. This follows from his use of the word 'besides'.  Job believed that in reality good is always touched with bad. Furthermore, from what he subsequently says in the debate, it is clear that he thought that the bad in the world outweighs the good. Consequently, he does not believe God can grant only good. Whoever wants good must also accept an amount of bad. For example, a person, who consumes large quantities of wine and rich foods because he likes their taste, must not complain that it makes him drunk or gives him indigestion. Just the opposite, in exchange for the pleasure it gives him, one who enjoys the taste of wine and good food must be prepared to endure the inevitable and greater discomfort that follows their consumption. The hangover and upset stomach are the price that must be paid for enjoying the food and drink.   Likewise, if we want to receive good from God, namely existence and life, we must of necessity also accept bad; a bad that is greater than the good. So great in fact, that it can be argued that overall what we get in our short lives is principally and mainly bad with just a little good thrown in. When he comes into existence, man is burdened with a host of troubles, worries and uncertainties that crowd his short span. This is the essence of his patrimony.   Thus, Job reveals that in his mind he was already leaning towards the heresy that God's creation of man was to his detriment, for the bad outweighs the good in the world 4<i class="footnote">The Talmud relates: <i>For two and a half years, the academies of Shammai and Hillel were in dispute. The former asserting that it were better for man not to have been created than to have been created; the latter maintaining that it is better for man to have been created than not to have been created. They finally took a vote and decided that it were better for man not to have been created than to have been created. But now that he has been created, let him investigate his past deeds; or, as others say, let him examine his future actions</i> (TB Eruvin 13b)</i>.   To criticize God's motives and to impute that He created man for his own harm <i>is a root from which springs gall and wormwood</i> (Deuteronomy 29:18),  and this is the foundation of all the bitter things that he subsequently expounds in the debate. But since at this point, even though this idea was already in his mind, he only hints at it by his use of the word 'besides', the book relates that despite everything, Job did not sin with his lips.  For he had not yet actually uttered it. Hence, the Talmudic Sages said that though Job did not sin with his lips, he did sin in his heart (TB Baba Batra 16a). 
  
  Verse 11
  
  Hearing of the calamities that had befallen him, Job's three friends, Eliphaz of Teman, Bildad of Shuah and Zophar of Naamah traveled from afar to mourn his losses and to comfort him.13<i class="footnote">Notwithstanding Malbim's reservations in the matter, the plain meaning of the text is that despite the afflictions Job did not sin; Satan has lost the heavenly wager. We the readers know this but Job and his companions do not. They have no knowledge at all of the true reasons for Job's destruction. This is the irony of their debate.</i>
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  The First Oration - Job's Opening Speech
  In Sefer Ha-Ikarim (Part 4, Chapter 4), Joseph Albo notes that there are two ancient opinions concerning the workings of astrology.
  • <i>One is the view of the Philosopher, who says that the heavenly bodies and the stars exert an influence upon the lower world by means of their various motions, by which they cause the elements to move, and combine them and prepare them in various ways to receive the natural forms, so that some persons are prepared to acquire wisdom and others are not; some are prepared to receive the divine prophetic influence and others are not... As for any other signification the stars may have in relation to other things which have no connection with their elemental qualities, as for example in the determination of poverty or wealth, or whether a given person will marry one wife or more than one, or whether he will be virtuous or vicious - this school denies any such power. It is false, they say, and extremely unlikely that the stars should give indications of things which have nothing to do with them, like poverty, wealth love, hate, etc.</i>
  •  <i>The second view is that of the astrologers and star-gazers. They say that all things that happen to a man, do so by the decree of the stars. And they prove it by actual verification. The astrologer tells a person what will happen to him in all particulars, whether he will live long, whether he will be poor or rich, how many wives he will have and so on. This shows that all things that happen to a man are due to the decree of the stars, which it is impossible to escape...Some of the Rabbis hold this view: 'Luck makes one wise, and luck makes one rich' (TB Shabbat 156a)</i>.
  Clearly, Job held the same opinion as the astrologers, namely, that all human affairs are prescribed and apportioned by the Cosmos.1<i class="footnote"> Nahmanides and Gersonides ascribe the same belief to Job. This however raises the question of why, if he did not believe in God's Governance of the sublunar world, Job had offered sacrifices to God lest his children had sinned. Gersonides replies that Job had believed in the immortality of the soul and it was by reason of this that he had done his best to educate his children to the worship of God, even though he did not believe that any material reward would accompany it. Confused as to the workings of Providence, he had wanted to do the right thing and to cover all possibilities and so had acted as though he believed in reward and punishment. However, when the calamities befell him he lost his faith. Malbim's answer to this question, as we shall see, would be that Job never ceased to believe in Providence. The positions and arguments he assumes in the debate were just an act: polemics.</i> This is the principle he lays down at the beginning of his speech, when he curses the night of his conception and the day of his birth, for <i>they had been his ruin</i> (Judges 11:35) (Ch.3:3-10). If they had seen, at the time, that his horoscope prescribed that he was to be a failure during his life, they should have decided upon his extinction, for why should he come into existence just to <i>see strife and sorrow</i> (Jeremiah 20:18)?  (Ch.3:10-14).
  For man instinctively feels2<i class="footnote"> Literally, 'the impression stamped on man's mind is'</i>  that non-existence is bad for him. Thus, he rues any degree of non-existence which may leave him in want of any object in existence, such as a lack of wealth and the like. Above all, he is frightened by the thought of his own total extinction. But all this is only <i>the homeborn child</i> (Leviticus 18:9) of his imagination, after he has already come into existence. This would not be so had he never existed in the first place, for then nothingness and the absence of presence would be equivalent. We could not then delineate the extent of the non-existence, namely, whether he became extinct never having been of great rank or never having been of low rank, for there is no difference between nothingness and nothingness (Ch.3:14-17).3<i class="footnote">In his glosses, Malbim adds the following explanation: For persons who actually exist, differences of rank have meaning; one is a king, another a courtier. There are also many levels within existence, the weakest and frailest of which is that of a dead fetus, below which there is only extinction. But such distinctions are meaningless for one who has never existed. There are no degrees within nothingness. It is only man's imagination after he has come into existence which makes him feel that these distinctions are bad. But if he did not exist to begin with, these too would not exist.</i> 
  And with this he broadens his argument and comes to the same conclusion as that attributed by Maimonides <i>(Guide for the Perplexed Part 3, Chapter 12)</i> to the scholar Al-Razi, namely, that there is more bad than good in the world.  <i>For if the happiness of man and his pleasure in the times of prosperity be compared with the mishaps that befall him, - such as grief, acute pain, defects, paralysis of the limbs, fears, anxieties and troubles, - it would seem as if the existence of man is a punishment and a great evil for him. This author commenced to verify his opinion by counting all the evils one by one.</i> As the folk-songs and proverbs of many of the peoples of the world say: 'It is a wonder when anything good happens.' <i>Yea, his misfortunes are many</i> (Deuteronomy 31:17) and enduring too. Job makes much of this in his argument (Ch.3:17-20).4<i class="footnote">We would all be better off had we not been born because there is always more bad than good in the world. But this would not be the case if God Himself governed.</i>
  And even if some other person denies [that the bad outweighs the good] and says that he is bright-eyed with success, enjoying the passage of time as he laps the sweetness of the honeycomb, <i>desirous of life and length of days, for ever and ever</i> (Psalms 21.5).  The question [asked by Job] still remains in full force. Why did [the night of his conception and the day of his birth] bring him into existence and give life to one who is only waiting to die? (Ch.3:20).
  Moreover, consider the vagaries of destiny. For it is only <i>by reason of this troublemaker</i> (1 Kings 20:7)  that a person, who had been desperately poor and destitute all his days, and had longed for and begged the release of death but to whom the stars gave life, suddenly comes upon great treasure and vast wealth, only to die soon after, just when he wanted to live and <i>see the good</i> (Job 7:7). (Ch.3:21).
  This clearly shows that the governance of man is subject to the rule of astrology and its ordinances, for good or for bad.5<i class="footnote">Nature's indifference to ethics or morality is an evil that could not possibly be the result of God's Governance. It is the ultimate proof that Governance has been delegated to the blind rule of the Cosmos. For Nature, heartless, witless Nature  Will neither care nor know. (A.E.Housman).</i>  And, furthermore, that man is neither master of his actions nor has freedom over them. Choice and enterprise make no difference whatsoever, for his individual acts are prescribed by order and by reason of the stars, and he is incapable of doing good .nor bad other than at their behest (Ch.3:22-24). Job asserts that the proof of all this is in what had happened to him. He had considered himself to be a truly righteous man. Accordingly, he could not accept that what had happened to him was God's retribution for wicked deeds he had done. Nor, in the light of the unnatural way in which he had lost his possessions, could he consider that it was all accidental. In the space of just one hour he had been struck by a variety of agents—tempest, fire and hostile action—suddenly and all at once. Clearly, he was under attack from heaven itself. This must have happened because the stars had decreed that at that particular moment his fortune should reverse. (Ch.3:26) Further proof of this was the premonition he had always felt that the future would be bad. It was as if his mind foresaw that the fate decreed for him by his stars was bad and that he was destined for doom. (Ch.3:25).
  Behold! Underlying all the postulates Job put forward was the conviction that God must know everything that happens in the world below. For no lack of knowledge can be ascribed to Him, nor can He be designated a source of injustice. The unfairness in reward or punishment does not ensue from God. It is caused by the stars. For man has no freedom over his actions; he is compelled in what he does. All of this will be further clarified by the proofs Job will be presenting in his coming arguments, one by one.
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  Convinced that the shattering series of catastrophes that had befallen him was totally unwarranted and that, as such, it could not have originated with God, for that would imply an imperfection in His Governance, Job attributes its occurrence to the bad luck of his birth, namely, to his horoscope. In which case, it would have been better had he never been conceived or born.
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  Job now argues that, in general, extinction is preferable to existence and that it would have been better for man had he never been created, for the bad in the world always outweighs the good. For persons who actually exist, differences of rank have meaning; one is a king, another a courtier. There are also many levels within existence, the weakest and frailest of which is that of a dead fetus, below which there is only extinction. But such distinctions are meaningless for one who has never existed. There are no degrees within nothingness. It is only man's imagination after he has come into existence which makes him feel that these distinctions are bad. But if he did not exist to begin with, these too would not exist.  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  But not everyone suffers all the time. There are some who are successful and happy and enjoy life. However, the distribution is random and indiscriminate and so their joy is either at the expense of others or a snare to themselves. The sunrise, at which they rejoice, marks the start of another day of drudgery for the manual worker forced to labor. The life that the fortunate enjoy others hate. The wheel of fortune raises a man's spirits only to crush him cruelly afterwards.
  
  Verse 21
  
  Malbim pictures the irony of the desperate and destitute man, who spends his entire life longing for the release of death, and who, upon discovering buried treasure in his old age, is buried alive when the walls of the pit in which he found the treasure cave in on him. Such is the caprice of destiny.
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  Job had had a premonition, but despite all he had done to try and prevent the calamities when their pre-appointed time came, his very worst fears were fulfilled. There was no way he could escape his destiny.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  ﻿The Second Oration - Eliphaz's First Speech
  Eliphaz held the <i>Torah</i> view,1<i class="footnote"><i>That expressed in the </i>Torah<i> passage:Today I offer you the choice of life and good, or death and evil...Choose life and then you and your descendants will live </i>(<i>Deuteronomy</i> 30:15)<i>. </i></i> namely, that man has freedom of choice and the stars have no influence over all those things that are subject to this choice. For man has authority and power over his deeds; to execute them or to desist from doing so, for good or for bad, whilst the stars go their own way in their celestial orbits, flying past without any effect on the world below. As he says:  For man is born to labor  whilst on high the flaming comets fly past (Ch.5:7). The courses taken by individuals are not determined by astrology. On the contrary, man is free to do good or evil to himself, as he decides, by the exercise of his own will. For we have seen how anger and lust kill stupid persons who choose so to behave (Ch.5:2). Man was born to strive; initiative is of the essence and effort is both effective and necessary for success (Ch.5:7). 
  And if a person suddenly become prosperous, without having invested any effort or labor, it appearing as though he has achieved his life's ambition without going through any of the intermediate stages, know that this is a bogus prosperity and will not last, neither in his hands nor in those of his children. However, the prosperity of one who enjoys the results of his labors is different, for it will <i>make its seeds spring forth</i> (Isaiah 61:11) and will produce fruit (Ch.5:3-7).
  Furthermore, Job had been mistaken about the premonition he had always felt. As he had said: I had a terrible premonition, and it has befallen me (Job 3:25). He had attributed this to an intuition that had entered his soul from the decree of the stars. But, in fact, this fear was on account of his sins, for it is by reason of them that <i>one rises or falls</i> (Psalms 107:26). As Eliphaz says: Was not your immunity the purpose for your piety, ? and your expectations the motive for your integrity. And, as will be explained, Eliphaz also meant by this that Job should have been unsettled by his immunity. His integrity alone should have been his assurance.
     In this speech Eliphaz also expounds one of the principles mentioned in the <i>Sefer Ha-Ikkarim </i>(Part 4. Chapter 5), namely, that human actions cannot all be absolutely prescribed as the astrologers believe. <i>...because this opinion does away with the category of the contingent, and upsets all the principles of the Torah...Also that all human acts are absolutely free, and that effort is of value in all cases,...as is the opinion of the Philosopher,</i>2<i class="footnote">The translator Husik notes: 'I am not aware that Aristotle held this view.'</i><i> is also impossible. For we see with our senses that many actions in which a person endeavors to attain something, making all the possible preparations for the attainment of the end, and yet he not merely fails to attain his end, but the very preparations which he has made produce the opposite effect</i>. Take, for example, what had happened with Joseph's brothers. Their intention when they sold him into slavery was to prevent him ruling over them. But it was that very act that ultimately led to his rule. There are also instances where good happens to a person without him trying, as when Saul became king without making any effort whatsoever. Evidently, human actions are of a number of types:
  1. There are the contingent acts which are absolutely freely chosen. These are the ones affected by initiative and intent; in these the property of contingency is conserved. It is on account of these that a person is praised or criticized. And it is to these that both warnings and commands, and reward and punishment, apply.
  2. There are those actions that are absolutely prescribed, such as those things which are decreed by God and will happen no matter what. For example, Joseph's rise to rule etc.
  3. Those actions which are a mixture, involving both choice and prescription, such as the sowing of seeds and the subsequent growth of the crop; or digging for and finding treasure. For the crop will not grow without both the effort of sowing the seed and the intervention of Providence making it rain at the right time. 
  But even those actions that are prescribed, either totally or partially, are not determined by astrology but by Providence and the Will of God (Ch.5:8).
    Eliphaz brings evidence for the existence of Providential acts from the occurrence of rainfall (Ch.5:9-12), and from the way it saves the needy from the clutches of those stronger than them. By the nature of things, tyrants should always oppress the weak and bring about their extinction from upon the face of the earth.3<i class="footnote">In Nature small fish are eaten by bigger fish who, in turn, are eaten by still bigger ones. That this is not always the case where man is concerned is the result of Providential intercession.</i> (Ch.5:12-17). He also explains that Providence may sometimes make something bad happen to a person in order to save him from a still greater harm that was about to befall him. For instance, when someone who planned to travel by a certain route is prevented from taking it because he twists his ankle on a stone, and the route he had intended to take is raided by bandits. Or, when a person who was planning to board a ship and at the last moment is taken ill and could not sail, and the ship he had intended to take sinks. Thus, by the lesser evil, God saves him from a greater one that was awaiting him (Ch.5:17-23).4<i class="footnote"><i>vide</i> Gersonides, <i>The Wars of the Lord</i>. Part 4 Chapter 5 and Albo, <i>Ikkarim</i> Part 4 Chapter 5.</i>    This Providential shield stretches over the righteous and over every detail of their activities (Ch.5:8), protecting them from all types of misfortune (Ch.5:23). According to Eliphaz, neither a man's children, nor the length of his life nor his income depend on luck; they are all determined by merit and Providence alone (Ch.5:24-27).5<i class="footnote"><i>vide</i> <i>TB Moed Katan</i> 28a</i>
  • On the global scale, the evidence for the existence of this Providence is found in the nature of rainfall and of the river-based irrigation in countries where no rain falls, such as Egypt (Ch.5:9-10).
  • On the individual scale, the evidence comes from the way it upsets the schemes of the cunning, or how the schemes they have contrived for achieving their goals often become the cause of just the opposite happening (Ch.5:12,17).
  Thus, the reasoned reply that Eliphaz makes to Job's complaint and to his argument that the fact that righteous people suffer the deserts of the wicked is an absolute proof of the non-existence of Providence, is that at times it is for their own good (Ch.5:17,23). 
  However, he does not consider this reply to be completely satisfactory, for he had only derived it from his intellect. Consequently, he does not have complete confidence in it, as he says: This is what we present, having examined it and found it valid. Consider it and form your own opinion (Job 5:27). Eliphaz presents his main thesis on the issue of the suffering of the righteous in Chapter 4, where he relates that he had had a prophetic revelation concerning this; <i>visions of the night</i>, (Job 20:8 ) in which he was informed that bad befalls the righteous because of some sin that they have committed. As our Rabbis said: <i>There is no suffering without sin</i> (TB Shabbat 55a). And even though, at first sight, no sin could be found in Job, no person can boast and say: <i>I have cleansed my soul and I have become purified of my sins</i> (Psalms 55:4). Whichever way it is considered, whether by reference to the greatness of the Creator and the extent of His beneficence towards man, by virtue of which worship beyond measure is due to Him; or by reference to the lowliness of man compared to Him, no person, <i>born of woman</i>, (Job 15:14) can be vindicated against the Most High God or can claim that he has discharged his worship of God, his Maker, in perfect totality. Therefore, God afflicts him, not for his detriment but for his benefit; a penitence for his sin. To cure the sickness of his soul before <i>his measure becomes full</i> (Ecclesiastes Rabbah 1) and he becomes deserving of yet greater punishment, still more severe and enduring, namely, the perdition of his soul or the condemnation of his body to die before its time (Ch.4:12,21).
  These afflictions are but mild medicines if <i>they succeed in safeguarding</i> (Nehemiah 4:1) him against perishing for all eternity.    Now since according to Eliphaz's thesis, it is conceivable that a righteous suffer but not that he perish (Ch.4:7-11); and since, even according to Job, all that can be concluded from his afflictions is that a righteous person may suffer but not that he perishes; the foundation upon which Job had built his hypothesis that the world has been handed over to astrology, namely, his contention that he had been made to suffer even though he not in his judgment sinned, is destroyed. These afflictions had befallen him because of a sin he had committed, namely, not perfecting his worship [of God] to a degree that befits the worship of the Lord; a worship that has no limit or design. The afflictions had not been intended to wipe him out; <i>he will yet be rebuilt…and restored (Proverbs 24:3)</i> (Ch.4:20, 4:27).
  As further evidence that Job had not been completely perfect in his worship, Eliphaz cites the fact that he had begun to complain against God and to deny principles of faith the moment the suffering started. This showed that his fear of God had not been genuine and had only been motivated by love of reward and fear of punishment. For someone who genuinely fears the Lord, <i>his steps do not falter</i> (Psalms 37:31) when He rebukes him; unlike Job who <i>preaches nonsense</i>, (Job 35:16) turning everything upside down (Ch.4:2, 4:7).
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  Job's almost instantaneous loss of faith would be a lesson to all. The Providential retraction of his prosperity had revealed that his faith had only ever been instrumental; based not on love of God but on the expectation of His blessings and bounty. Job deserved punishment. Had he remained silent, no-one would have known. But now everyone knew and they would see his punishment as proof that God does govern.
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  Job's argument had been based on his claim that he had been unjustifiably victimized. Eliphaz challenges this. He maintains that no-one ever suffers without it being justified. Suffering is always warranted, for no-one is absolutely free of sin. However, whereas the suffering endured by the righteous is transient for he does not perish for ever, the proud and predatory are irrevocably and eternally condemned.
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  Eliphaz now relates that, in a prophetic vision, it had been revealed to him that no man can be absolutely perfect and beyond punishment and that the transient suffering of the righteous prevents their perdition. 6<i class="footnote">Malbim asserts that the vision seen by Eliphaz had been indistinct, as befits a lesser prophet, one whose standing is far below that of Moses, the master of the prophets. For God has not revealed the full answer to the question of the suffering of the righteous to anyone, not even to Moses. Malbim adds that the account of the vision accords with the description of lesser prophecy—'prophecy through a clouded mirror'—given by Maimonides in Chapter 7 of  The Halachot of the Principles of the Torah:<i>In what respects was the prophecy of Moses distinguished from that of the other prophets? All the prophets received their inspired messages in a dream or in a vision; Moses while awake and standing...All the prophets received their messages through the medium of an angel; Moses realized the prophetic message clearly, without riddle and without parable...All the prophets (when receiving their messages) were filled with fear and consternation and became physically weak; Moses was vigorous enough to comprehend the words of prophecy while retaining his normal state.</i></i>
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   עבדיו - The hosts of heaven are the celestial orbs whose fixed motion has maintained constancy of the world since Creation; מלאכיו - the angels are those messengers God sends on special missions.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  Eliphaz explains to Job that he had not received this prophetic revelation directly because he was unworthy of such a privilege. 
  
  Verse 2
  
  He had not only questioned the existence of Providence but had also wrongly asserted that a person's fate is determined by the stars not by his behavior
  
  Verse 3
  
  This is the cue for Eliphaz to present his reasoned as distinct from his prophetic reply to Job's hypothesis. He argues that the prosperity of the wicked is a matter of chance and transient, whereas the hard-earned rewards of the righteous are lasting. 
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  Moreover, the latter will ultimately inherit the wealth of the former. Therefore no conclusions about the injustice or otherwise of Providence can be drawn from the prosperity of the wicked.8<i class="footnote">This is one of the most obscure verses in the book, as is indicated by the many differing and contradictory interpretations given to it. Malbim understands the Hebrew word צמים that appears in the verse as being related to the phrase בעד צמתך meaning 'through your veil' that appears in Song of Songs 4:1,3 and 6:7.</i>
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  The comets are neither messengers of the stars nor portents of doom. God alone governs and man has control over his own actions. 
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  Eliphaz brings two examples of God's active involvement in the world:
  
  Verse 10
  
  The general beneficial wonders of Nature, as illustrated by rainfall and the river-irrigation of desert lands such as Egypt, and the particular supernatural interventions which prevent the extinction of the weak and destitute despite the predatory nature of their surroundings. These are an indication of Divine design, for anything that is so wisely apportioned cannot be the result of chance
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  As an example of this, Malbim cites the way the Lord frustrated the scheme to kill David presented by Ahitophel to Absalom (<i>vide 2Samuel 17:14</i>).
  
  Verse 13
  
  The example Malbim cites for this is the selling of Joseph by his brothers. God allowed it to happen as it fitted in with His plans. Indeed, it would lead to the very thing they were trying to prevent, namely, Joseph's pre-eminence over them. 
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  Events are determined by a combination of man's actions and God's interventions. Eliphaz explains that the same is true of suffering. Some suffering is a natural consequence of man's misbehavior and overindulgence, and some is Providential, intended for atonement, the purging of sin or to induce repentance. However, though the former cause is totally bad, the latter should be seen as a Divine gift intended for man's ultimate good. Today's misfortune may turn out to have been a life-saver tomorrow.
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  By being driven from home by famine or war, you may be saved from some other more dangerous life-threatening event. 
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  To illustrate the general idea underlying these verses, Malbim refers to the following passage from the Talmud (Niddah 31a): <i>Like two men who set out on a trading expedition and one of them began to blaspheme and malign when a thorn stuck in him [and he had to cancel his journey]. Subsequently, however, when he heard that his friend's ship had sunk in the sea he began to glorify and give praise [to God]…Even a person for whom a miracle is performed is unaware of the miracle. </i>.
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  Eliphaz concludes by requesting that Job take note of this reasoned reply.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  The Third Oration - Job's Reply To Eliphaz's First Speech
  Returning to the fray, Job reemphasizes his conviction that, as he had postulated, the Earth has been placed in the hands of the Cosmos and that no account or reckoning is kept of a person's deeds, whether they be good or bad. For everything a person does is prescribed and he cannot change what has been predetermined by his luck and horoscope. Hence, there is no difference between the righteous and the wicked. The proof of this is that we observe <i>righteous men perishing in their righteousness</i> (Ecclesiastes 7:15),  as was shown by the example of he himself and what had happened to him. For he had become <i>like a shattered vessel</i> (Psalms 31:13) even though he had been both righteous and virtuous.
  Eliphaz had countered this by asserting that the evil which befalls a righteous person is only temporary and no righteous person ever perishes completely. A righteous person suffers only by reason of some small sin he has committed; in order that he be purged of this minor transgression with mild passing afflictions and be thereby saved from eternal perdition. According to Eliphaz, Job's suffering was of this type. Against this, Job argues that what had happened to him clearly shows that a righteous person can totally perish, for there is no possible way that he could ever revert to his previous state and recover from his illness.  He had been struck such a blow of death and extinction that he would not survive his illness, as he brings evidence to show (Ch. 6:4-13). This being so, of what comfort is it to him that, through this suffering, his minor sins will be purged and he will be saved from everlasting adversity or from death and perdition. And that he will yet be restored <i>and live, broken as he is</i> (2Samuel 1:10 ),  seeing that the only hope he has left is to crave that his death be brought forward so that he might be released from his great agony (ibid and Ch. 7:11-17). 
  And if it be argued that he had in fact committed sins of such enormity that he had been justly sentenced to death, then he demands to know what these were (Ch. 6:28-30).
  And as regards the argument that he had confirmed his own guilt by his inability to stand the test and by his hasty complaint, as Eliphaz had said: For as soon as anything happened to you, you broke;you were barely touched and you panicked (Job 4:5). He [Job] replies that the measure of his complaint was negligible compared to the scale of his suffering and the great wrong done to him (Ch. 6:2-5).
  Aside from this, he employs philosophy to refute the whole of Eliphaz's thesis, in particular his assertion that a righteous person may suffer in order to purge his iniquity and to save him from death by reason of his sins. Against this reasoning, he puts forward a cogent alternative postulate, one based upon the recognition that every animal and object must have been created for some purpose. But, look here, some existing entities exhibit neither action nor work, so it must be that it is their very existence, for as long as it lasts, that is in itself their purpose. However, in most instances, we observe that entities strive, act and are acted upon—each one from his work that they were doing —as though they thereby pursue the purpose for which they were created. Since man is one of the components of creation—the choicest amongst them—he too must seek some perfection to which he can aspire for as long as he remains standing. But what are the instrumental means that bring him to his perfection? There are a number of opinions concerning this. 
  •  There are those who say that what matters is the actual deed; that it [the deed] is the means to his perfection. That if he completes this deed he will have achieved his perfection. 
  •  Others say that it is not the deed itself that matters but the person. That the person must strive all his life and that his perfection depends upon that, irrespective of whether he manages to complete the deed or not.
  This controversy is found in the words of the Talmudic Sages (<i>TB Sanhedrin 111a</i>): <i>[Commenting on the verse in Isaiah 5:14] 'Therefore Sheol has enlarged her appetite and has opened her jaws for he who is without statute',  Resh Lakish says: [The meaning of the phrase 'for he who is without statute' is] for he who has left even a single statute unperformed. [Disputing this interpretation] Rabbi Yochanan says: It does not befit their Master for you to say this to them, [for it would mean that He has condemned almost all of Israel to Sheol]. Instead, [take it to mean] for he who has not learned even a single statute; [had he done so he would have been saved from Sheol].</i> According to Resh Lakish, perfection requires the observance of all the precepts of the Torah without exception. However, according to Rabbi Yochanan, the observance of even one precept is enough, for a person's perfection depends on his doing as much as he can during his life.
  For the purposes of our investigation we can say that some take the view that a man should busy himself throughout his life with the Torah and its Commandments and that he thereby achieves his perfection. That whether his life is long and he has the opportunity of keeping all 613 Commandments, or whether he dies young or for some other reason could keep only a few of them, he will still have achieved his perfection. For his perfection does not depend on the quantity of his worship but only on its regularity throughout the days of his life, whether they be many or few. Others hold the alternative view, namely, that he must fulfill his obligation to observe all of the Commandments, for it is thereby that he achieves his perfection. And if, even for reasons beyond his control, he fails to keep them all, he will not have perfected himself. 
  Others hold the alternative view, namely, that he must fulfill his obligation to observe all of the Commandments, for it is thereby that he achieves his perfection. And if, even for reasons beyond his control, he fails to keep them all, he will not have perfected himself.1<i class="footnote">This is the interpretation given to the passage in the TB Sanhedrin 111a by Joseph Albo in Sefer Ha-Ikarim.</i>
  Whichever view is taken, Eliphaz's argument that God makes a righteous person suffer in order to purge him of some minor sin he has committed, such as not perfecting his worship of God to a degree befitting the greatness of He who is being worshipped, God Himself, Blessed be He, is untenable. For such suffering prevents him from worshipping God at all: the cure is worse than the disease! Like the servant or employee of a king who was somewhat slipshod about his work and whom the king sent to prison, for his own good, to atone for his offense. But as a result, during the whole time he spends in prison he is stopped from working altogether. So what was supposed to be for his good, turns out to be very bad. Likewise, how would God be doing good to a righteous person who had not exerted himself in his worship to a degree befitting He who was being worshipped, seeing that by afflicting him He just forces him to be even more idle and to worship Him even less? (Ch. 7:1-11).
  As regards Eliphaz's statement that by reason of the suffering he is presently enduring he will be saved from a premature death and everlasting perdition, Job replies that he is already as good as dead. For by reason of these afflictions he is prevented from carrying out his work, the holy work for which he was created. Thus, as long as he is sick and suffering, it is as though he were not alive. Moreover, what difference does it make to him if he dies at the end of his days or if he is effectively dead for some period during those days? For the period of time not spent in the pursuit of his perfection is for ever gone, as though it had never been. In terms of the time irretrievably lost, this too is perdition. (The Talmudic Sages observed concerning this: 'What are loving afflictions? Those which do not prevent the learning of Torah...and prayer.'2<i class="footnote">TB Berachot 5a. Explaining the meaning of the term 'loving afflictions' Rashi writes: <i>The Holy One Blessed be He afflicts him in this world [though he is] without any iniquity, in order to increase his reward in the Hereafter more than his merit warrants.</i> In the Guide for the Perplexed (III,17) Maimonides notes that the doctrine of afflictions of love, in the sense of a person being afflicted without having previously committed any sin in order that his future reward be increased, is not supported by any Scriptural text. It is a teaching of the Mu'tazilites. It is not what the trials described in the Bible, such as those of Abraham, are about.</i>  For when one is prevented by the afflictions from worshiping, they are a terrible evil for him and he is considered as though he were dead.) It is preferable for him to die at the end of his days and not in the middle of them (Ch. 7:6-8).
  And as regards his [Eliphaz's] hint of a world of resurrection, as he said, <i>so as to prevent them perishing for ever</i> (Job 4:20), Job rejects this. For just as he denies Providence and free-will and attributes everything to the governance of nature and astrology, so he denies resurrection and future reward. As the Talmudic Sages said (Baba Batra 16b): 'Job denied the resurrection of the dead' (Ch. 7:8-9).
  Regarding Eliphaz's assertion that this response was revealed to him by prophecy in a night vision,  Job replies that if, as he says, God's word concerning this matter was really revealed to him, it would have been more befitting had the utterance and the vision come directly to him, to reveal these truths to him and to calm his raging spirit. And in what way did the spirit of the Lord pass from him to Eliphaz, who is no more worthy of God's word than he is? (Ch. 6:13-14).
  Apart from this, he brings the following argument against Providence. How can it be supposed that God, Blessed be He, supreme above all, could have intended that His personal Providence apply to man, who is so very base. And of all things, that this Providence should be so particular and so meticulous that even the number of afflictions, when they begin and when they end, should emanate from God. And how can we say that a person's sin is the cause of this singular care, which must ensure that he does not die from his illness but only suffer at a specified rate and remain alive, as though He had some need for the person's existence? But what loss is there in his sins or gain in his perfection or correction, for all this is meaningless to a philosopher? (Ch. 7:17-21).
  This is the substance of Job's reply, apart from the bitterness he voices towards his companions in the course of his words for having betrayed him, and the portrayal of his great suffering, as is the manner of a distressed person who <i>is infested, smitten by God and tortured</i> (Isaiah 53:4). 
  
  Verse 2
  
  Job defends himself against the accusation that he had broken down too easily under the pressure of his trials and that this, together with his complaint against God, proved his insincerity. He argues that his afflictions greatly outweigh his resentment and are so wounding that he is now beyond recovery; he is so ill that even the thought of food sickens him. By their very severity, these afflictions belie Eliphaz's thesis that though a righteous man might be made to suffer, he would never be made to perish completely.
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  Job finds no comfort in the prophetic message related by Eliphaz that his suffering is temporary and that since it will save him from perdition it is ultimately for his own good. In his present condition the only pity he wants is to be allowed to die, for he is beyond healing.
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  Because of the aggressive and unsympathetic manner in which Eliphaz had addressed him, despite his obvious suffering, Job considers him to have been unworthy of receiving any Divine Message and so he rejects the purported revelation. He goes on to accuse his friends of treachery, comparing their betrayal to the capriciousness of the watercourses in arid lands
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  Job insists that the debate be based on objective statements and not on unverified suppositions. His companions cannot infer from his suffering that he must have been wicked; independent proof must be brought. Accordingly, they must either accept that he was a truly righteous person—a claim supported by his reputation—or they must show that he had knowingly lied or could not recognize wrong
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  Job now turns his attention to the notion put forward by Eliphaz that God makes righteous persons suffer presently for some minor sin they have committed so as to purge them, thereby saving them from more severe punishment in the future. Job cannot accept this. For man was created to achieve that perfection which was the very purpose of his creation. Achieving this perfection may depend on one of two things. Either on the manner of a person's life, namely, on whether at all times he tried his best in the service of God, or on his actual success in performing God's commandments. If the former then the longer he lives the greater the perfection he can reach. And if the latter, then it is the number of commandments he has actually fulfilled that counts, irrespective of how long he lives. Thus, man can be compared either to a day laborer who is paid by the hour or to a craftsman paid according to his output
  
  Verse 2
  
  However, whether a person's perfection depends on his life-span or his productivity, he cannot work towards it if he is bed-ridden or totally distraught. How then can Eliphaz argue that it is because of God's love for the righteous man and because He wishes him to correct the shortcomings in his service of God, that He purges him of sin through suffering, for he is thereby precluded from serving Him at all? He is not only prevented from correcting his previous shortcomings but falls even further behind in his pursuit of perfection.
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  Because of the severity of his afflictions Job considers himself as good as dead. Moreover, he believes that with death all souls perish and so the time he is now losing is lost for ever. There is no life after death and so he sees no point in God punishing him now in the middle of his life in order to save him from perdition, for in his opinion there is nothing from which or for which to be saved. It would have been preferable, therefore, had he been allowed to live his life normally and had he been punished, if that was necessary, by an early death.
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  Job concludes his speech with a general attack on the belief in Providence. 
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  How can it be imagined, he asks, that the Most High is concerned with such trivial matters as an individual person's afflictions? Such an obsessive interest can only be explained in one of two ways. Either as being a frightful vendetta or the result of an overwhelming concern for man's welfare. The notion that God is taking revenge on man in untenable, for there is nothing a person can do to God for which He would seek vengeance. On the other hand, neither does the condition of man suggest that God has such an overwhelming concern for the welfare of His handiwork.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  The Fourth Oration - Bildad's First Speech
  The Shuite debater chooses a different approach, one he claims to have received as a tradition from his forefathers (Ch.8:8). 
  Like Eliphaz, he too believes in Providence and freedom of choice, and like him he <i>presents a stubborn shoulder (Zechariah 9:29) </i>to the opinion of the astrologers. But since, in his reply to Eliphaz, Job had made no mention of these speculative matters, Bildad too ignores them and presents just a single reasoned argument against those who deny Providence, when he asks: Would God pervert judgment? Or would the Almighty pervert justice? (Job 8:3). What he meant by this is as follows: One of the necessary attributes of the Deity is that no perfection should be wanting in Him nor any shortcoming present in Him. Now, it would certainly be a shortcoming were any injustice or <i>perversion of judgment (Habakkuk 1:4) </i>to emanate from Him, and so such wrongs could not originate in Him.
  Job had taken this to be axiomatic and had based his theses upon it; the new disputant [Bildad] acknowledged it too. However, Job had considered these matters from the viewpoint of 'individual' law,1<i class="footnote">Those laws of Nature that pertain to individual entities, as distinct from those that pertain to the universe as a whole (universal or general law).</i> and so had reasoned as follows:  •  For God to do any injustice is prohibited by His essential quality.  •	However, the governance of individuals is patently not ordered according to law and justice, for we observe that it does not distinguish between the righteous and the wicked, <i>all things come alike to all</i>; <i>as is the good person so is the sinner (Ecclesiastes 9:2) </i>subject to the accidents of time and its vagaries. •  And since it is an injustice for the righteous to suffer undeservedly, this governance cannot emanate from God, for <i>far be it from God to do wrong, or for the Almighty to be unjust</i> (Job 34:10). Therefore Job had concluded that this governance emanates from a blind and undiscerning ruler—the Cosmos—which makes no distinction between the one who serves God and the one who does not.
  However, from considerations of primary universal law, Bildad draws just the opposite conclusion, for according to his reasoning: • Just as injustice must be precluded from God for it is a shortcoming, so must omnipotence be attributed to Him for it is a perfection. •  Now, by saying that God has delegated the governance of the world to a blind ruler who does not discriminate between good and bad, we could indeed mitigate what happens to individuals by reason of this misrule, arguing that these things do not emanate from God but from those agents of the Cosmos which control individual governance. • However, in terms of primary universal law we could not justify what He has done. For we would ask whether this delegation of governance to the Cosmos was not of itself an injustice on His part. There are only two possible ways out of this. The first is to posit that He is incapable of exercising judgment or of administering individual governance and that is way He has delegated them to the Cosmos. But this cannot be, for the Deity must be Omnipotent. Bildad expresses this rhetorically by asking, 'Would God—who is Omnipotent and Supreme—'pervert judgment?'.
   The second way is to assert that He has abandoned the lower beings and no longer wishes to take care of them, either out of disgust or jealousy (<i>Guide for the Perplexed</i>, Part 3: Chapter 16). But this would be unjust and prompts Bildad to ask: 'Would the Almighty pervert justice?'
  Bildad argues that all this constitutes a conclusive proof that the governance of individuals emanates from Providence and that the misrule we infer from the suffering of the righteous is a misunderstanding on our part. For in truth, everything is ordered by Him in justice and with judgment; for <i>He is a faithful God and there is no injustice</i> (Deuteronomy 32:4). 
  This being so, why indeed does God allow bad things to happen to good people? In answering this, Bildad adopts a different approach. According to his philosophy, God afflicts a righteous person without his having first sinned, only so that He can subsequently benefit him, by repaying him with good in exchange for the bad, many times over. The afflictions are part of a system of compensation and exchange, a <i>quid pro quo</i> whereby present adversity brings future bounty (Ch.8:6-7).2<i class="footnote">This is the view that Maimonides attributes to Bildad, noting that 'this opinion concerning Providence is widespread'. However, elsewhere (Guide III,24), he adds the rider that 'this principle is not mentioned in Scripture in plain language'. Even where the literal meaning appears to convey this, as in the verse 'Who fed you in the wilderness with manna…to test you, and in the end to make you prosper' (Deuteronomy 8:16), Maimonides explains the text differently.</i>
  In the sayings of the wise, man is often likened to a plant. Taking up this metaphor, Bildad explains that the system of exchange he has proposed can be compared to the way Nature acts with regard to different plants. If a gardener uproots a plant that is growing in a rocky, dry and desolate site and replants it in a fresh and fertile plot, the uprooting obviously does it no harm. On the contrary, it is for its good so that <i>it will grow as a noble vine</i> (Jeremiah 2:21). However not every plant can take this sort of treatment. Plants which need lots of water to grow, and which are by their nature tender and soft, will not take root again after being transplanted but instead will wither quicker than any other plant (Job 8:12). 
  Providence works in the same way with mankind. A wicked person who is accustomed to pleasures and luxuries would not survive transplantation and so is just taken from the world before his time. Thus, no good comes to the wicked nor does he live very long. However, though a righteous person may be uprooted and transplanted many times over, being dispossessed and suffering physical pain, this is ultimately for his own good, in order to set him <i>in a firm place (Isaiah 22:23). </i><i>For he will yet bring forth fruit in old age; (Psalms 92:15) </i><i>For he will yet bring forth fruit in old age; (Psalms 92:15) </i><i>and the Lord's purpose prospering in his hand (Isaiah 53:10). </i>(Ch.8:11-20).
  Accordingly, Bildad recommends to Job that <i>he should hold fast, (Daniel 11:1) place his trust in God (Psalms 21:8) </i>and <i>plead with Him</i> (2 Kings 1:13). For then in place of his suffering <i>his portion will rejoice (Isaiah 61:7) </i><i>and in the end he will flourish tremendously (Job 8:7). </i>(Ch.8:17, 8:21-22).3<i class="footnote">Malbim's introduction to Bildad's speech is more reminiscent of the ideas of some of the later Stoics, e.g. Seneca On Providence, than of the Talmudic tradition or Kabbalah with whom Malbim identifies Bildad.</i> 
  
  Verse 2
  
  Bildad rejects Job's argument that God has delegated the governance of individuals to the Cosmos —
  
  Verse 3
  
  — by arguing that this would be a breach of universal law and God could not be guilty of such an iniquity. On the contrary, there is personal Providence and it rules justly.
  
  Verse 4
  
  Job's children had sinned and despite Job's expiation on their behalf, they had been justly punished. But as regards truly righteous persons such as Job himself, Bildad expounds the idea that they are made to suffer presently in order that they might benefit later.
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  Bildad explains that the belief in ultimate compensation for unwarranted suffering is an ancient tradition
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  Bildad elaborates his theory that compensation and retribution will ultimately be made for the unwarranted suffering of the good and for the equally unwarranted prosperity of the wicked. He illustrates this idea with a metaphor in which the different types of people are compared to different species of plants.
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  Bildad appeals to Job to accept this and to maintain his faith and hope in God.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  The Fifth Oration - Job's Reply To Bildad's First Speech
  <i>Like a rod of tempered steel</i>, (Jeremiah 1:19) this poor wretch braces himself to uphold his assertion that the personal governance which <i>pours scorn on the princes (Psalms 197:40) </i> <i>and makes a mockery at the ordeal of the innocents, (Job 9:23) </i><i>God's eyes are not upon it</i> (Deuteronomy 11:12); <i>His Throne is innocent (2 Samuel 14:9) </i>of such calumnies. Such injustice cannot emanate from Him. The agents of the Cosmos, into whose hands the earth has been given, it is <i>they alone that are at the heart this injustice</i> (Ezra 9:2). Job's reply to Bildad is divided into three parts:
  Part One: Job starts by responding to the proof Bildad had presented at the beginning of his speech, that which had purported to demonstrate God's Providence from considerations of universal law. Bildad had argued that it would be an injustice or a deficiency in the makeup of He who is Omnipotent and Righteous were He to delegate government to evil stewards. However, no injustice may be present in God and, likewise, He must possess absolute capability. And so Bildad had asked, Would God pervert judgment?1<i class="footnote">Both Job and Bildad agree that God must be perfect. However, each draws different conclusions from this. Basing himself on ethical judgments, Job argues that to attribute the observed disorder in the governance of individuals to God is to imply that He is imperfect; this cannot be and so He must have been delegated this governance to another. On the other hand, basing himself on constitutional considerations, Bildad argues that for God to have delegated this governance to another is tantamount to denying His Perfection and Omnipotence. Job now sets out to show that delegating Providence to the Cosmos—Nature—does not involve any breach of the Divine Constitution.</i>
  Job's rebuttal is philosophical and is similar to that posited by Maimonides in a related matter, namely, when he argued against those who claim that there is more bad than good in the world. As he wrote: <i>The origin of the error is to be found in the circumstance that this ignorant man, and his party among the common people, judge the whole universe by examining one single person. For an ignorant man believes that the whole universe only exists for him; as if nothing else required any consideration. If, therefore, anything happens to him contrary to his expectation, he at once concludes that the whole universe is evil. If, however, he would take into consideration the whole universe, form an idea of it, and comprehend what a small portion he is of the Universe, he will find the truth. For it is clear that persons who have fallen into this widespread error as regards the multitude of evils in the world, do not find the evils among the angels, the spheres and stars, the elements, and that which is formed of them, viz., minerals and plants, or in the various species of living beings, but only in some individual instances of mankind... It is of great advantage that man should know his station, and not erroneously imagine that the whole universe exists only for him. We hold that the universe exists because the Creator wills it so; that mankind is low in rank as compared with the uppermost portion of the universe...</i> 
  <i>The first kind of evil is that which is caused to man by the circumstance that he is subject to genesis and destruction, or that he possesses a body. It is on account of the body that some persons happen to have great deformities or paralysis of some of the organs. This evil may be part of the natural constitution of these persons, or may have developed subsequently in consequence of changes in the elements, e.g. through bad air, or thunderstorms or landslides. We have already shown that, in accordance with the divine wisdom, genesis can only take place through destruction, and without the destruction of the individual members of the species the species themselves would not exist permanently...He who thinks that he can have flesh and bones without being subject to any of the accidents of matter, unconsciously wishes to reconcile two opposites, viz., to be at the same time subject and not subject to change. If man were never subject to change there could be no generation; there would be one single being, but no individuals forming a species. Galen says correctly that it would be in vain to expect to see living beings formed from the blood of menstruous women and the semen virile, who will not die, will never feel pain, or will move perpetually, or shine like the sun. This dictum of Galen is part of the more general proposition:- Whatever is formed of any matter receives the most perfect form possible in that species of matter; in each individual case the defects are in accordance with the defects of that individual matter. The best and most perfect being that can be formed of the blood and the semen is the species of man... It is therefore impossible that man should be free from this species of evil. You will, nevertheless, find that the evils of the above kind which befall man are few and very rare.2<i class="footnote">Guide for the Perplexed. Part 3. Chapter 12. This same passage is quoted by Leibniz in his rejection of Pierre Bayle's argument that there is more bad than good in the world. Rosenbloom (p.168) suggests this might indicate that Malbim was familiar with Leibniz's Theodicy. Elsewhere, (glosses on Genesis 1:31) Malbim explains the origin of this dispute in epistemological terms:</i> <i>Those who say that it [the world] is the best, do so on the basis of reason, for it is unimaginable that God would create other than the best...and God does not lack the wisdom to know what is the best nor the ability to make it...and so the world that He created is surely the very best that can be made...But those who say that the world is not the best possible, come to this conclusion by reason of sense perception and experience, seeing the defects in the world and the shortcomings and many evils to be found in it.</i></i>
  Now let us see how Job employed this same postulate in a wider context, in an examination of the whole of existence, as follows: It has become apparent to modern scientists,3<i class="footnote">Written in or about 1865.</i> that the stars fall under the category of 'becoming and demising';4<i class="footnote">The category that accounts for the transient quality of the terrestrial (sublunar) world.</i> that they are not made of a quintessence as had been the opinion of the ancients, but of ordinary matter like that of the Earth's; and that they too will ultimately decay. This is clear from the words of the prophets too:5<i class="footnote">This is an example of Malbim's thesis that the Tnach had nothing to fear from the new, for it had anticipated the new</i> <i>For the heavens will vanish like smoke,</i> <i>and the earth age like a garment (Isaiah 51:6). </i> It has also been shown that the sun, <i>queen of the heavens</i>, (Jeremiah 7:18) together with the multitude of stars in orbit around it, is <i>as nothing and as naught (Isaiah 41:12) </i>compared to the many thousands and tens of thousands of suns that are scattered throughout immeasurable space and which we see as just small specks twinkling in the Milky Way. They are worlds without number, which are also complex structures and are also destined for decay and demise.6<i class="footnote">In his commentary on Proverbs 3:19, Malbim writes: When He created the world ex nihilo, the Maker had in mind a number of possibilities about the different ways in which the world might be formed and, in His immaculate wisdom, He chose to form it in this way.</i>
  So we can say that even were the sun, the moon and all the multitude of stars to become extinct at some future time, together with all their inhabitants, this would be neither an injustice nor an act of absolute evil on the part of the Creator of the whole of existence. For since, in His wisdom, He chose to create a 'becoming and demising' universe that encompasses a multitude of worlds,<i> </i>beyond number, compared with which the solar system is no more than <i>a drop in a bucket</i>, (Isaiah 40:15) then were the sun and the stars to become extinct, it would be just an inevitable consequence of their overall 'becoming and demising' nature; a consequence of the general property of the stuff of the physical world, of which the astral world is a part. There would be nothing wrong in this in terms of overall existence, relative to which the sun is of no more consequence than is a single individual within the whole of mankind.  And if it was only one particular planet, for instance, planet Earth, that was annihilated and not a large component of existence, such as the whole of the solar system, there would certainly be nothing wrong with this in terms of overall existence, compared to which the Earth is no more than a drop in the sea. And how much more, if the desolation was to affect only a part of planet Earth, such as might happen if a large mountain subsided as a result of an earthquake and many tens of thousands of people were to die. Once again, there would be nothing wrong with this in terms of overall existence, for it is an inevitability of the 'becoming and demising' property. Moreover, the Earth could not have been made as it is, from the four elements, without landslides and earthquakes sometimes occurring as a result of the fiery vapors, the watery particles or the winds which are enclosed within it and which are essential for its existence and continuance. The bad that sometimes results from this is insignificant compared to the overall good; for the very existence of the Earth would be impossible without this property (for otherwise the Earth could only be either a spirit or made of quintessence).
   And finally, the misfortunes that befall a single person – one of the units of mankind – such as the disasters that had befallen Job by reason of the nature of overall 'demising', should certainly not be considered an evil at all. Accordingly, the philosopher [Aristotle] would say that Bildad has no basis for his complaint against primary law. For in his opinion, there is no inherent injustice in primary law that can be attributed to He who invented universal existence, since existence is good overall and He has graced it <i>with His wisdom and bounty (1Kings 10:7 ). </i>So we cannot consider Him unjust if, of necessity, harm and decay befall a single individual of a species or even if they befall a whole species that is no more than a single unit relative to the genus, and <i>a fortiori</i> relative to overall existence. For this 'evil' is necessary in terms of the order of general existence, which could not otherwise have come into being. 
  Thus, his Job's reply to the argument implied by Bildad's rhetorical question 'Would God pervert justice?' is that primary universal law is entirely good and gracious; <i>there being no injustice in it</i> (Deuteronomy 32:4 ). But if we hold that personal law emanates from Providence, we have no way of rationalizing this position. For if that is the case, the question remains of why does God not providentially prevent bad from befalling the innocent. From which it follows that He must have delegated individual providence to universal Nature, and that, notwithstanding, no injustice can be attributed to God by reason of the unwarranted evil that befalls a single man. For He deals only with overall existence, ensuring that it is as good as possible, and the bad that does befall individuals is insignificant compared to the overall good preserved in the whole of existence (Ch.9:2-l3).
  Part Two: In the second part of his speech, Job disputes the new proposition that Bildad had introduced, namely, that afflictions befall the righteous by way of a <i>quid pro quo</i>: that on account of the bad a person presently endures he will receive good in the future. Since, in his presentation, Bildad did not go into the details of how this reciprocity works, Job now formally examines all the possible ways by which this could take place. He posits that the exchange process can be visualized as occurring in one of five different ways, as follows: If an individual is to receive future good in exchange for present bad, then one of two conditions must apply:
  1. That the relationship between the future good and the present bad is inherent;
  2. That their relationship to one another is only incidental.
  Each of these alternatives can in turn be further qualified in two ways:
  • That the inherent relationship can be thought of as being natural: that just as all animals and other natural entities can only achieve their perfection through effort, work and anguish, so a perfect person can only acquire good through suffering.
  • That the inherent relationship is metered and only takes place through God's will: that the person's anguish <i>is weighed in His just balance (Job 31:6), </i> bounty and delight being his recompense.
  The incidental relationship can also be qualified in two ways:
  That the good befalls him on account of the bad by virtue of prayer and mercy, for by reason of the suffering, the person prays to God and He finds favor in him, <i>and He returns this man's virtue (Job 33:26). </i>
  Fourthly, it may be by way of a trial: that if the person withstands the trial and does not complain about the suffering, He will reward him with good and with grace.
  A fifth possibility:
  —  is that the exchange mechanism is just a prophylactic; that when God foresees that a righteous person is by his nature likely to sin at some time in the future, He makes him suffer in advance, thereby <i>bending his will (Leviticus 26:41) and preventing him from slipping</i>; (Psalms 37:31) <i>and then the Lord will again rejoice over him for good (Deuteronomy 30:9).</i> 
  And so, this sophist [Job] sets out to refute all the ways by which this exchange can be thought to occur: 
  • He refutes the first possibility, namely, that the interrelationship is a natural one, by arguing that there is no natural link between the suffering and the good it is supposed to effect. When an animal strives to catch its prey, it gets its quarry or its gratification in exchange for the effort it put in by way of cause and effect; for it is by its effort that it gets its food. But how can future good be achieved through present suffering, there being no natural link between them? (Ch.9:25-26)
  • As regards the second possibility, namely, that the interrelationship is metered and God will grant the person an amount of good that exactly balances the strife he has endured, he finds a contradiction in what he Bildad had said. For in this case, how could he Bildad have urged him to strengthen his resolve and accept the afflictions with joy? For this contradicts his assertion that the anguish is equated with the subsequent delight, <i>justly balanced against it</i> (Job 6:2). For if he braces himself and puts his agony and pain out of mind, his period of misery will just lengthen until he has suffered the measure of torment and anguish apportioned to him. It would be better for him were his torment to be intensified right now, for thereby the duration of his affliction would be shortened. (Ch.9:27-28)
  • Regarding the third possibility, namely, that good comes in exchange for bad through the medium of prayer and mercy, he argues at length that the notion that a person who has been unlawfully hurt and who can exonerate himself before his oppressor both in justice and in law, should pray and plead for mercy instead of demanding justice, is unconscionable. He has committed no crime and should base his appeal on the integrity of his deeds and not plead and beg for forgiveness as though he was guilty. Furthermore, if the Judge is unwilling to acknowledge his righteousness why should He accept his prayers and supplications? Besides, a rationalist <i>would refuse to believe (Leviticus 26:21) </i>that God could ever accept his prayers, for it would mean that His statute is inconsistent, vacillating between favor and disfavor; <i>and He is not like a man, to change His mind</i> (1Samuel 15:29). And so he says: <i>Even were I to call, and He did answer,</i> <i>I don't believe He would listen to my voice (Job 9:16). </i>(Ch.9:13-22)
  Arguing against the fourth possibility, i.e., that this exchange is accomplished through a trial, Job points out that quite often the person being tested may die as a result of the affliction. So where is the redemption, reward and compensation that he is supposed to receive for his suffering and for passing the test? (Ch.9:23)
  Finally, he dismisses the fifth possibility, namely, that the suffering is a prophylactic designed to prevent him sinning in the future. He asks how it can be right for God to afflict a person before he has sinned at all, just in case he might sin in the future? But he has not yet sinned. Why should he be smitten before he has sinned? If and when he sins, let him then be punished, but not before. (Ch.9:29-32)
  Part Three: Job now opens a new campaign against the philosophical thesis <i>so firmly held (Daniel 11:1) </i>by his two companions, that though God knows all detailed matters including those over which an individual has discretion, this pre-knowledge does not prescribe the person's actions and he is still free to act as he chooses. In questioning this, he cites the paradox of the contradiction between foreknowledge and free-will, namely, that since benightedness cannot be attributed to the Lord, may He be Blessed, and He must perforce know all that is going to happen in the future, man is not at liberty with regard to his actions. For his deeds are circumscribed by reason of the Cosmos, whether for good or for bad, and God knows with prior knowledge everything he is destined to do. This being so, Job returns and gives vent to his complain, asking why God makes him suffer for his deeds, seeing that he is compelled to act as he does and can do no good or evil other than that delineated by His actions and designs, from the very beginning of time.
  He goes on to ask the questions posed by the philosophers who challenged the opinion of those who say that God knows all mutable matters down to the last detail: 
  • But such unfolding details can only be ascertained through the workings of a 'hylic force', such as the senses and imagination, and God has no 'hylic force' and so can have no knowledge of these circumstantial trivia.7<i class="footnote">A hylic force is one that is manifested through something else; until then its existence is only a potential. Mediaeval philosophers divided 'being' into that which exists in itself and that which exists in something else. The latter is designated 'accident'. Accident is then further subdivided into that which exists through the other thing and that which is the cause of the existence of the other thing. The former is again designated 'accident'; the latter is called 'form'. Probably to avoid confusion, Maimonides introduced the term 'force' in place of 'accident' in its general sense, i.e. a 'being' that exists in something else. Hence, 'force' as used by Maimonides designates accidents, forms, the lower faculties of the rational soul, the internal principle of motion and the universals, all of which require something else in which to exist. (Wolfson p.99) </i>
  •  And secondly, that these details are transient, i.e., their existence is in time, but God cannot discern temporal things since He cannot be described either as moving or as being at rest.8<i class="footnote">According to Aristotle, time is an accident that exists in motion, for we have no perception of time unless we have a perception of motion. According to this definition, time is inconceivable without motion and always implies the existence of a movable corporeal object. Thus, incorporeal eternal beings like God cannot have the attribute of time inasmuch as the attribution of time would imply corporeality (Wolfson p.95).</i> As Job says: Do You have eyes of flesh, and see as men do? Are Your days as the days of a mortal, and Your years as those of a man? (Job 10:4-5)  Implicit in this passage are all the other objections raised by the philosopher,9<i class="footnote">The philosopher disputant answered by Maimonides in Part III Sections 16–21 of The Guide for the Perplexed. </i> namely:  	• That were this so,10<i class="footnote">i.e., that God knows all mutable particulars. </i> the Honorable One would be less than perfect, for its knowledge is the perfection of a 'knowing-being'.11<i class="footnote">Mutable particulars are by definition imperfect and so knowledge of them would impair God's Perfection.</i> • 	That God could not be Immutable Unity, since a 'knowing-being' is augmented by the knowledge it acquires and how can Immutable Unity be augmented by various different notions? 
   • That details are without purpose but knowledge is a comprehensive and universal matter. And all of these points are implicit in the first two original questions.<i class="footnote">That since God has no hylic force (no sense perception) how can He ascertain mutable particulars and since the particulars are time-dependent how can He, who is above time, discern them?</i>
  On the basis of all of this, Job concludes that man is compelled to act as he does, in which case all these objections fall away: 
  • For God, may He be Blessed, knows all these minutiae by virtue of their commonality. He has known since the beginning of time that all these acts and other particulars were ordained and necessitated by universal governance. 
  • He does not have to ascertain these things through a 'hylic force', for He knows the logical order these things have by virtue of being formulated and circumscribed from the very beginning of time. Accordingly, He does not learn of them from their emergence in time, for by reason of being ordered they were so foreordained from the very beginning of time.
  • Accordingly, He does not learn of them from their emergence in time, for by reason of being ordered they were so foreordained from the very beginning of time.
  • Consequently, it cannot be argued that He is augmented by the knowledge of these things. Just the opposite; it is His Knowledge of them that necessitates their existence. 
  • Nor does any problem arise from the fact that these bits of information increase in number and have no purpose. For it is by virtue of the rational order that foreordains them that they assume significance and form a coherent whole.
  All of this requires that there be nothing in existence that depends on man's choice. For if there were, all the above queries would <i>return home</i> (1 Samuel 25:26). A person's deeds are all simply determined and apportioned from the beginning of time, and God, may He be Blessed, knows everything in one eternal, universal, and immutable knowledge, which neither changes, nor increases, nor evolves; neither as a result of the increase in the number of things in existence nor by virtue of those events which depend, according to our imagination, on time or choice. For He knows everything through His perception of Himself, upon which the linking of all the causes and all their effects depends, through to the end of the series.12<i class="footnote">This mechanistic-deterministic view is resonant of Descartes' writings, though his solution to the problem of free-will and God's foreknowledge is quite different. Descartes held that 'freedom of the will is self-evident.' Doubt was the human faculty that proved this. On the other hand, he also asserted that 'we likewise know that everything is pre-ordained of God…His power is so immense that it would be a crime for us to think ourselves ever capable of ding anything which He had not already pre-ordained.' He reconciled these two apparently opposing statements as follows: We will have no trouble at all if we recollect that our thought is finite, and that the omnipotence of God, whereby He has not only known from all eternity that which is or can be, but also willed and pre-ordained is, is infinite. In this way we may have intelligence enough to know that this power is in God, but not enough to know how He leaves the free action of man indeterminate; and, on the other hand, we are as conscious of the liberty which exists in us that there is nothing that we comprehend more clearly and perfectly. (Principles of Philosophy, 41)</i> This is the thrust of Job's argument and reply in Chapter 10. 
  Accordingly, <i>he finds a basis (Psalms 132:5) </i>for his complaint that since neither choices nor free-will are in a person's hands – whether he is righteous or wicked has nothing to do with him, only with the higher eternal agents upon which his acts and deeds depend – how can He reprove <i>and rebuke a man for the iniquity</i> (Psalms 39:12), that he was fated to do?
  And what if we say that the suffering befell him not as a punishment but as a purge, to remove evil from the world, just as <i>poisonous snakes or scorpions (Deuteronomy 8:15) </i>are killed or exterminated even though they do not harm by choice but by instinct. Well, he would then ask that since God already knew at the time he was born that <i>this particular individual (Psalms 25:12 ) </i>would sin and would in future be wicked, why did He create him <i>and let him live? Why was He kind to him</i>? (Job 10:12) Would it not have been preferable had he never been created?
  And if, despite knowing that he would sin in the future, He granted him existence before he merited it and when he was still nothing, then <i>a fortiori</i> he deserved to be kept alive after coming into existence. For nothing new had now been added to him; nothing that would make him deserving of condemnation and about which God had not already known previously.
  This is the gist of his contention. The answer to it will be found in Zophar's speech.
  
  Verse 2
  
   Replying to Bildad's retort 'Would God pervert judgment…' Job denies ever suggesting such a thing. On the contrary, his whole thesis had been based on the assumption of God's Perfection. Malbim lists the following four ways by which one person can get the better of another: 
  1. by convincing him in an argument; 
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  2. by being cleverer than him; 
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  3. By overwhelming him with a greater force; 
  4. By being the more stubborn. However, none of them would work against God.
  
  Verse 5
  
  Job rejects Bildad's contention that it would be a wrong on God's part to have handed individual providence over to the mandate of Nature. He argues that this places too much importance on the fate of just one individual and ignores the interests of the universe as a whole. No component of the universe is of any more consequence than any other; cataclysms are natural events. What we call natural disasters are not an expression of Divine wrath: they are not 'acts of God'. They are simply unavoidable random consequences of the nature of the physical world whose occurrence is vital for the regeneration and continued existence of the universe as a whole. 1<i class="footnote">The interpretation Malbim puts on Job's words here is similar to that Maimonides gave to Aristotle's ideas (Guide III,17): Aristotle sees no difference between the falling or a stone and the death of the good and noble people in the ship; nor does he distinguish between the destruction of a multitude of ants caused by an ox depositing on them his excrement and the death of worshippers killed by the fall of the house when its foundations give way…In short, the opinion of Aristotle is this: Everything is the result of management which is constant.</i>
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  Malbim notes: it is already known to the astronomers (by means of wonderful optical tools) that the sun and the many planets are just a drop in the bucket compared to the myriad of stars in the Milky Way which appears like shot ice around our heads. And who knows if the myriad of stars in the Milky Way are not as nothing compared to a multitude of Milky Ways apart from them. And so, were God to remove the motive force of the system around us, telling the sun to stand still and the earth and moon to disintegrate there would be nothing wrong in this in terms of universal existence; nor could we conclude that this happened because of annoyance or anger; just that it followed from the nature of the reality of the physical world.'
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  Job now turns his attention to Bildad's theory that his punishment is part of a system of exchange. He rejects the suggestion that the way to change suffering into an entitlement to benefit is through prayer. He refuses to accept that though God ignores the justice of his case and the fact of his innocence, He will, nevertheless, accept his prayers or can be made to change His mind
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  Perhaps the suffering is a test and the more stoically the victim stands up to it the greater will be his ultimate reward. But what if he dies before it's over?
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  Is the link between present suffering and future benefit perhaps one of cause and effect? But how can the inactivity of the days wasted in suffering-enforced idleness be considered a cause, one that is comparable to the purposefulness of undertaking a course of action?
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  And if the suffering apportioned to the righteous person is subsequently to be made good by God, then the shorter and sharper it is the better. So why had Bildad told him to hold on patiently and uncomplainingly? To do so would only lengthen his sentence!
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  Finally, Job refutes the idea that the suffering is prophylactic, a sort of immunization against greater sin in the future.
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  Job returns to his original subject, namely, the impossibility of obtaining a trial with God on equal terms. 
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  He requests that his suffering cease so that he can address Him on more even terms and prove his innocence
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  Job renews his contention that by virtue of His Perfection, God must have immutable foreknowledge of everything and so man has neither choice nor free-will and should not be held responsible for his actions.
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  Job renews his contention that by virtue of His Perfection, God must have immutable foreknowledge of everything and so man has neither choice nor free-will and should not be held responsible for his actions.
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  Though all that would happen. (The iniquities and sins referred to in verse 6).
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  Though in fact denied free-will, human beings are treated and are expected to behave as if endowed with it. Not that it makes any real difference, for they only ever seem to be punished for their sins; never to be rewarded for their good deeds. Man is trapped, for his freedom of choice is an illusion created by his existence in time. With no hope of escape, it would be better if he had never been born.
  
  Verse 17
  
  Change cannot occur outside time. God is beyond time, and therefore neither He nor His Knowledge can change. Man exists in time and so is subject to change. Because of this, his actions appear to change at every moment, at his volition. This gives rise to the appearance of free-will. But it is an illusion, associated with our sense that time flows. For in truth, God's immutable foreknowledge has predetermined man's actions. Being part of His Knowledge, they too are immutable and beyond time. So why should man be punished for them?
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  All Job asks for now is to be left to die in peace.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  The Sixth Oration - Zophar's First Speech
  The first two companions [Eliphaz and Bildad] had both accepted Job's assertion that if God watches over human affairs no righteous person would ever perish. They had only challenged, each in his own way, his assertion that a truly righteous person had actually perished. However, now comes Zophar and he totally rejects the major premise of the syllogism, arguing that in his opinion, it is conceivable that even though God governs, a righteous person may nevertheless suffer, for no injustice is necessarily implied even if <i>a righteous man perishes in his righteousness</i> (Ecclesiastes 7:15). This approach is based on what has been demonstrated by philosophical research, namely, that the perception of things <i>has two aspects (Zechariah 13:8)</i>:
   1. The perception of things as they are in themselves;
  2.  The recognition of things as they are sensed.1<i class="footnote">Malbim is undoubtedly referring to Immanuel Kant's ideas. In the eclectic tradition of Jewish theologians, Malbim seized upon Kant's revolutionary ideas about the subjectivity of space and time, viz., that they are the transcendental framework of our consciousness, and his distinction between phenomena, the external properties of an object which are accessible and can be comprehended by the mind, and noumena, the object's essential and eternal properties which are beyond human comprehension. He adopted this new epistemology, wherever it was useful, in support of his theological opinions and beliefs. Malbim was not the only orthodox Jewish writer who found Kant an aid to his theology (Rosenbloom, p.192-197).</i>
  And regarding ourselves, it is evident that there is no way we can perceive things as they are in themselves, but only as they affect our senses. Now, since all human knowledge and learning is acquired through the senses, this being how the intellect derives its learning, inferring what was prior from that which is subsequent;2<i class="footnote">This theory of learning is Aristotelian:Aristotle, in opposition to Plato, not only affirmed the existence of a world external to humanity but also maintained that our ideas about the world are obtained by abstracting from it ideas common to various classes of material objects we perceive such as triangles, spheres, foliage and mountains...Thus true knowledge is obtained from sense experience, by intuition and by abstraction. These abstractions have no existence independent of human minds...In his words, we must 'start with things which are knowable and observable to us and proceed toward those things which are clearer and more knowable by nature'. (Kline p.5)</i> and since the modalities of sense perception are not the inherent modalities of the entities, we cannot judge things as they really are in themselves, but only as their external surfaces relate to our senses and to the modalities by which the senses experience their sensations in time and in place, and subject to the other circumstances of the senses. Hence, we cannot assert that these are really the inherent modalities of the entities and so we can have no certain knowledge of anything. For we can only judge that this is how we have perceived the exterior of the thing, as it affected our senses; not that this is how the thing is, inherently. But intellect that is naked of matter perceives the essence of things in direct knowledge, not through the medium of the senses. It will perceive things differently from the way we see them using our 'viewing instruments', i.e., our senses.
  Accordingly, though in terms of external sense perception it is an offense if we see a righteous person perish, it may not be such an injustice to the abstract intellect, which perceives the essence of the things as they are in themselves. And this applies equally to the subject of the premise3<i class="footnote">The major premise of the syllogism being considered, namely, if God governs no righteous person would perish. </i> – 'a righteous man', as to its predicate – 'perish': 
  • We judge who is righteous through the impressions gained by our senses. If we see someone doing good and avoiding evil we judge him to be a righteous person. Yet it is possible that though our senses perceive him to be righteous, he is inherently wicked. For we cannot perceive the person as he is in himself, only as he appears to us in his external body. The outer coat that envelopes the essence of man, the soul that is concealed within the body. We cannot comprehend matters of the soul or what constitutes righteousness and evil in its terms, for the senses have no perception of the soul that is man's essence. Consequently, though he may be righteous according to his somatic behavior, he may nevertheless be wicked in terms of the perfection required for his inner soul.4<i class="footnote">As Maimonides wrote in his Commentary on the Mishna: Sanhedrin 10:<i>Know that just as a blind man can form no idea of colors, nor a deaf man of sounds, nor a eunuch of the desire for sexual intercourse, so the body cannot comprehend the delights of the soul…For we live in a material world and the only pleasure we can comprehend is physical pleasure. But the delights of the spirit are everlasting and continuous, and there is no resemblance between spiritual and bodily enjoyments</i>.</i>
  • This conforms with the opinion expressed by those Talmudic Sages who posited that Job lived before the giving of the Torah [at Mt. Sinai] and that his righteousness was just civilized probity in matters concerning human relations.5<i class="footnote">Bereshit Raba 57.4</i> However, there are religious ordinances and perfections needed for the perfection of the soul that cannot be ascertained by means of the intellect. Nor can it be perfected through civilized behavior which designates what is good and bad only by reference to the governance of physical bodies. Thus, in terms of its constitution, which is unknown to man, he [Job] had not perfected his soul and it is possible that it is by virtue of this that he was considered wicked.
  This also conforms with Gersonides' statement6<i class="footnote">In Gersonides glosses on Job 11:20. </i> that a person's righteousness or wickedness depends on what he was capable of doing relative to his individual make-up. For man was created to do what he can according to his disposition. Consequently, we may consider some people to be good because of the good deeds we see them doing, when in fact by reference to their make-up, they are doing much less than they should be. Because of this, they deserve severe punishment, for relative to them, minor sins should be considered major ones by virtue of the superior level of their make-up. On the basis of this supposition, we cannot argue that the evils which befall the righteous are unfair, for we cannot specify or measure the predilections bestowed on each individual member of mankind. Hence, who is righteous and who is evil is hidden from us. Nor do we have the necessary information about how much good or evil each person deserves for his disobedience or his righteousness. And so we cannot say that if he does not receive a particular amount [of good or evil], then God does not govern in an orderly and honest manner. For the amount of good or bad warranted by the goodness or worthlessness of their deeds should be adjusted for the differences in the make-up of each individual, by inverse proportion. That is to say, the reward for a particular deed should vary according to the ranking of the performer; the higher his intrinsic level the smaller should be the reward and the greater should be his punishment for an evil deed. All of this is implied in his [Zophar's] statement: That He would tell you of wisdom's mysteries; how reality is folded double. So you might know, God has exacted less from you than your iniquity warranted (Job 11:6). 
  •  As regards the predicate [of the syllogism], viz. 'perish', we consider 'perishing' to be the annihilation of the physical body. For since we can only perceive what is palpable and not the essentials of things, as was explained above, we cannot perceive the intrinsic man. But in truth, though a person's exterior may perish, his essence, which is his internal soul, may thereby achieve bliss and perfection; <i>excelling in pride and excelling in might</i> (Genesis 49:3). The external pain that the senses feel is not proof of an internal pain, that of the soul itself. As has already been explained by the wise: <i>True reward and punishment are not to be found in these perceptible misfortunes; that is, it is fitting that reward and punishment befalling man as a human being be through human goods and human misfortunes, not through benefits and misfortunes which are not human. Since this is the case, and [since] human goods consist of acquiring well-being of the soul - for this belongs to man by virtue of his humanity - not in acquiring sweet foods and [pleasant] sensory objects, for nutrition and sensation do not belong to man by virtue of his humanity, and also since human misfortune consists of the absence of well-being of the soul - I mean that its development be inadequate - it is clear that reward and punishment which befalls man by virtue of his humanity lies in the well-being of the soul and in the lack of such well-being...Since acquisition of well-being of the soul itself depends upon good and just actions...the good and evil which befall man by virtue of his humanity, proceed...in accordance with order and justice.7<i class="footnote">Gersonides' The Wars of the Lord, Part 4 Chapter 6, translated by J. David Bleich.</i></i> And so, even though the body may perish, the soul lives on; continuing to exist, eternal and receiving its reward after death. Regarding this, Zophar says; The real you will yet forget the misery, remembering it like flood waters long gone. For the timeless Hereafter will rise at midday, like daybreak breaking from the shadows, You can be sure of it, for there is hope, When buried in the ground, you will lie in safety, At rest, none shall make you afraid, Yea many will come to seek your intercession (Job 11:16-19).
   As regards the long campaign Job had waged in Chapter 10 to prove that man has no freedom over his acts, for if he had, it would be impossible for the Blessed One to know the details of all possible future events [and that would mean that He is not Omniscient], Zophar replies as did Maimonides when he stated that inferences cannot be drawn between our knowledge and God's Knowledge, may He be Blessed. For just as the level of His Existence is higher than that of our existence, so the level of His Knowledge is higher than that of our knowledge. And so it must be, since His Knowledge is He Himself and just as we cannot appreciate His Essence so we cannot appreciate His Knowledge. Philosophers have already explained that the term 'knowledge' when applied to God, may He be Blessed, and to us is but a homonym. And clearly, when entities are homonyms, nothing can be proved about the one from the other. Accordingly, Maimonides explains that His Knowledge, may He be Blessed, is distinguishable from ours in five ways:
  1.	That His Unique Knowledge is both appropriate and commensurate with the many different types of things.
  2.	That His Knowledge applies to things not existing.
  3.	That His Knowledge encompasses that which has no purpose.
  4.	That God's Knowledge, may He be Blessed, of things that will happen in the future does not predetermine the known thing but leaves possible its nullification, so that concurrently with the Knowledge, the attributes of possibility and choice still remain.
  5.	That God's Knowledge, may He be Blessed, is not changed by innovations in those things of which He had knowledge before they came into existence, even though the thing to which the Knowledge applied has already changed, such that what was at first a potentiality has subsequently become a reality.8<i class="footnote">The Malbim changed the order in this paraphrase of the list from Guide to the Perplexed III,20.</i>
  None of these can be described by our intellect or wisdom, for 'knowledge' attributed to us is not the same as 'Knowledge' attributed to Him, may He be Blessed. Nor can we comprehend how and in what way He Knows, just as we cannot comprehend His Blessed Essence. The nature of this Knowledge requires that it be inscrutable and incomprehensible to us. This concept is implicit in Zophar's assertion that we can only appreciate things through the medium of our senses and cannot know the perception of an intellect that is totally divorced from matter: one which comprehends the essence of things from the prior to the subsequent, which is a different type of comprehension.9<i class="footnote">Different from sense perception which induces from what is posterior – the observed physical phenomena, what was prior – the underlying universals or general qualities.</i> And above all, we can never comprehend God's Knowledge, may He be Blessed; He Who is Transcendental. And this is what Zophar meant when he inquired: Can you fathom the depth of God? Can you determine the reach of the Almighty? T'is high as heaven; what can you make of it? Deeper than Sheol; what can you know of it? Its girth is greater than the earth and wider than the sea (Job 11:7-9). Accordingly, he concludes that though the Lord, may He be Blessed, knows all future events, individuals still have choice and discretion over their deeds. Man cannot pose the question of 'knowledge and free-will'; he cannot claim that if the Lord, may He be Blessed, already knew that he would sin, he was compelled to sin and why then should he be punished, for this is something whose meaning we can never comprehend (Ch.11:10-11).
  Furthermore, it cannot be denied that man does have free-will by virtue of the feeling every person has in his soul that whatever he wants or chooses to do, he has the possibility of doing, and no external force prevents him (Ch.11:13).10<i class="footnote">Once again, an idea reminiscent of Descartes: Finally it is so evident that we are possessed of a free-will that can give or withhold its assent, that this may be counted as one of the first and most ordinary notions that are found innately in us. We had before a very clear proof of this, for at the same time as we tried to doubt all things and even supposed that He who created us employed His unlimited powers in deceiving us in every way, we perceived in ourselves a liberty such that we were able to abstain from believing what was not perfectly certain and indubitable. But that of which we could not doubt at such a time is as self-evident and clear as anything we can ever know. (Principles of Philosophy 39)</i>
  And finally, if a person asks why God created man in this way and not with the faculty to perceive things as they are in themselves; capable to learn from the prior to the subsequent without need of the senses and not to be bewildered by these doubts? He replies that this is like asking why God did not give intellect to donkeys and make them as clever as men. Had He done so, donkeys, as such, would not have existed. God wanted man to exist as 'intellect wedded to matter'. If man gained intelligence other than through the senses, he would have been 'intellect divorced from matter', and humanity as such would not have existed (Ch.11:12).
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  Everything in existence has two realities:
  1.  The reality of the thing in itself and ...
  2.  That perceived by our senses. This duality is the cause of our misinterpretation of events. For all our observations are subject to time and place and are based upon our senses which perceive only the external attributes. Could Job but perceive the reality of things as they are in themselves, he would recognize that he is not perfectly righteous for he has not fulfilled all the potential for good with which he was endowed and so is deserving of punishment.
  
  Verse 7
  
  Zophar now goes on to dispute Job's thesis that since God must have foreknowledge of everything, we do not really have free-will. He argues that God's Knowledge is beyond our comprehension, like His Essence; it exists in a dimension beyond ours and so does not limit our free-will in any way that we can comprehend. Thus, we cannot question His Governance.
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  But why, we may ask, was man created with this limitation on his knowledge? The answer Zophar gives is that in His wisdom, God created man as 'intellect wedded to matter'. Thus, we gain knowledge through our senses and the bodily material through which we live and perceive limits the degree of understanding we can achieve. Just as an ass cannot be born a man for his body was not designed for this, so man cannot achieve God's absolute understanding.
  
  Verse 13
  
  Regardless of the philosophical and theological problems, subjectively, man knows that he has free-will. He feels no inherent restrictions on his choices. Whatever the mind decides, the body effects.
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  Zophar returns to his thesis of the duality of reality, according to which bodily perdition is not real perdition. The physical ruination of a righteous person is of little account, for the essence of man is his eternal soul which is but temporarily clothed in his body and will yet receive its true reward in the eternal world of the Hereafter.  ...remembering it like flood-waters long gone — The floods seemed to be a curse at the time, but they watered the land and made it fruitful. Malbim quotes the following passage from the Talmud: <i>'A blessing is said over evil like that over good…' What is the meaning behind this? If one's field is flooded, though at the time it is an evil, it is ultimately a good, for the alluvium with which it is covered makes it more fertile (TB Brachot 60a). </i>
  
  Verse 17
  
  The Hebrew phrase is ומצהרים יקום חלד. Malbim understands it to mean: 'The totality and the new world that will arise after this world and which is the life in the world to come will arise at noon, from the place of light.' The term חלד is usually understood as meaning 'life' or 'lifetime'. Malbim understands it as designating 'the Universe in its entirety, without regard for the earth which is called Earth (ארץ) or World (תבל), nor the time which on its part is called Eternity (עולם).
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  The Seventh Oration - Job's Reply to Zophar's First Speech
  Job <i>pours great scorn (Ezekiel 23:32) </i>on Zophar's philosophical method, that by which he had determined that since we possess knowledge only by reason of our senses as they apprehend the exterior of things, and we do not perceive the reality of things as they are in themselves, it is conceivable that though a person may appear to be righteous according to our sense perception, he is in truth wicked and is deserving of perdition and torment by reference to his inner spiritual essence. Is there anything more ludicrous, asks Job, than that a person who appears to be virtuous in all his acts and beyond suspicion, should be told that he does not really know his own mind or its intrinsic state, in terms of which he may be both wicked, and a sinner, <i>and deserving of misfortunes</i>? (Job 12:5), Is it conceivable that God created man in such <i>an evil and bitter manner</i> (Jeremiah 2:19) <i>for scorn and for ridicule</i> (Ezekiel 23:32); so that his <i>calm and secure thoughts (Amos 6:1) </i>about his righteousness are as <i>a burning torch inside him (Isaiah 62:1) heaping coals of fire (Proverbs 25:22) </i>and mockery on his head? <i>For not knowing his soul (Proverbs 14:9) nor trusting his life</i> (Job 24:22), he is perhaps a criminal and guilty, but does not know it! (Ch.12:3-4).
  Similarly, as regards to the central idea of his philosophy, that man does not have a clear perception or knowledge of the reality of things and it might be just the opposite of what he feels it to be. Concerning this, <i>he builds a fortification and rampart (Ezekiel 4:2) </i>and proves that the knowledge humans gain by examination and experience, using their senses, is clear and true knowledge. For we see that everything an individual discerns through his senses and his investigations was also observed by the whole multitude of mankind in every generation. <i>Thus, it is heard in his ears (Job 28:22) </i>through an unbroken tradition, that all human perceptions and knowledge are at one with his knowledge. Hence, his knowledge is plainly clear and true, and as he perceives the natural qualities of things and their actuality, so they are. For it is impossible that misguided imagination has led the whole of mankind astray. (Ch.12:11-12 &amp; 13:1-2)
  He also pours scorn on the tenet of his philosophical theory according to which even though God has foreknowledge of those elective particulars that are equivalent to absolute future knowledge, it is still conceivable that contingency exists and choice is in man's hand; the tenet that the term 'knowledge' applies to God and to us as a homonym and His Knowledge is not like our knowledge. That, whereas He perceives the essence of things in a lucid knowledge which is independent of time and place and other sensory parameters, we cannot conceive this Knowledge, just as the skin cannot imagine the senses. And that, in consequence, the difference between His Knowledge and our knowledge is like that between man's perception and an animal's <i>or a wild ass's foal</i>. (Job 11:12) Regarding this matter Job's opinion is similar to that of Gersonides who went to great lengths to reply to the position taken by <i>The Guide:1<i class="footnote">Maimonides' Guide to the Perplexed. </i></i> <i>It would seem that His knowledge, may He be Blessed, is equivocal with our knowledge by priority and posteriority. I mean to say that the term 'knowledge' is said of God, may He be Blessed, priorly and of any other being posteriorily. This is because He has His knowledge from His own essence whereas the knowledge of other beings is caused by His knowledge...This being the case, it would seem that there is no difference between the knowledge of God, may He be Blessed, and our knowledge except that the knowledge of God, may He be Blessed, is more perfect than our knowledge...is more true in precision and clarity</i>. (The Wars of the Lord Part 3 Chapter 3. Norbet M. Samuelson translation). And not that it should be different and mutable in the way that <i>The Guide</i> wrote, so that what is designated opinion or error or confusion with reference to us is designated knowledge with reference to Him. Accordingly, all the proofs presented by Job in Chapter 10 are reinstated:  1.	That we cannot hold that God has foreknowledge of all elective particulars but contingency still exists and choice is in man's hand; for according to our knowledge these are contradictory things. Whence he [Job] returns to the conclusion he had previously drawn, namely, that man is compelled to act as he does and can do nothing other than that which God already knows with His prior knowledge that he must do by virtue of his destiny. He is just like the rest of the animals who have no discretion and whose actions are instinctive and inexorable. (Ch.12:7-13)
  2.	That the Almighty, may He be Blessed, rules and determines man's discretionary acts just as He determines all natural matters. Like the element water, which sometimes floods the earth and sometimes lays waste and dries up. And all this is done by nature and of necessity. So too are the actions <i>of one man to another</i> (Proverbs 27:19). (Ch.12:14-16)
  As further evidence that persons must act as prescribed, He cites the way societies, nations and peoples are governed. For their wise men and leaders are sometimes led down the wrong path  (Job 12:17) and rule so stupidly that chaos results and they perish, and it appears from this that a superior extraneous force<i>3</i><i class="footnote">Unpredictable or inexplicable political decisions or events: 'acts of God'. The Hebrew term used by Malbim - כח אחר - is found in the Talmud (TB Baba Kama 3b) where it designates the tendency of fire to spread.</i> <i>confounds their counsel and confuses their thinking</i>, (TB Berachot 17a ) as he explains at length (Ch.12:17-25).
  Accordingly, <i>he cries out bitterly (Genesis 27:34) </i>that since he is compelled to act as he does, he receives no reward for his righteousness; that he has been handed over to the occurrences and evils which the signs of his horoscope have prescribed for him; that God should desist and allow him freedom over his acts so that he might receive his reward, like an employee who does his work faithfully, and <i>not labor in vain...and in terror</i> (Isaiah 65:23). (Ch.14:5) Furthermore, since a human being's days are <i>few and evil (Genesis 47:9) </i>and by the nature of his birth he is prone to uncleanliness and corruption, and must battle with his instincts, he should at least be free to act as he chooses <i>until, like a hired laborer, he completes his day</i> (Job 14:6). (Ch.14:1-5)
  As regards Zophar's supposition that the essential substance of success and recompense is to be found after death, for then one has the hope of living a spiritual life <i>in everlasting bliss (Psalms 16:11)</i>, he [Job] mocks his words at length (in line with his view, which denies the resurrection of the dead and spiritual reward). (Ch.14:7-22)
  At the same time as he rebuts Zophar's thesis, he also expresses his resentment throughout Chapter 13 at the pretense of his three companions in their campaign against him. They themselves knew that there was no substance to anything they had said and they had only brought the conventionally required arguments like hypocrites, <i>speaking wickedness to defend God</i>, <i>and for His sake, uttering falsehoods</i>; (Job 13:7) words which were themselves far from what was in their own minds. And so he once again asks that they tell him in what he had sinned and how many were his sins. All of which brings to a close the first cycle of their debate on the question of the suffering of a righteous person.
  Job now opens the second round which is concerned with what they had not yet discussed, namely, the question of why there are wicked persons who prosper, as he says, the gangsters' homes are peaceful (Job 12:6). The answer to this question cannot proceed from any of the philosophical theories hitherto proposed. For the evil of a wicked person is clear and evident to all and it cannot be suggested that he is really secretly righteous when we see that he plunders and provokes God  (Job 12:6) and purposely does wicked deeds. And yet, nevertheless, <i>his home is at peace, unafraid nor is God's rod raised against him</i> (Job 21:9). So they now resume the debate on the question of why the wicked prosper and each replies according to his opinion and philosophical theory.
  
  Verse 2
  
  Job replies to Zophar's taunt, <i>'Is the orator irrefutable...'</i>
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  Zophar had expressed the wish that God might reveal to Job 'how reality is folded double': that human perceptions are only superficial and do not rethe true essence of things. Making short shrift of this, Job totally rejects the notion of a duality in the nature of either knowledge or morality. Knowledge in God's hands is not inherently different from human knowledge. Nor can a person be righteous in man's eyes but wicked in God's. To suggest otherwise is to make a mockery of man.
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  Job now opens the second round of the debate and raises the question of the prosperity of the wicked. He argues that this too is a consequence of God's comprehensive foreknowledge. For as a result of this foreknowledge, man has no free-will and has no choice but to act as he does. Hence, even the most heinous deeds a person does must, in all justice, go unpunished.
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  Job rejects Zophar's assertion that our observations and sensory perceptions do not reflect the true essence of things. On the contrary, the wisdom and understanding we amass during our lives are true, for their source is God. By virtue of His omniscience, He is the font of all knowledge. However, though man's knowledge is real, his free-will is an illusion, for God's foreknowledge predetermines everything.
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  The decline into tyranny or corruption that almost always afflicts even the best self-governing political and national institutions is indicative of the illusion of free-will. Even the wisest of leaders ultimately fails, for everything is predestined by God's foreknowledge. Malbim identifies two types of government:  
  He regards verses 17 and 18 as referring to the one-man rule of a monarchy
  and verses 19 and 20 to the representative government of a republic.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  Job returns to the question of the nature of human sensory perceptions and reaffirms his assertion that they are genuine and that everyone sees things the same, nobody having a better view of reality than anyone else.
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  If, however, we all see things the same, how do differences of opinion such as those between Job and his companions arise? Job answers that they arise from the different purpose each has in putting forward his arguments and the different means they are prepared to employ. By distancing God from the unfairness we see around us, Job's purpose had been to maintain the absolute truth of His Perfection. However, his companions, by maintaining that He administers individual fate and is therefore in one way or another responsible for this unfairness, were prepared to compromise His Perfection, in particular in their explanations of how, even under His direct Providence, the righteous still have to suffer. Did they really believe this? Had they hoped thereby to find favor with God or were they motivated by a fear of His retribution, were they to say what they really believed?
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  Unlike his companions, Job has nothing to fear from saying what he really believes; his suffering can get no worse. 
  
  Verse 15
  
  He is either going to die, which would be a relief, or —
  If God does indeed govern, perhaps He will hear what Job has to say, be convinced of his innocence and restore him.
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  Job now presents his case to God, opening with a plea he be allowed to do so without feeling intimidated. He then asks just what he had done to deserve his present state.
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  But God does not reply; nor does Job's suffering cease. Which only proves Job's point: God is not in charge. If He was, He would surely not ignore him nor continue tormenting him mercilessly? 
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  Man is shackled and so there is no point in God watching over him.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  If, despite all the arguments to the contrary, God does in fact govern and there is individual Providence, then it should take account of two factors: (i) man's inherent uncleanliness by reason of the manner of his conception and birth; (ii) that man has no free-will, his fate being predetermined from above.6<i class="footnote">During the 18th century a fierce debate raged between those who believed that the growth and development of an embryo was 'epigenetic', i.e., all its limbs and parts emerge from the primordial material and become recognizable at the same rate, and those who believed in the doctrine of 'preformation' according to which the primordial germ already contains a miniature replica of the adult and this only has to enlarge and unfold before birth. Whereas the former theory required an agency which conjured the limbs from the undifferentiated primordial material the latter just involved an inherent mechanical process. Aristotle, who advocated the epigenetic model, regarded the semen as being the spiritual agency that conjured the limbs and other body parts from the menstrual blood.True to his eclectic ways, Malbim combines elements of both theories in his interpretation of this verse as a demand that God make allowances for man's innate unclean tendencies when he judges him. As he writes:<i>For is the branch not always like its root and the plant like the seed from which it grew? And so, how can man who is born out of uncleanliness, for he is born of woman – from semen and menstrual blood which is an unclean thing – how can he change his nature and not be at one with the lowliness of the source of his birth 'and the quarry from which he was hewn' (Isaiah 51.1)? He therefore tends to uncleanliness from his birth and from the womb and from conception</i>.</i>
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  Rejecting Zophar's thesis that the virtuous receive their real reward in the Hereafter, Job argues that unlike trees that may hope to revive after being cut down, man has nothing to hope for after death.
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  Even were he to be punished in that eternal world, the punishment would some day end and he would at least have that to look forward to. But the notion that there is another world, where the injustices of this world are corrected, defies reason.
  
  Verse 14
  
  If God is callous towards us in this world and permits injustices, why should He act differently in the other world? And if the next world is fairer than this one, should we not be spending our lives in this imperfect world hoping to die quickly so as to enter the next perfect world as soon as possible?
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  I am now being made to suffer even though I have not sinned. Will You then be so loving as to cover up my sins however great they may be? 
  
  Verse 18
  
  Malbim notes that 'naturalists have agreed that mountains grow'. He is perhaps referring to the hypothesis of a geological uplifting force that balances erosion first proposed by Hutton in 1785 and popularized half a century later by Lyell.
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  Hope is a cruel illusion, that entices a man when he is young, only to fail him when he becomes old. For when a person dies, there is nothing more. To hope for a life after death is futile.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  The Eighth Oration - Eliphaz’s Speech in the Second Round
  Towards the end of his oration, Job had raised the second question on the agenda, namely, that concerning the prosperity of the wicked. Since this subject had not been addressed by his companions in their replies to the question of the suffering of the wicked, the debaters return for a second round in which each presents his opinion regarding this new question.
  Eliphaz is of the opinion that the prosperity of the wicked is illusory: it is not true prosperity. Though, at first sight, the wicked person may appear successful, acquiring wealth, strength and possessions, his heart is ever full of fear. He feels at all times as if <i>pursued by the sword</i> (Leviticus 26:37), as though hard times were coming; as if <i>destitution and poverty</i> (Psalms 82:3) were about to overtaken him. So much so, that despite his wealth he has no pleasure from it nor has any peace of mind. And this is one of God’s punishments <i>for doing wrong in His eyes and provoking Him to anger</i> (Deuteronomy 4:25). He [God] confuses the wicked person's mind, his thoughts and his imagination with fear and trembling. For the essence of prosperity is peace of mind, an unworried spirit and a joyful heart; <i>better a dry crust and tranquility with it</i> (Proverbs 17:1). 
  Now this is exactly what had happened to Job, for he had admitted: <i>I had a terrifying premonition and it has come to be</i>. (Job 3:25) Moreover, this continuous fear, which haunts [the wicked person], is a portent of his own doom. For ultimately, he, his descendants and all that he has will be wiped out, as had happened to Job. This is the thrust of Eliphaz’s opinion.
  However, at the opening of his speech he chides Job once again for denying that the soul is recompensed in the world to come. Though he may deny physical resurrection, he surely cannot deny the survival of the eternal soul upon which real happiness and lasting prosperity depend (Ch.15:11-13).
  Likewise regarding Job’s denial of free-will and his assertion that man is compelled to act as he does. Though Eliphaz had already challenged him on this matter in his first speech, he confronts him again, He points out that <i>all reflective thinkers</i> (Exodus 28:3) feel in themselves that they have free-will and that there is no external force compelling them to act as they do (Ch.15:18-19). And furthermore, since individuals have freedom of action they are held accountable, and it is inconceivable that such an individual has not committed some sin for which he deserves punishment. So God chastises him with some temporary punishment, with suffering in this world, in order to save his eternal soul.
  All of this is just a repetition of his first speech, with the exception that he had not previously spelled out the idea that the punishment is intended to save the person from the severing of the soul, and that the suffering befalls him only temporarily so that he not perish forever as a result of the death of his body before its time. Job had disputed this notion at the time and had shown that it makes no difference whether one dies now (for the period of suffering is considered like a death) or whether one dies later, as he explained at length in Chapter 7. But now Eliphaz explains to him that souls are recompensed and that the life of the souls is eternal life; suffering and even temporary death are better than eternal perdition (Ch.15:14-17).
  Besides, whereas Eliphaz had at first attributed to Job the minor sin of not worshipping God out of love, he now regards him to be a totally wicked person, seeing how <i>he had opened his mouth</i> (Isaiah 5:14) to deny all the corner-stones of faith. It was evident from his words that he had not spoken out of his suffering for <i>a person should not be held responsible for his anguish</i> (Baba Batra 16b). However, from the way his statements were formulated and the fact that he put forward his thesis in such learned language, it was clear that he had been contemplating and working out these things over a long time, a time when he had still been at ease (Ch.15:2,7).
  Apart from this, he derides Job's arrogance and stupidity for complaining that man was ever created, as though he was the first person ever created. Countless generations have already passed, that saw life and rejoiced in their toil, all of whom <i>have given thanks to the Lord for His lovingkindness</i> (Psalms 107: 8,15,21,31). Would he gainsay the whole world? <i>Will the clay ask the potter what he is making; or his handiwork say 'You are unskilled'? (Isaiah 45:9) </i> (Chapter 15:7-11). 
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  The blasphemies Job had voiced with such eloquence and fluency in his various utterances had revealed the truth: that he had long been a heretic, one who denies free-will, life after death and God's wisdom and mercy.
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  Mocking Job, Eliphaz asks whether he thinks he is the first person ever to consider the issues raised by ethical monotheism; whether he is privilege to some knowledge that has been denied to others?
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  Having convinced himself of Job's basic wickedness, Eliphaz now turns his attention to Job's rejection of a life after death. He argues that the body is but a temporary shelter for the soul; that the suffering of the body in this world being but transient; and that the soul lives on after the demise of the body, receiving its eternal reward in the Hereafter for the good done in this world.
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  Eliphaz returns to the vision of which he first spoke in his previous speech, that in which he had claimed to have been told that the righteous suffer in order to atone for some minor sin, and, furthermore, that this was quite just because no-one was so righteous that he has never sinned. 
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  Rejecting Job's denial of free-will, Eliphaz cites those thinkers who have asserted that our sense of self tells us that we have free-will..1<i class="footnote">Verses 18 and 19 are difficult. Many commentators see them as being a parenthetical remark, the verses being interposed by Eliphaz to endorse his doctrine. They translate the Hebrew term מאבותם in v.18 as 'from their fathers'. However, Malbim regards the word מאבותם as deriving from the root אבה meaning <i>desire</i> or <i>will</i>, and explains it as expressing the primary will which is the 'father' of all actions.</i>
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   Eliphaz now comes to his main argument, namely, that the prosperity of the wicked is illusory and external, true internal contentment being denied to him. The wicked are victims of their own imagination which gives them no rest. And God will be relentless in His pursuit of them.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  The Ninth Oration - Job’s Second Reply to Eliphaz
  Job does not reply at once to the resolution of the question of the prosperity of the wicked advanced by Eliphaz, nor to the thesis Bildad adopts on his issue, preferring to wait until all three of his companions have addressed the subject. He then answers them all (in Chapter 21) in comprehensive response that rebuts everything they had said on the subject.
  Nor does he react to Eliphaz's repetition of the claim he had made in his first oration, namely, that he had received a prophetic vision concerning the suffering of the righteous, as he had already replied to it at the time. He just rebukes him for repeating himself and for adding nothing new, as though all he wanted to do was to drown him with words, which is not the way of the wise (Ch.16:2-5). 
  Neither does he comment on the ideas Eliphaz repeats concerning free-will, there being no point in reiterating what he had already said. 
  And so he limits himself, at this point, to dealing to just two matters:
  • The first, that Eliphaz had now sought to brand him as a totally evil person; one deserving of the condemnation and punishment due to the wicked. For everything he had described about the fears that possess a wicked person and his ultimate collapse <i>had pointed the finger</i>(Proverbs 6:13) at Job, for it had all happened to him. Job cries out and fiercely protests against this (Ch.16:7-21).
  And the second, Eliphaz’s attempt to reinforce his previous thesis that the essential reward [of the righteous] is the survival of the soul after death, as when he said (Job 15:11): Are God's consolations inadequate for you; For you will return your spirit to God.  Job rejects this completely, saying that since the essential quality of the soul is a hidden matter and most people cannot understand this mystery and see only that which is sensed, i.e., that the righteous person is tormented with suffering in real-life; and since as regards this other spiritual life, there is nobody who can give them a guarantee that the soul lives on after death, for such things are hidden from the seeing eye; and since even the intellect can make no sense of it, as he says (Job 17:4): But You have hidden comprehension from their minds, and since all human beings only set store by what is seen in real-life, there are those who, when they see a righteous person suffer, pass a perverse judgment over him and conclude from this that he must have sinned, as happened in the case of Job, whereas others will maintain that the person was indeed righteous and so complain about the workings of Providence.1<i class="footnote">'If God wants us to do a thing, he should make his wishes sufficiently clear. Sensible people will wait till he has done this before paying much attention to him.' - Samuel Butler (1835–1902).</i> It follows that this disposal of the suffering of the righteous and the prosperity of the wicked [viz. reward or punishment of the soul after death in the Hereafter] leads people to dissent and reproach, and to barren thought: <i>it is a shadow of death in Governance; incoherent</i> (Job 10:22). The righteous and the wicked should be given their just deserts in this world, for all to see, to learn and to take note; <i>so that injustice be gagged</i> (Psalms 107:42).  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  Replying to Eliphaz’s taunt 'Your own mouth condemns you, not I; your own lips testify against you', Job rejects the notion that his ordeal and his refusal to bear it stoically are of themselves proof of his wickedness
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  As is known from the annals of ancient peoples, when they wanted to investigate someone who was suspected of robbery or murder or of committing some such crime but who denied it, they would torture the suspect and look for his reaction. If they saw that he endured the suffering as though feeling nothing, they would conclude that the accusation was false. However, if they saw that he felt the effects of the torture and cried out, they judged the accusation to be true and so they continued to torture him still more. And when, in turn, he cried out still more, they became even more convinced of his guilt. Hence, the witness that they brought against the suspect to show that their suspicions were justified, was the torment that they themselves inflicted upon him.
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  Job once again describes the suffering his ordeal has brought upon him, the ordeal that Eliphaz has suggested is the very proof of his wrong-doing. What he is enduring is not proof of any wrong-doing but is just an act of brutality.
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  Job's outcry was no more than should be expected from someone who has endured such an ordeal. 
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  In heaven they know that he is guiltless; that his suffering is not proof of sin.
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  Eliphaz had argued that the true reward of the righteous is the survival of the soul after death. Job now challenges Eliphaz to bring proof that there is a life after death. 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  Is my spirit just on loan to be returned to its Maker at the body's demise, as Eliphaz maintains. No, my days are being ticked off, burying me one by one. There is nothing immortal in man. His whole life is lived here in this world, and every day that goes by is a day gone; irretrievable; buried.
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  No-one takes up Job’s challenge. The notion of the survival and recompense of the soul after death defies inquiry, for the concept of a protean spirit detached from a body is beyond the understanding granted to man by God.5<i class="footnote">Malbim remarks that many believe the soul to be a 'hylic force' which depends for its existence on the life of the body and so dies with it. This is an Aristotelian idea adopted by many medieval thinkers, namely that those functions of the soul which act by means of the body's organs such as sensation, memory, imagination, love and hate etc., perish with the body, the rational faculty alone remaining. By way of contrast, Malbim cites the opinion expressed by the Talmudic sage R. Yonah in Ecclesiastes Rabbah 2:<i>All the peace of mind that a person enjoys in this world is an emptiness compared to his repose in the world to come. For in this world a person dies and bequeaths his repose to another but of the world to come it is written: 'They shall not build for others to inhabit' (Isaiah 65:22)</i>. </i>
  
  Verse 5
  
  When considering what will happen after they die, all that people are concerned about is the disposal of their earthly possessions, not the future life of their souls. And for some, their posterity is of such little importance that they bequeath their estates to their lifetime friends rather than to their own children.
  
  Verse 6
  
  It being impossible to establish whether or not there is a life after death in which the injustices of this world are corrected, observers of Job's torment will seek alternative explanations. There will be those who say that Job is in truth a righteous person and is being wronged, in which case they will be maligning Providence. There will be others who will say that Job is in fact a sinner and getting his true deserts, in which case they will be unjustly maligning him. Each type of observer will take the lesson of Job to heart in his own way and will choose the explanation most accommodating to him. How much better it would be if justice was seen to be done in this world and we were all saved from the inevitable errors of such moral judgments.
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  The honest person, one who takes things at their face value, will take Job to be a righteous person and put the blame for his suffering on Providence. The innocent will presume Job was a hypocrite and only appeared to be upright, and was being punished for this.
  
  Verse 9
  
   The righteous person will believe Job is being punished for his sins and for fear that the same might befall him, will become still more of a zealot. The pious devotee, who believes that he is being punished for a lack of piety will redouble his own devotion to God.
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  Job reaffirms his belief that death is permanent and final, scorning the notion that death and the decomposition of the body are the progenitors of eternal life.
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  The Hebrew text has אמי, meaning 'my mother'. But Malbim reads this as אחי, meaning 'my brother', which makes more sense.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  The Tenth Oration - Bildad’s Speech in the Second Round
  At the opening of his speech, Bildad rages over Job’s admission that he does not believe in, or at least doubts, the survival of the soul after death. For if this is so, <i>man is no better than the animals; the death of the one being no different from the death of the other; all drawing the same breath (Ecclesiastes 3:19)</i>, In which case, why did God create man in His image, <i>breathing a living soul into him</i> (Genesis 2:7); one that knows and thinks? Viewed in this way, the human psyche is worthless and its presence in man is only to his own detriment; there, just to make him understand <i>that his end is utter annihilation</i> (Numbers 24:20). But since we see that God has endowed man with wondrous spiritual powers, the like of which are not found in the souls of the other animals, it is clear that this is the essential feature of man and that his soul does not perish with the mortal body but lives on eternally, for ever. 
  Thus, he reformulates his thesis concerning the prosperity of the wicked, as follows: In his opinion, the essence of prosperity is in the very fact of being a human being. From which it follows, that it is the well-being of the soul that matters, for it is this that distinguishes man from the beasts. It is not physical well-being that matters, for man's body is just like that of the animals. Hence, the prosperity that a wicked person achieves in this world through material possessions, those that are intended only for bodily enjoyment, is not real prosperity. Accordingly, he explains that a wicked person’s punishment is that nothing will remain of him or of his existence, for his spiritual soul will be cut off and doomed; <i>never to be illumined in eternal bliss with the light of the living (Job 33:30). </i>Nothing of his will endure, neither his children, his name nor his remembrances on earth, and this is the most horrifying punishment of all. By contrast, a righteous person has both a name and continuance in this world and a perpetuity in his death, for his soul will be <i>in eternal bliss</i> (Psalms 16:11), there to be compensated for the suffering he endured in this world.
  In this way he consummates the hypothesis he had put forward regarding the reason for the suffering of the righteous, namely, that it is a contingent of an exchange. Job had parried and rebutted this notion strenuously. However, his arguments are only pertinent if the exchange takes place in this world; that it is here that God rewards the person with good in compensation for the bad he has suffered, and not in the Hereafter. But if He compensates the person with an everlasting spiritual reward that is bestowed on his eternal soul, granting him eternal bliss in recompense for the temporary suffering, Job's submissions fail, and <i>the Lord's justice is vindicated along with Him (Psalms 19:10). </i>Thus, all of Job's responses are rebutted; <i>all gone up in smoke</i> (Psalms 37:20). 
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  Job’s anguish has unbalanced him. How else can his denial of the survival of the soul after the death of the body be explained? For if human beings are just mortal and their souls perish at death, then man is reduced to the level of being just another animal.
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  Only the souls of the obstinately wicked die, perishing eternally with his physical demise..1<i class="footnote">According to the Talmud (TB Sanhedrin 90a), only those who are extremely wicked have no portion in the Hereafter. This includes those who deny the existence of a Hereafter. </i>
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  The Eleventh Oration - Job’s Reply To Bildad’s Second Speech
  Job does not now reply to Bildad's hypothesis, preferring to wait until all three of his companions have completed their speeches in the second round. At this juncture he just complains bitterly at the pain their biting words are causing him; <i>such scorn and insult</i> (Psalms 119:22),  Even had he said something improper, <i>a person should not be held responsible for what he says when distressed</i>.1<i class="footnote">TB Baba Batra 16b </i> He concludes that they have turned against him; that they have become his enemies and, as such, have just come to heap <i>still more anguish on his distress</i> (Lamentations 1:12),  hounding him mercilessly. He leaves it to future generations to judge his case; they will surely exonerate him. He also arraigns his companions before Heaven for having persecuted a disease stricken man like him, one who is <i>anguished to the point of death</i>. (Psalms 109:16)  He tells of his distress and his troubles and warns them that they should fear God's retribution for the way they had deceived him, under the guise of love.2<i class="footnote">This book is as much about man as it is about God. Whatever God's involvement was or was not in all that had befallen Job, his family and his possessions, his companions show little sympathy for his present state. They offer all sorts of theologies to explain it but there is no succor or comfort in their rationalizations; at least they could have shown some pity. As Yeshayahu Leibowitz said of the book When Bad Things Happen to Good People by Harold S. Kushner, that if it is supposed to be an explanation, it fails; but if it is meant to be a comfort to the bereaved (נחום אבלים), which is a great Mitzvah, then the book has value.</i>
  
  Verse 2
  
  Job is grievously hurt by his companions’ insinuation that under the cloak of his righteousness he is really a very wicked person, his suffering being the proof of this, there being no suffering without sin according to them. Even if he was as wicked as they say, and even if, as they contend, his suffering is from God, its magnitude is out of all proportion to any sin he may have committed.
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  Job calls upon his companions to show him the pity that God has not shown. They gain nothing from the withering of his flesh
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  Job asks that his story not be forgotten. He will yet be vindicated before the end of time
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  Job maintains that the soul cannot live outside the body. Hence, since his body is beyond repair, what hope is there left to him? The assertion, made by his companions, that despite his physical decay he still has a soul within him, through which he can yet seek salvation, is a deceit; and let them beware, for the punishment for deceit is the sword.3<i class="footnote">Malbim draws a parallel between Job's words and the following passage from Exodus:Do not cheat the stranger, nor oppress him; for you were yourselves strangers in the land of Egypt. Do not ill-treat any widow or orphan. Should you dare to ill-treat him, he will surely cry out unto Me. I will surely hear his cry. My anger will be aroused and I will kill you by the sword; and your wives will be widowed and your children fatherless. (Exodus 22: 21-23)This is one of the few instances where the Torah spells out the punishment for a particular sin and specifies that it will be effected in this world.</i>
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  The Twelfth Oration - Zophar’s Speech in the Second Round
  The Naamite debater now abandons the philosophical approach he had propounded in his previous response, namely, that the knowledge of things as they are in themselves is different from the knowledge humans acquire through sense perception, the latter discerning only the externals of things and cannot judge the truth of things. Using this approach, he could have resolved the second question, that concerning the prosperity of the wicked, by arguing that we have no real knowledge of what is inherently good or bad, or of what is good or bad in terms of the spiritual soul, and so on. However, since Job had poured so much scorn on this approach, and since it appeals only to those who concern themselves with thought and deep contemplation, he now abandons it. Expressing his apologies, he adds that he will no longer be employing this approach because he knows that Job will only insult him and make fun of his words.
  Accordingly, his new solution to the question of why righteous persons suffer is not a philosophical one. Instead, he argues that although prosperous villains can be found in the present generation, in previous times they were despised, humiliated and hounded. And even now, <i>chastisement awaits them (Proverbs 19:29)</i>; for they will die strange and curious deaths, and their wealth and property will be pillaged by those they cheated. Furthermore, because of their affluence, their collapse will be harsher still, like one who falls from a high place and whose neck is broken. And, finally, he will perish for ever. Even during their lives, they gain no pleasure from their wealth, for God prevents them enjoying it. And those they have swindled will always be lying in wait for them. Thus, no good comes to the wrongdoer, nor is he long-lived.
  
  Verse 2
  
  Zophar first announces that he will no longer be basing his arguments on the quasi-Kantian epistemology he had put forward in the first round, having had it so rudely dismissed by Job. Instead, he will argue purely on the basis of observation and experience.
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  Zophar opens his argument by asserting that the well-being of the wicked is a recent phenomenon, one that was unknown in the past and that it will soon pass. 
  
  Verse 6
  
  It is just a precursor to the evil person’s fall; the higher he is the harder the fall. Soon, he and all he has will be utterly destroyed.
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  Zophar now goes on to enumerate the evils that the wicked person and those around him have carried out, and the punishments that awaits him on each count.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  The Thirteenth Oration - Job’s Reply to Zophar’s Second Speech
  Now that his three companions have completed their respective theses on the question of the well-being of the wicked, Job comes forward and in this speech presents a general response to all they had said. In their submissions, <i>they had fitted their arrows to the bowstring (Psalms 11:2)</i> with him Job himself as the target, for in their eyes, he was a thoroughly wicked person. They saw the answer to the question of the prosperity of the wicked in the calamities that had befallen him, namely, <i>that they [the wicked] have no future to look forward to (Proverbs 24:20); </i> that just as Job’s prosperity had not endured, neither does that of any evil-doer. <i>Answering them directly (Proverbs 24:26)</i>, Job points out that the question he had posed was a general one, concerning the whole of mankind, viz. why are there are so many prosperous evildoers amongst us? (Ch.21:4-6). But regarding this, their answers  <i>had got them nowhere (Nehemiah 4:1)</i>. 
  •  For Eliphaz was wrong when he said that the wicked are always full of fear and feel insecure despite their prosperity. On the contrary, there are wicked people who are both self-assured and contented (ibid. 9-11).
  •  Nor is Bildad’s response that their kind, together with their collective and individual progeny, will be cut off, correct. For there are many wicked people whose children are alive and well off (ibid. 8) and whose homes are steadfast (ibid. 20-29).1<i class="footnote">This reference to the text appears to be a misprint in the Hebrew text, as the evildoer's home is barely mentioned in them. Most probably Malbim intended verses 9 and 21.</i> As for his statement that their souls will be cut off and they will be punished in the eternity of the Hereafter, who knows anything about this hidden punishment that is concealed from every eye? Death spreads its wings over all flesh, indiscriminately (ibid. 30-34). Like the righteous, so are the wicked gathered to the grave; and who knows whether there is wisdom or knowledge, or any reckoning,  <i>in the Sheol whither they all are bound (Ecclesiastes 9:10)</i>. 
  •  Neither does he accept Zophar's answer that the wicked will suddenly die  <i>and descend living to Sheol (Numbers 16:30)</i>. For this too is part of their good-fortune: to die without suffering, something that he [Job] himself longs for (ibid. 12-13). Furthermore, is it right and just that a righteous person who has endured suffering should die with a bitter soul, whilst a wicked person dies in his prime and at ease; and that both should finish up in the grave, righteous and wicked alike (ibid. 22-26)? And even if the wicked person's sons are cut down after his death, the wicked person does not feel this punishment as he no longer exists. God's punishments should touch him personally; and the duration of his agony should be lengthened, so that he recognize God's retribution (ibid. 17-22). 
  Thus, are they all rebuffed  <i>and their answers proved false (Job 21:34)</i>. 
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  After the way he had spoken in the first round, the three companions had all concluded that Job was really a wicked person who, until his fall, had prospered. Accordingly, they had all directed their replies to the question of the prosperity of the wicked at Job. But, as Job now reminds them, the question he had raised at the start of the second round concerned the general observation that despite their wickedness, evildoers appear to prosper everywhere and at all times. The issue was not Job’s short-temper or his refusal to acquiesce stoically to his suffering; nor were these necessarily indicative of evil-doing on his part. Though he might have been the subject of the first round of the debate, where they had discussed the suffering of the righteous, he was not the topic of the second round, which was concerned with the issue of the general well-being of the wicked
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  Why does God let the wicked get away with it? 
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  He should put out their lights;   
  He should punish the evil-doers’ own persons;
  Systematically, here and now.
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  Let them know that He is God, Judge of all the Earth.
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  God must know that because the wicked appear to go unpunished and the righteous unrewarded, He is not taken seriously. So why does He allow it?
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  Job interprets the congruity in the lot of the good and wicked as evidence that governance is random. His companions see it as proof that people are not always what they appear. Job had appeared to be good, but when his fate ultimately turned out to be that deserved by a wicked person, they knew that in truth he must have been wicked.
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  It is the same all over the world: it is the wicked who prosper. 
  
  Verse 30
  
  Are they only spared in this world to be punished in the Hereafter, as Bildad claimed? 
  
  Verse 31
  
  They should be punished where they sinned, so that those they offended should have satisfaction. 
  
  Verse 32
  
  The grave is no threat to them; it is the end for everyone, righteous and wicked alike.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  The Fourteenth Oration - Eliphaz's Speech in the Third Round
  With the completion of <i>two rounds, six [orations] in each round</i>, (Leviticus 24:6) the first concerning the suffering of the righteous and the second the prosperity of the wicked; and after the wrangler Job had triumphed over all of them with his answers, <i>his bows and his arrows (Genesis 48:22)</i>; Eliphaz now tries, for one last time, <i>to fit his arrow to the bowstring</i> (Psalms 11:2) <i>in order to counter-attack at the gate (Isaiah 28:6)</i> in a single speech that addresses both issues. In doing so, he devises a new approach, <i>one with fine insight and knowledge (Psalms 119:66)</i>, according to which it is out of wisdom on God's part, and with particular intent, that the rewards of the righteous and the punishments of the wicked are not immediately disbursed in this world. This is done so as to ensure that the worship of God may be selfless, motivated neither by love of reward nor by fear of punishment.
  For the most important aspect of a person's worship of God is that he should do good for its own sake and for the sake of the <i>Profound Statute</i> issued by the Supreme Lawgiver; and principally <i>for the sake of His great Name (2Chronicles 6:32)</i>. However, this would not be the case if a person's actions were guided by considerations of reward or fear of punishment. For he would then be serving not God but himself and this is not the sort of worship God desires. <i>If the reaction to evil acts was immediate</i> (Ecclesiastes 8:11) and God meted out punishment to the wicked at once, <i>nobody would dare</i> (Jeremiah 30:21) to do evil for fear of the immediate retribution that would follow. Similarly, everyone would try to do good because they knew they would be rewarded instantly. The deed would not be performed for the sake of God, nor would there be any meaning to reward and punishment, seeing that all would be bound to act as they did out of fear of punishment or hope of reward. Nor would there be any meaning to free-will and trial, though they were the substance of God's purpose in creating man: that the heart's inclination should tempt a person to do evil and he should feel free to do so, but that nevertheless he should refrain <i>and turn away from evil (Psalms 34:15)</i>, out of respect for God and His divine ordinances. Therefore, <i>He endowed man's mind with everything, except the knowledge of how God acts</i> (Ecclesiastes 3:11) with regard to the reward of the righteous or the punishment of the wicked. And so there are evil-doers who prosper and wicked persons who are praised in public for what they have done and God's Providence is concealed and hidden from the sight of most people. Contrariness beguiles understanding, causing it to deny Providence and to declare that <i>the world runs itself (TB Avodah Zarah 54b)</i>; that everything depends on heredity, nature and the stars; <i>that the Lord is on high, His glory is above the heavens (Psalms 113:4)</i>, and He does not govern those down below; not to mention the other charges made by heretics. As proof, they all cite the disorder and capriciousness of Providence, namely, that the righteous languish and the wicked prosper. 
  But this is a test and a trial, intended to distinguish between those who worship God sincerely and those who are insincere. For he who serves God <i>without thought of reward (TB Avodah Zarah 19a)</i>, <i>the righteous person who lives in faithfulness (Habakkuk 2:4)</i>, he will not be moved. He will receive his reward in the world of recompense—an eternal spiritual reward in shimmering Paradise—for he has been tried and found perfect. For in the world of souls, <i>scourges are also readied for the scorners (Proverbs 19:29);</i> <i>for God brings every secret thing to judgment (Ecclesiastes 12:14);</i> <i>a faithful just God, who does no wrong (Deuteronomy 32:4);</i> <i>all of whose work endures (Psalms 33:4).</i> Thus, Eliphaz <i>rebuilds and re-establishes (Ezra 2:68)</i> his original theses: 
  • his assertions that the reason for the suffering of the righteous is to punish them in this world for any minor sins they may have committed so as to indemnify them in the world to come,
  • and that though the wicked may prosper, their prosperity is imperfect for their hearts are filled with fear of the punishment that awaits them. Even though in most cases this will only befall them in the world of souls, their own hearts are already auguring evil for them. 
  In this way he also justifies his reproof of Job at the beginning of his first speech, when he had said: 'Was not your own security the reason for your piety?' (Job 4:6). For the essence of correct worship is that it should be performed without any expectation of repayment or fear of retribution, and in this Job had sinned, <i>Therefore his steps faltered (Psalms 37:31)</i>, <i>and God poured His wrath upon him (Lamentations 4:11).</i> 
  This reply encompasses all Job's rebuttals to Eliphaz's previous arguments. Namely, that it [the concealment of Providence] is an imperative of the Governance of beings who have free-will, <i>ones that understand and know</i>, (Isaiah 32:4) in order to show whether their worship is truly perfect, for the sake of God and His love alone.
  
  Verse 2
  
  God desires that man's worship of Him be for its own sake, altruistic. However, for this to be possible, He must remain elusive. Were He to reward and punish human actions directly or instantly in this world, virtue would be reduced to just a conditioned response. Eliphaz argues that instant reciprocity would make the achievement of true virtue impossible.
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  As Eliphaz sees it, being given enough rope to hang oneself is the essence of free-will. Hence, in His Wisdom, God may sometimes choose to ignore even the most heinous of crimes and leave them unpunished for the time being. However, this should not be interpreted as indicating that He has delegated governance. Rather, it is simply that Providence is not mechanical.
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  Nevertheless, sometimes retribution is immediate —
  
  Verse 9
  
  — such as when God hears the cries of the widows or orphans that the wicked person has oppressed or abused.1<i class="footnote">'Do not ill-treat any widow or orphan. Should you oppress him, and should they cry out to me, I will most surely hearken to their cry. My anger will be roused ...' (Exodus 22:22)</i>
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  Before continuing, Eliphaz reviews the three arguments, as he sees them, put forward by those people who, like Job, deny Providence. The first, that God is so remote that He cannot see with what is going on down below nor is He concerned by it. 
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  Secondly, that in any case man is so insignificant that his acts cannot possibly affect Nature. On this view, the Flood that devastated Noah's generation was just a natural event: a consequence of blind Nature, unrelated to the wickedness of that generation. And thirdly, if Providence exists, how come it bestows such prosperity on sinners
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  Job may be impressed by these arguments but the truly righteous are not. They worship God for His own sake, and interpret any apparent deficiencies in this world as evidence of the existence of another perfect world: the Hereafter; the eternal world of the souls where all wrongs will be righted. So they rejoice in their worship, scornful of those who see no more to existence than just their immediate physical surroundings, which, like everything else in this world, will soon pass away
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  Eliphaz calls on Job to repent. Not to rely just on his own intellect but to accept God's instruction instead. Not to listen only to what his body tells him but to fill his mind with God's instruction instead. Elevating his spirit over his flesh, and not the other way round. Making his mind master over his body, instructing it to act in accordance with God's wishes.3<i class="footnote">Eliphaz's call to Job that he repent and return to God is one of the moments of greatest irony in the whole drama. For it presupposes that Job has sinned or was wicked but we the readers know that God had declared that 'there is no-one like him on earth; such a sincere and upright man; God-fearing, and one who shuns wrongdoing' (Ch. 1:8).Furthermore, if we turn to the end of the book (Ch. 42:7-8) we find that it is in fact Eliphaz and his two friends who had spoken ill of God: And it was after the Lord had finished speaking to Job that the Lord spoke to Eliphaz the Temanite: 'I am angry with you and your two friends, for you did not speak correctly of Me as did my servant Job. So now, take seven bulls and seven rams and go to my servant Job and render a burnt-offering for yourselves. And my servant Job will pray for you, for I will accede to him and not deal harshly with you for not speaking correctly of Me, as did my servant Job.'Eliphaz might have a good answer for the workings of Governance but it is not the answer to Job's plight. We the readers will still ask why God had to prove His assessment to be right? Was it not sufficient that He had declared that Job was 'a sincere and upright man ...'? Did He not know how he would react to pain? Why did He have to prove Himself? What right does Satan have to question God's evaluations?</i>
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  When a person's devotion to God is so great that his only wish is to cleave to Him, with no expectation of material or bodily benefit, the Divine Presence attends and hearkens to his prayers. 
  
  Verse 28
  
  Nature becomes subject to that person's will.4<i class="footnote">Malbim adds: Like Joshua at whose command the sun stood still and Elijah who decreed, 'As the Lord lives, the God of Israel before whom I stand, there shall be neither dew nor rain these coming years unless I give the word.' (1Kings 17:1).</i>
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  The Fifteenth Speech - Job’s Reply to Eliphaz’s Third Speech 
  Elphaz's new approach had offered separate solutions to each of the issues being discussed.
  1.	To the suffering of a righteous person. That he had not worshiped with sincerity, for the sake of God alone, but had had other considerations in mind, such as the hope of reward and fear of punishment. Therefore, <i>God refines him with suffering (Psalms 105:19),</i> <i>in order to humble him; to test him out;</i> <i>ultimately to benefit him</i> (Deuteronomy 8:16) in the world to come.
  2.	To the prosperity of the wicked. That it obtains so that human beings should have free-will, to do good or to refrain from so doing. For if punishment was immediate, people would be terrified of doing evil and so would have no choice. Moreover, worship would not then be for the sake of Heaven.
  Job now presents a vigorous rebuttal of these propositions, dealing with each separately....
  •  Regarding the first, Job asks how God could possibly have afflicted him with such terrible suffering because, when he prayed, the improper thought that he might thereby attain some advantage might have passed through his mind? However, he had at all times <i>kept the charge of His commandments and laws</i> (Deuteronomy 11:1) and nothing he had done was so wrong that it justified such a severe punishment (Ch.23:6-7). Moreover, if he could converse with God, who knows the truth, the fact that his worship had not been motivated by any extraneous considerations, but had been for the sake of God alone, would become clear. For though, during his devotions, the thought of how much he depended on God for the procurement of his needs and all his other concerns had sometimes entered his mind, momentarily, he would immediately take hold of himself and return to them, without expectation and just for His sake. And from this he proves that his righteousness had been apportioned and foreordained from the very first, by Paramount foreknowledge. And so he had received no reward for it, but had been left to the happenstance of the stars and to the suffering that the fortune of his nativity prescribed (Ch.23:10-17).
  •  As regards the second proposition, he dismisses Eliphaz's ideas about the prosperity of the wicked. He points to the existence of those evil-doers who destroy civilized society, disrupting the tranquillity of mankind, but whom God does not <i>have it in mind (Job 4:18)</i> to destroy in order to be rid of their evil, thus preventing them from devastating the world. For if there was Divine Governance, it would be proper for it to protect the general public from such scourges and destroyers of civilization. Furthermore, these wild-men live in remote deserts or on islands in the sea and it is from there they make sorties from time to time to plunder, to murder and to destroy many souls. And if God were to exterminate them in their hide-outs, no-one would know about it and so no damage would be done to the concept of worship or free-will. Therefore, <i>they should be wiped out from under God’s heaven (Lamentations 3:66)</i>, by reason of the Divine Governance of man.
  And so he returns to his original argument that God does not govern individuals and everything depends on the stars. <i>He cries out bitterly against this (Genesis 27:34):</i> <i>Why was he not cut off by darkness (Job 23:17),</i> his non-existence being preferable to his existence (Ch.26:16-17)?1<i class="footnote">Since he considers himself to be blameless, Job does not see why he has to repent as suggested by Eliphaz. He wishes to approach God as he is. Eliphaz is convinced that the answer to Job's affliction is to be found in an understanding of the workings of Governance. In his opinion, Job is not a special case but just another person who is not quite as righteous as his own estimate of himself. But Job insists that he is a special case. He really is righteous and wants God to explain why he has been picked out for such harsh and undeserved treatment. </i>
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  Job is convinced that if he could only contact God and communicate with Him, he would be exonerated. For he knows that God would be fair: He cannot be otherwise. And in all fairness, there is no way that Job deserves the suffering he is enduring
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  Job complains that God is avoiding him though he had faithfully kept His commandments.2<i class="footnote">The Hebrew text has קדם - forward and אחור - backwards, but like the medieval commentators Rashi and Ibn Ezra, Malbim understands them, respectively, as east and west. Malbim adds: <i>The ancients imagined that the Divine Presence was in the west and that the host of the heavens all journeyed from east to west, on their way to giving homage before His Throne of Glory, which is situated there.</i> </i>
  
  Verse 9
  
  When He made the north, He did not roof it over;3<i class="footnote">Malbim takes the word אחז as meaning to roof as it does in 1Kings 6:10.</i> but the south He covered, so I cannot see through it.4<i class="footnote">The Hebrew text has שמאול - left, and ימין - right. However, Malbim interprets them as referring, respectively, to north and south, thus completing the four points of the compass. Malbim adds that the ancients imagined the north as being open; that God had not completed Creation in this direction. This notion appears in Bamidbar Rabbah 2:19 and Pirkei de Rabbi Eliezer 3 where the reason He left the northern quarter unfinished was so that anyone who claims to be God could prove he was by completing it. Expanding on this theme, Malbim writes: <i>He had left this side [the north] uncovered, without ramparts and walls. Like someone who builds a house without cedar-beam supports and without enclosing it with wooden planks or walls. Taking up this metaphor, Job says that he cannot see God there even though that direction is wide open. However, though the north may have been left exposed, the southern side was enclosed. The upshot is that he cannot perceive God in any direction</i>.  Malbim continues: <i>Perception of God by reason of Himself is designated 'Frontal Perception.' No human being can perceive this or have any conception of it. Humans can only perceive Him from behind, namely, by virtue of the Creation that ensues from Him. That through His Creations we can appreciate the Creator; and through the effects, the Prime Cause. As is written: 'You will see My back, but My face shall not be seen.' (Exodus 33:23). Accordingly, Job states that looking east, i.e., looking for the truth of God's Self as He really is, He appears not to exist, for this view is hidden from human intelligence and so the Creator is never found there. He can only be detected from the reverse side, where His existence is manifest and can be perceived; yet He remains inscrutable, His ways being beyond human understanding. Now, in the Holy Texts [Scripture], governance of the world by Nature is designated 'Governance of the Left' and governance by means of wonders and miracles is designated 'Governance of the Right,' as is written everywhere. Accordingly, he [Job] states that if he investigates Nature's governance, he finds it to be an unroofed and unfinished structure, for there is no proper order to its governance, there being righteous persons who have a hard time of it and wicked ones who have it good. And if he looks right, i.e., towards His miraculous Governance, where governance is perfect, he sees nothing for all he is capable of perceiving is the natural governance ordained from the six days of Creation, that decreed by the stars - 'incoherent shadows of death</i>'. </i>
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  Job maintains that everything that has happened to him was preordained by reason of God’s foreknowledge. And since His Knowledge is immutable, whatever He foreknows must happen; there is no free-will. For the existence of free-will would require that God’s Knowledge change as man makes his choices or changes his mind. But that cannot be, for He is His Knowledge and He is beyond change.
  
  Verse 14
  
  As regards the integrity of his worship, Job protests that though the thought had sometimes entered his mind, momentarily, of just how much he depends on God for obtaining his needs, whenever this happened he would immediately take hold of himself and return to his prayers, minding them just for His sake and free of any special requests.
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  And if I have now failed the test; and if, as a result of the suffering, I have turned away from worshipping God and from the fear of Him; and if it now appears that my worship was motivated by expectation of benefit, know that this is only because God has broken me. He left me alive to suffer instead of mercifully putting an end to me.5<i class="footnote">To illustrate the idea that extreme suffering may be worse than death itself, Malbim quotes from TB Ketuboth 33b: <i>Whence do we know that the penalty of death is more severe? Perhaps punishment with lashes is more severe? As Rab said: If they had lashed Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah, they would have worshipped the golden image (Daniel 3)</i>.</i>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  Job ends his rebuttal of Eliphaz’s rationalization of his suffering by repeating his assertion that since God is above time, He does not rule over those voluntary acts that occur under time and which change with time, for His Knowledge cannot be subject to time. God has no sense of time as any student of divinity will tell you.6<i class="footnote">This verse (Ch. 24:1) seems to belong to the end of Chapter 23 rather than to the beginning of Chapter 24.</i>
  
  Verse 2
  
  Job now turns to the solution suggested by Eliphaz to the problem of the prosperity of the wicked, namely, that it is necessary for the existence of free-will. He starts his counter-argument by pointing to the existence of those evil-doers who pillage the weak and needy. If Providence really exists and if it really cares, why, he asks, does it not remove these scourges from the face of the earth.
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  But nothing happens to these evil-doers. It is their victims and not they who suffer. Deprived of their land and livestock, and hence of their independence, those they have impoverished now work for them under conditions of total misery and exploitation.
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  Eliphaz’s solution to God’s apparent indifference and inaction was that it if He were seen to react it would preclude the existence of free-will. Job now counters that since these raiders and bandits live in hide-outs, in the wild and hidden from sight, they could be dealt with there by Providence, if it really exists, without anyone knowing about it and without it having any effect on free-will. Similarly, evil-doers fear the light of day, for it reveals their evil. They operate in the dark and at night so as to escape detection. Their demise under similar circumstance would also go undetected. Yet God still does not react.
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  Pirates, who spend their summers at sea pillaging and plundering and their winters in their hideaways debauching and philandering, could also be dealt with by Providence, away from any seeing eye.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  The Sixteenth Oration - Bildad’s Speech in the Third Round
  Bildad too makes one final effort <i>to find a remedy (Jeremiah 51:8)</i> for the theories he had put forward: his hypothesis that reparation is ultimately made for the suffering of the righteous, and his assertion with regard to the prosperity of the wicked, that the greater part of their punishment—the perdition of their souls and that of their offspring—is reserved for the world to come. Though Job had rebuffed all of this, Bildad now <i>gathers his strength (Isaiah 27:5)</i> <i>to re-engage battle at the gate (Isaiah 28:6)</i> in the following way:
  Whilst continuing to maintain that everything is subject to Individual Providence and that God, <i>who surely pays deserts (Isaiah 59:18 et alia)</i>,  will reward the righteous according to his righteousness and the wicked according to his wickedness, Bildad now adds the rider that He is sometimes prevented, by the nature of Universal Governance, from making immediate and individual recompense or retribution, because Universal Governance precludes it. For example:
  •  Though rainfall is Providential and comes at God's command, <i>for good and for loving-kindness (Psalms 23:6)</i>,  to make meadows green and fields flourish, it is quite possible that a righteous person out walking at the same time is discomfited by the rain. Would we then say that God should stop the rain because of him? 
  •  Similarly, light is meant for the good of all and yet an evil-doer also makes use of it: to light the way to his destination, there to murder and rob. 
  •  Darkness is intended to give rest to the weary but a thief uses it to steal into homes unseen. 
  Nevertheless, there is no question of God altering Universal Nature, which is meant for the benefit of the whole, for the sake of a particular individual. For Universal Nature encompasses everything and is sustained in wisdom, ability and loving-kindness as is required for the general good. God will not modify Universal Governance for the sake of an individual person, notwithstanding that, as a result, bad may sometimes befall a righteous person or good may chance upon a wicked person.
  Nevertheless, God neither short-changes the righteous nor does He let the wicked go scot-free, but rewards and punishes them in singular ways that require no change in Nature, either in this world or in the world to come. 
  And so, it is quite possible that a righteous person may suffer if he is born with a bad horoscope and his destiny ordains adversities and troubles, for God will not change Universal Nature for his sake. As was said with regard to Rav Hanina ben Dosa: 'Would you be contented were I to destroy the world because of you?'1<i class="footnote">No Talmudic source has been found for this statement. The closest match that refers to Hanina ben Dosa is: 'Every day a Divine Voice proclaims from Mt. Horeb: The whole world is sustained by the merit of my son Hanina.' (TB Berachot 17b)Intriguingly, on a page of the Talmud (TB Taanit 25a) devoted mainly to tales of the miracles attributed to Hanina ben Dosa, a statement similar to that brought by Malbim does appear: 'Would you be pleased were I to turn the world back to its beginning?' However, the statement is made not with reference to Hanina but to another Talmudic sage, Eleazar ben Pedath. Was Malbim working from memory and did he make a mistake about the person but not the page?</i> Still the righteous person will yet be rewarded, whether for his righteousness or for the suffering he has endured without cause. For there is another world, a spiritual one, that is not subject to the cosmic forces of this world or to its fortunes, <i>where he will glow in the light of life (Job 33:30)</i>. This is consistent with the opinion he expounded in his first speech, namely, that the sufferings of the righteous are by way of a <i>quid pro quo</i> and he will be rewarded for his suffering in the future. Except that there he had not explained his opinion well and so Job had dismissed it off hand. He now explains that this <i>quid pro quo</i> is not because God wants to afflict him now so as to be good to him later, for this would prompt the reply <i>neither your sting nor your honey! (Numbers Rabbah 20)</i> Rather, that if the righteous person's luck and the nature of his location, his horoscope, his birth and situation ordain that evil befall him—that he be poor, sick and starving—God will not change Universal Nature for his sake but will instead compensate him, in the future, for the evil he endured because of his bad luck and bad horoscope. 
  This also bears out the metaphor of a plant that he had previously used in this matter, one that a gardener uproots and replants elsewhere, in another spot, where it will grow and flourish (Job 8:11-19). And so, in a similar way, God uproots the righteous person from <i>the land of scorching heat (Hosea 13:5)</i>, where he is destined to misery and scarcity and replants him <i>in the land of the living (Job 28:13)</i>.  In the world of the spirit where<i> He will satisfy his soul in the shimmering light and he will be like a watered garden (Isaiah 58:11) </i>producing fruit and produce.
  Likewise, God will not alter Universal Governance in order to punish a wicked person whose destiny ordains that he be rich and successful, <i>and sound in limb (Psalms 73:4)</i>. Rather, He will leave the world to its Nature, as it was said: <i>The world goes on in its own way but the fools who sin will be brought to justice (Avodah Zarah 54b).</i> The wicked person will be punished in the future, in the eternal world, as he explained in his second speech. And so there is no problem as to why he prospers in this world: his stars are the reason. And yet, <i>he will wither quicker than any other plant (Job 8:12)</i> as in the analogy with the rushes and reed-grass. And God will then compound his punishment in proportion to the measure of the good he had enjoyed and according to his wickedness.
  
  Verse 2
  
  Although God has delegated certain powers to the innumerable forces of Nature, they remain subject to His overall charge and control, thus ensuring that they operate in harmony.
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  An individual human being, whose mortal life on earth lasts no more than a second on the cosmic time-scale, cannot expect God to alter the structure of the Universe just for him. The essence of man is his spiritual soul and it is with this that the ultimate reckoning will be done, after its release from its earthly raiment.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  The Seventeenth Oration - Job’s Reply to Bildad’s Third Speech
  This oration, Job's final address, comprises three separate discourses.
  In the First Discourse (Chapter 26), Job opens with a rebuff of the philosophical thesis put forward by Bildad in his last speech. 
  He points out that by taking this approach, he [Bildad] is actually reinforcing Job’s own thesis and opinion that it is the Cosmos that rules the world and that it is by its decree that each person's fortune is determined, whether for favor or reproach. for prosperity and joy, or poverty and plague. For though by his insistence that individuals are subject to God’s Governance and that the stars do not predestine an individual’s acts of volition, so there is reward for the good and punishment the wicked, Bildad had differed from Job’s position, he nevertheless recognized that the administration of this Governance does not override the Governance of the Cosmos, and so it is conceivable that what befits a wicked person befalls a righteous one, or vice versa, for God will not alter the Cosmos because of the deeds of the righteous person.1<i class="footnote">On this view, prayer has no instrumental purpose, for Nature will always decide.</i> Thus, the question of the suffering of the righteous and of the prosperity of the wicked remains in all its force. For Bildad’s assurance that they will be rewarded or punished after death is totally rejected by Job, seeing, as he has already stated, over and over again, that he has no proof of a life after death; <i>something which is hidden from the sight of all flesh (Job 28:21)</i>. 
  As regards Bildad's main thesis, namely, that God cannot punish the wicked in this world in violation of its natural order or that of the Cosmos, Job points out that according to Bildad’s own school of thought,2<i class="footnote">The Peripatetic (Aristotelian) school with whom Malbim identifies Bildad.</i> the stars do not rule everything in the world, but only those things that are influenced by the stellar motions by virtue of having elemental qualities in common with them, as is the opinion of the Philosopher expressed in the passage from <i>Sefer Ha-Ikarim </i>quoted in <i>The Introduction to Job’s First Speech</i>.3<i class="footnote">The relevant part of the quotation is:As for any other signification the stars may have in relation to other things which have no connection with their elemental qualities, as for example in the determination of poverty or wealth, or whether a given person will marry one wife or more than one, or whether he will be virtuous or vicious - this school denies any such power. It is false, they say, and extremely unlikely that the stars should give indications of things which have nothing to do with them, like poverty, wealth love, hate, etc.</i> This being so, God could punish the wicked through those things that do not depend on the motions of the stars. 
  He illustrates this with a metaphor from the nature of air and water. The laws according to which the waters were first gathered together from over the dry land were invoked by God’s will. They were not implicit in the original nature of the waters themselves.4<i class="footnote">'According to the nature of the elements the earth should be covered with the element water...' (Sefer Ha-Ikarrim, Book 4. Chapter 8). Albo is referring to the Aristotelian idea that earth has its natural place at the center of the universe and water, being the next heaviest element, has its natural place immediately above (I. Husik, 1930).</i> For initially, it had been their nature to blanket the entire earth as they did at the beginning of Creation.5<i class="footnote">In his commentary on Genesis 1 Malbim adopts the view of Nahmanides that creation (ex nihilo) took place only at the first moment: 'In the beginning, God created Heaven and Earth.' Malbim identifies this 'first creation' with the act of creation described by the Kabbalists as involving the 'contraction' (צמצום) of the Divinity.According to Malbim, the Heaven (שמים) of this 'first creation' is the Cosmos to whose governance Job attributes his misfortunes. No further changes were to be made to this Cosmos by God after its creation; God granted it an autonomy and its governance is therefore independent of Him. During the next six days, only the primeval Earth was affected by God's fiats. Everything it was to comprise had been created at that seminal moment, whether actually or potentially, but was not positioned or expressed until the six days of the creation of the sublunar world. This process required that God make changes in the Earth of the 'first creation'; the Earth was not given autonomy but was subject to God's will, and still is.For example, Malbim explains the firmament (רקיע) that separates between the waters on the earth and those in the atmosphere, as being associated with the new property of evaporation - the law of the force of expansion - with which, on the second day, God endowed the primeval waters that had enveloped the earth after 'first creation'. Similarly, waters were used by God to punish Noah's wicked contemporaries, proving that God can, when He wants, use the earthly elements to exercise His Governance.We might add that though this might have been the case before the Flood, afterwards God promised: 'While the earth lasts, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall never cease (Genesis 8:22).' This covenant restricts the agencies available for His Governance of the sublunar world. No mention of this is made in Job. But as we have noted elsewhere Job stands alone amongst the books of the Tnach, as though its protagonists and narrator had no knowledge of the other books or of their contents.</i> Thus, their confluence into seas is contrary to their nature and does not ensue from the Cosmos or from the nature of the world. Hence, God could scatter the wicked by means of water, as happened at the time of the Flood. Let Him now, likewise, punish them by means of the nether elements,6<i class="footnote">Elements such as Flood and Tempest, that are subject to special natural laws and not to the rule of the Cosmos.</i> through forces that, in the opinion of the Philosopher, are untouched by the Cosmos. [But since this does not happen] it is clear, as is his [Job’s] opinion, that the Cosmos also rules over those things whose elemental qualities have nothing in common with it, including the actions of human beings and their choices, as is the opinion of the astrologers and as is Job’s opinion and philosophical method.7<i class="footnote">In his commentary to Psalms 36, Malbim explains God's Governance as being exercised under two headings. The first is the Natural Governance ordered by the fixed unchanging laws of Nature, such as the cycles of day and night, summer and winter etc.; this Governance, which is designated 'faithfulness' - אמונה in Scripture, is set in Heaven - בשמים - and operates according to fixed laws laid down from its inception. The second is a non-uniform miraculous Governance by which God overrides Nature when required, such as at the crossing of the Red Sea; this Governance is designated 'mercy' - חסד, and is set in the Vault of Heaven - בשחקים.This gives rise to the mistaken view that man's actions, good or evil, do not directly affect the physical world. That only God Himself can affect the workings of Nature; that only through His intervention is mankind rewarded or punished in this world, Nature itself being indifferent to a person's observance of God's ordinances. On this view, reward and punishment are miracles and when God chooses not to intervene, the wicked may prosper and the good suffer, whichever way Nature prescribes at the time.However, continues Malbim, the Torah teaches otherwise. There is a resonance between the deeds of man and Nature; good deeds bring good things and evil deeds bring bad ones: 'If you follow My statutes...I will give you rain at the right time...' (Leviticus 26:2ff). The Creator, in his infinite wisdom, linked the microcosm of man with the macrocosm of Nature, such that the laws of the latter follow on from the volitional acts of the former; Nature's strings resonating to the music made by man. [Malbim acknowledges taking this imagery from Akedat Yitzchak by Isaac Arama].But there is a difference between the two types of requital. Conspicuous miracles, such as the splitting of the Red Sea, are brought about by God's direct intervention: this is designated 'charity' - צדקה. However, the hidden miracles such as rainfall at the right time occur through Nature, as an inherent reaction to man's conduct: this is designated 'law' - משפט. Individual Providence is hidden because were we to receive immediate tangible returns for our deeds we would be no more than trained animals responding to the whip or to lumps of sugar; free-will would be meaningless; man would be just another animal.That the exercise of our intellect can make us act against the dictates of our natural animal instincts demonstrates how man's deeds can affect the physical world. For all the natural laws scattered throughout Creation are contained in man's body; he has within him the entire macrocosm of Nature. Thus, when his human thinking soul determines the laws of the microcosm and places it under its rule, it also subdues the macrocosm, for the two are but a single concern.</i> 
  In the Second Discourse (Chapters 27 and 28), seeing that his companions have given up arguing, they having found no solution, Job returns to justifying the position he had previously taken in disagreeing with their theses and in refusing to accept propositions with which his mind cannot agree. To do otherwise would be hypocritical, and hypocrisy is hateful in the eyes of God. Better that he voice what he really thinks is the truth, even though it involves heretical and contrary notions, than he should flatter, spouting the opposite of what he really thinks, even though it might repair the remnants of faith <i>and restore its desolation (Isaiah 61:4)</i>. (Ch.27:2-11)
  Accordingly, he berates his companions for making statements that they knew in their hearts to be the opposite of the truth. To suggest that a wicked person’s punishment is that his children will perish and his possessions waste away after his death is nonsense. For what does a person like that care about what happens to his home afterwards, just so long as he spends <i>his days well and his years pleasantly (Job 36:11)? </i> The calamities should befall him, the person himself (Ch.27:12-23).
  And so he goes on to bewail why God has concealed wisdom from the eyes of all the sighted, as a result of which people do not detect <i>Divine Wisdom</i>8<i><i class="footnote">1 Kings 3:28. This is the term used to describe Solomon's wisdom.</i> </i>and Governance in His world, wherewith to understand its mystery and enigmas. To such a degree, that these otherwise percipient beings are forced to assert that the Wisdom of Governance, its order and regulation, becomes apparent only after death, when the soul disengages from matter, which is a circumstance shrouded from those clothed in mortal bodies. Instead of opening their eyes and showing them His ways and the morality of His Wisdom and Governance, as would be the proper thing to do, He has hidden and secluded <i>the root of the matter (Job 19:28)</i>; telling them to be comforted <i>with fear of God and faithfulness of the heart (2 Chronicles 19:10)</i> and to desist from inquiring about God’s deeds; presenting them with foolishness as wisdom and ignorance as understanding (Ch.28).
  In the final part of the speech, <i>he continues his discourse (Job 27:1, 29:1)</i> with three formal declarations, <i>bursting forth flames of fire (Psalms 29:7)</i>. 
  In the first of these, he details the success, honor and esteem that had been his in days gone by (Chapter 29). 
  In the second, he sets his present degradation and poverty against this; his humiliation, disgrace and suffering, comparing the one with the other (Chapter 30). 
  In the third, <i>he passes all his deeds under the rod of scrutiny (Leviticus 27:32)</i> and brings evidence to prove <i>that no iniquity shall be found in him; no sin (Hosea 12:9)</i>, in any of his deeds or acts. For he was <i>blameless in all his ways (Ezekiel 28:15)</i> <i>and righteous in all his deeds (Psalms 145:17),</i>  and he is now <i>stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted (Isaiah 53:4),</i> <i>though he is totally innocent (Job 16:17)</i> and has said nothing wrong.
  And with this, the utterances of Job and of his companions come to an end and their debate is over.
  
  Verse 2
  
  Bildad had argued that though God rules both man and the world, He is prevented from punishing the wicked by the requirement that the constancy of universal Nature be maintained. Job retorts that this argument in fact reinforces his own thesis, namely, that in practice Nature and destiny determine everything
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  After the initial act of Creation, God instituted new and special laws of Nature in order to change the properties of the primeval Earth. Job argues that this shows that God, when He so wishes, can exercise His rule over the Earth. And so, if He wished, He could now call upon the nether elements - ‘shades’ - such as Sheol and Abadon, which are in no way linked to the motions of the Cosmos, in order to punish the wicked, as had happened at the time of the Flood; but He chooses not to. Job maintains that the fact that He does not exercise this power shows that government of the Earth has been ceded to the Governance of the Cosmos.9<i class="footnote">Malbim makes repeated reference in all his commentaries to what he calls the 'law of expansion - חוק ההתפשטות', by whose invocation the original nature of the element water to blanket the element earth was altered. As he writes: At the beginning of Creation, planet Earth was completely covered by water, for it is the nature of the element water to envelope the element earth just as the element air envelopes the element water. And God altered this nature and decreed that the water should be gathered to one place. The universal law that God ordained to change the nature of the water is the force of expansion that He established in the air. For initially, the element air was mixed with the element water and it was by virtue of the law of the force of expansion in the air that vapors were separated from the water by the light created on the first day. They rose upwards forming the firmament: the atmosphere, the mists and the clouds...And this law has no link with the Cosmos, for it was invoked after the first Creation.</i> Malbim also offers an alternative interpretation of these two verses, according to which the 'shades' are not instruments of divine punishment through which the Cosmos could be side-stepped, but are the dead and buried.. This interpretation gives the translation: Can the buried dead be resurrected from beneath the waters and their abodes? For Sheol is naked before Him and Abadon has no clothing.Spirits cannot be recast in bodies and so they cannot be brought back to receive reward or punishment; in 'shades', and refers to the Titans of Greek mythology hurled down into the abyss Tartarus by their father Uranus and subsequently released from there by their mother Gaea and brother Chronos. Malbim does not suggest that giants had not lived in ancient times, there are numerous references to them in the Tnach, but that the myth of their resurrection is just that - a myth.
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  The far north11<i class="footnote">Malbim asserts that the ancients considered the far north to be uninhabited i. e., that 'the lower part of the sphere which is covered by the waters of the Ocean they called 'north', and there the earth remained in chaos (תהו) and covered by water as it was at the beginning of creation.'</i> stretches out across primeval chaos; the earth is suspended above upon restraint.12<i class="footnote">Malbim regards the word 'בלימה' as being derived from the root בלם - to restrain. He explains that the statute referred to in verse 10 is the natural law by whose injunction God restrained the primeval waters on the second and third days of Creation producing the blue sky and clouds, and making possible the appearance of dry-land, rivers and seas.</i>
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  The statute that the Almighty imposed upon the waters in order to restrict their expansion over the earth is outside the control of the stars or of destiny. This shows that if He so wishes, God can overrule all the laws of Nature
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  Though it is now his turn to make his final address, Zophar does not appear and so Job continues. Once again he protests his moral integrity, rejecting the suspicions his companions had raised in this matter
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  Job refutes the interpretation his companions had put on God’s ways, regarding it as no more than cheap flattery. They had refused to face the truth about Him
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  Job now turns on his companions accusing them of hypocrisy. Their contention that the wicked who prosper in this world receive their true deserts after their death is humbug and in their heart of hearts they know this. He dies happy, surrounded by his wealth. Whatever happens later is of little or no concern to him; he does not experience any of it.
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  The dead are dead: beyond feeling, reward or punishment. The wicked should be blighted during their lives.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  Job now summarizes his complaint. Taking the mining and extraction of metals and precious stones as his metaphor,15<i class="footnote">Malbim lists five different ways of prospecting for precious metals and gems: (i) by means of a magic stone which 'according to the Ancients attracts metals towards it as a magnet attracts iron;' (ii) by searching in dried-up stream and river courses; (iii) in the outcrops of volcanic eruptions; (iv) by probing in the clefts and passages left by subterranean water flows and (v) in river banks and canyon walls. In an endnote to his commentary, Malbim explains how subterranean water can move mountains in terms of Pascal's Law of fluid pressures.</i> he argues that God has designed Nature such that man can discover everything there is to know except for the wisdom needed to comprehend individual fate and fortune. Where this is concerned, he is required to believe blindly that God does govern justly. In order to rationalize this belief and compensate for his ignorance, he has been forced to dream up notions of recompense and retribution after death.
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  An end is made to darkness and every limit is explored by the diviner’s black stone.16<i class="footnote">A stone which detects the presence of metals. Malbim adds:It is a stone of which the ancients said that whoever possesses it can divine where various metals can be found in the bowels of the earth. It is a stone which attracts metals just as magnetic stone [lodestone] attracts iron.</i>
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  "In our ears we have heard report of it."17<i class="footnote">A reference to the companions' assertion that moral errors and omissions in this world are adjusted for after death.</i>
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  As when He gave weight to the wind.18<i class="footnote">Elsewhere (glosses on Genesis 1:6), Malbim writes: The ancients did not know that air has weight and used to laugh at statements like 'He gave weight to the wind' until the scientist Galileo came and found a device for measuring air and showed that it has weight.</i>
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  The cycle of debate is over and Job now reviews his life. In the next three chapters he gives us first a retrospect of his happy and honorable past (Chapter 29), then an account of his present misery (Chapter 30) and finally a solemn affirmation of his innocence (Chapter 31).
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  In contrast, Job’s present misery and humiliation. Even the outcasts and lowest dregs of society now look down on him.
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  Turning to his comforters, Job once again accuses them of faithlessness and a lack of sympathy for his great suffering.
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  Job begs the release of death.
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  Job had shown compassion for others, so did he not now deserve some kindness now?20<i class="footnote">This is the first of a series of rhetorical questions that Job asks in this and the next chapter. They all relate to his virtues and in the Hebrew text they all open with the word אם. They can also be viewed as oaths or affirmations in which Job asserts his virtue, e.g. 'I swear that I wept for those in distress'.</i>
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  Job’s final solemn and awesome declaration of his innocence. He once again denies that he has sinned; on the contrary, he has led a virtuous and upright life. And so he repeats his demand that God answer his call for He surely knows the truth of this.
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  At times, men may have to avert their eyes to preserve themselves from sin. But that cannot be true of God: He surely sees everything? He must therefore have seen how righteous Job really was. Why then did He make him suffer so dreadfully? And why is He still avoiding him?
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  Job avows that he has never committed adultery.
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  Job was a considerate master who recognized the rights of his slaves; that they too are human beings. Had he not done so, how could he have faced God were He to reply to his suit?
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  The meaning of this verse - כי מנעורי גדלני כאב ומבטן אמי אנחנה - presents many problems. Noting that biblical commentators have difficulties with this verse, Malbim posits that Job was a fatherless orphan who was cared for and brought up by God and that he in turn had cared for his widowed mother from childhood. The suggestion that Job was orphaned at an early age is totally original.Intriguingly, the interpretation Malbim gives to the verse is reminiscent of his own personal experiences. An only son, his father died when he was just six years old. His mother subsequently married the local Rabbi, who was probably also his teacher. His devotion to both of them is recorded in the Preface to his first book - ארצות החיים - The Lands of the Living, (Breslau, 1836).
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  Job had been a merciful judge.
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  Job had kept faith with God.
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  Job’s conduct towards his fellows had also been blameless. He never sought the downfall of anyone, not even of his enemies.
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  Job’s home was open to all.
  
  Verse 33
  
  Job had not sinned in secret and hidden this fact.
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  Pointing to the sores on his body, Job demands to know if they are really God’s handiwork.
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  Job’s lands, that once supported all his wealth and possessions, are now empty. The sheep, the camels, the oxen and the asses, together with their handlers and Job’s own children, are all gone. In his final desperate cry, Job calls on the land, his last refuge, to become barren too.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  The Eighteenth Oration - Elihu’s Speech
  Overwhelmed by the power of his arguments, Job’s three companions were left wordless at the end of his oration.1<i class="footnote">It had not occurred to any of them that Job was undergoing a trial. Each had tried to justify God at the expense of Job's innocence or integrity. Eliphaz had accused him of sinning openly; Zophar, of having sinned secretly; Bildad, of not being all he seemed. But Job had remained steadfast under all their attacks. They had now exhausted all their arguments.</i> However, <i>at this point a brave warrior (1Samuel 16:18)</i> <i>joins the campaign (1Samuel 17:20)</i>; <i>who speaks with understanding...God being with him</i>. Addressing the debaters present, Elihu <i>turns back the tide of war (Isaiah 28:6)</i>, <i>and displaying his strength (1Samuel 14:48)</i> he reveals the truth concerning these questions. <i>He formulates and scrutinizes them (Job 28:27),</i> <i>with the spirit of God that is upon him (Judges 3:10 et alia);</i> <i>and with the secret of the holy ones (Psalms 89:8)</i> <i>and of the perfect Forms (Job 37:16)</i> <i>in his mind.</i> Until at the conclusion of his speech he discloses <i>God’s secret (Jeremiah 23:18)</i>; what had happened <i>when the Sons of God assembled before the Lord and Satan too had joined them (Job 1:6)</i>, as was related at the beginning of the book. Thus, the conclusion of the debate is to be found in the book’s Prologue. And all of this was known to Elihu <i>from the secret God reveals to those that fear Him</i>.2<i class="footnote">Psalms 25:14. Malbim offers no explanation why, if he was present throughout the debate, Elihu is mentioned neither in the Prologue nor in the Epilogue. This is one of the reasons that modern exegetes have regarded Elihu's speech as a later interpolation and not part of the original text of the Book.</i>
  The book’s author starts by informing us that Elihu had been angered by both sides during the debate:
  •  He had been infuriated by Job for <i>justifying himself rather than God (Job 32:2)</i>. Notwithstanding his conviction that he was a righteous person and that he could find no reason for his suffering, he should not have appraised the truth or otherwise of that which challenges the truth of the entity in question. For the notion that no lack of wisdom, ability or will can be attributed to God, Blessed be He, is of itself a truth, just as it is a truth that God exists. This follows from the philosophical proofs that teach us of the existence of a single impalpable entity who, by its infinite wisdom, ability and will, brought all that exists into being. These proofs also teach that this entity is absolutely perfect, that no shortcoming can be attributed to it and that it governs and exercises its authority with sublime wisdom, will and ability.3<i class="footnote">In Elihu's opinion, as Malbim sees it, Job should never have started the debate. Despite his suffering and his conviction that it was unwarranted, he should not have put the perfection of God or Providence into doubt. A unique God must be perfect. And so, the perfection or otherwise of a unique God is not a subject for debate, despite the apparent contradictions. All the proofs in the world, however convincing they might be, cannot deny His perfection. For He is by definition perfect, and so is His Governance.</i> Despite the fact that experiment and experience (such as Job’s own unwarranted suffering) may prove the opposite, namely, that there is indifference or injustice in His Governance, philosophical proofs transcend the evidence of sense-perception and conjecture.4<i class="footnote">Echoes of the dictum of the Pythagorean philosopher Parmenides 'that the evidence of our senses is less reliable than the evidence of logical reasoning.' Or perhaps Malbim was aware of the new philosophy of positivism and was voicing his reservations concerning it.</i> For judgments based on sense-perception can sometimes miss the mark, as was shown by the geometer astronomer who demonstrated, by scholarly proofs, that the sun is 170 times larger than the Earth.5<i class="footnote">Basing himself on Ptolmey's estimate of the diameter of the sun, viz. five and a half times that of the earth's, Pappus of Alexandria calculated that 'the solid magnitude of the sun is very nearly 170 times greater than that of the earth' (Heath p.414). In Maimonides Introduction to the Mishna, the more accurate figure of 1663/8 (51/2 cubed) is given.</i> Just as he refuted the sense evidence that perceives the sun as a single small disc and attempted to explain that sense-perception can err and the reason for its error, so Job should have rejected the apparent truth derived from of his own experience in favor of the universal truth verified by general philosophy.6<i class="footnote">Once again the influence of Kant on Malbim is apparent. Hume had postulated that all knowledge derives from experience and that this restricted our knowledge of causes: we can only assert that event A habitually precedes event B but not that it causes event B. Kant attempted to rescue science from Hume's critique by arguing that there are universally valid features of knowledge that are not derived from experience. Forms such as space and time through which we our sensory perceptions must be filtered and which are responsible for the deep structure of our knowledge. Thus we possess no truths about the world but only about how we interact with it. (Layzer p.10)</i>
  •  Elihu was also angered by the three companions to the debate. For even though sophistry can prove the opposite, a philosopher should not dismiss the evidence of the senses off-hand. He should seek a middle path by which reasoning can be reconciled with the senses, and by which the truth latent in the nature of intellect corresponds with the truth revealed to the eyes. And, furthermore, they should not have condemned Job who was <i>righteous in all his ways (Psalms 145:17)</i> <i>there being no fault in him. (Psalms 92:16)</i>. 
  Elihu’s speech comprises four separate responses.
  In the first response, Elihu explains his previous silence. He had thought that the foundations of knowledge were sense-perception and experience and so <i>he had hidden amongst the baggage (1Samuel 10:22)</i>, away from the elderly debaters. They had been studying the subject for years, <i>becoming familiar with wisdom and knowledge (Ecclesiastes 1:16)</i> with the passage of time.7<i class="footnote">If the source of true knowledge is sense-perception and experience, then its acquisition is just a matter of making sufficient observations over a long enough period of time. Accordingly, the older you are the more true knowledge you should have acquired.</i>
  By virtue of the truths inscribed by God onto his mind, truths that are unattainable by empirical investigation or great age, being <i>an inherent faculty of man (Job 32:8)</i>, Elihu considers himself to be God’s attorney;10<i class="footnote">The literal translation of the Hebrew name Elihu - אליהוא - is 'he is my God'. The name occurs elsewhere referring to other persons: 1Samuel 1:1; 1Chron.12:7.</i> for his wisdom is a subset of God’s wisdom and his soul <i>is a part of the Supreme Being on high (Job 31:2)</i>. And so he informs Job that he will stand in for God and debate on His behalf and that since the divineness in his soul is <i>clothed in flesh (Job 7:5)</i>, just as he [Job] is, its awe and dread should not frighten him and he [Elihu] will be able to present all his arguments without instilling fear or apprehension.
  Elihu asserts that God does not make great demands of man. For example, He does not require that man’s worship of God be commensurate with the magnitude of the One being worshipped, for that would be beyond man’s strength. On the contrary, God makes Himself appear the coequal of man, as though He was no larger or greater than him. For by sharing some of His wisdom and His true knowledge with man, He has raised him up towards God’s own level, so that faith should be certain in his soul like one of the Sons of God. And, similarly, by not wanting to be worshipped or heeded beyond the limits of man’s temporal strength, He has stooped from His Godliness towards man, asking no more than this from him. Furthermore and contrary to Job’s opinion, He does not <i>look for opportunities to catch him out</i>, (Job 33:10) making accusations and punishing him for things that are beyond man’s control or choice. 
  He also shows how unwarranted was his [Job's] complaint that God hides things from mankind, not informing them of their sins; <i>where they had gone astray (Jeremiah 3:21)</i> <i>and for which He punishes their disobedience with a rod (Psalms 89:33)</i>. For He had revealed heavenly information to him previously in dreams and visions. For it is by means of true dreams that <i>He opens men’s ear (Job 33:16)</i>  informing them of their iniquity and what the future holds for them. He also makes this known to them through sickness and affliction, for these are all messages that God sends to man in order <i>to return him from his wicked path, that he might live (Jeremiah 26:3 et alia)</i>. 
  None of the debaters had realized the truth about Job’s suffering, namely, that it was a trial. Accordingly, the only way they could account for his suffering was by attributing some sin or shortcoming to Job himself. But their arguments had not convinced Job, for he was sure that he was without fault and had not sinned, either in public or in private. His three companions had failed to dislodge him from this conviction.14<i class="footnote">Malbim adds: 'And, as the Philosopher [Aristotle] indicated, it is impossible to debate with a person who denies the premises upon which it is based.'</i>
  In the second response, Elihu raises two issues with Job:
   The first, that <i>he laid the corner-stone (Job 38:6)</i> to prove from the suffering of the righteous that personal jurisdiction is not administered by <i>the righteous Lord (Exodus 9:27)</i>, for He has handed Governance over to the Cosmos. He had based this conviction on the following argument: , Since no injustice or deficiency can be attributed to God, and the undeserved suffering of a righteous person is either unjust or improper, it cannot originate from God but from the ruler He has appointed to govern the world: to rule by the laws of Nature which do not distinguish between righteous and wicked persons. And this does not constitute an injustice, since as a consequence of the natural governance of the becoming and demising world, individuals must perish. Even were the Earth to be wiped out, this would not be an evil on the scale of the existence of the Universe, relative to which the Earth is like a grain of sand, as we explained at length in the introduction to the Fifth Oration.
  In refuting this argument, Elihu makes the following analogy. That this is like trying to exonerate a minister of state who has treated a nobleman, <i>one of his people’s princes (Psalms 113:8)</i>, unfairly, by saying that he did not do it in order to harm this particular nobleman but that this is the way he behaves towards everyone, wronging them all indiscriminately. For they are all <i>like grasshoppers in his eyes (Numbers 12:33)</i>; or like his slaves and possessions, to do with as he sees fit. Is God excused for the injustice done to an individual, to a particular person (to Job himself), by saying that such injustice is ubiquitous; that it is common to all of mankind and all creation, everywhere and at all times? <i>For He made them all like the fish of the sea, <i>like creepy-crawlies that have no ruler (Habbakuk 1:14);</i> handing all of creation into the hands of a cruel angel; a blind ruler <i>with clouded eyes (Numbers 24:3)</i>, <i>who loathes justice (Job 34:17)</i>. Is He excused by asserting that He allowed evil to multiply? For the question still remains: why did He transfer governance to this cruel ruler and why does He not govern Himself, rendering to each according to his deeds? Could it be because He is incapable of doing so, or out of jealousy, greed or evil-heartedness?</i>
  The second issue he deals with is Job’s complaint and suit against God, viz. why does He not punish the wicked immediately and in public. 
  With regard to this, he declares that God <i>has prepared judgments for the arrogant (Proverbs 19:29)</i> and that He knows their deeds; there is no darkness in which they can hide from His retribution. But it is not for man to inquire why they are punished secretly and not by a revealed miracle, nor to teach God how and in what manner to punish them. For in His wisdom, He wants to punish them in secret in order that there be some doubt as to whether the punishment comes from Him, thus leaving room for choice. Furthermore, at times they [the wicked] are themselves the agents of His Providence, <i>the rod of His anger</i>, (Isaiah 10:5) afflicting mankind for its evil deeds. Hence, not only does He not wipe them out, He even endows them with the strength and authority to destroy and exterminate multitudes, until they have carried out His work: <i>to afflict peoples</i> (Psalms 94:10) and prove nations. Then will He smash the rod and the staff of evil will be cut down. And it should suffice us to know that the Holy One Blessed be He <i>is slow to anger, but eventually He collects what is His.</i> <i>And whoever says that the Holy One Blessed be He is one who waives the rules...11<i class="footnote">Bereshit Rabbah 67.4. The sentence concludes: 'let him waive a bout of diarrhea!'</i></i>
  In the third response Elihu discusses the great question Job had asked (in chapter 24), namely, that there are evil-doers who cause havoc to the world—murderers, pirates and bandits—and why does God not <i>annihilate them from under His heaven (Lamentations 3:66)</i>, thus removing their evil and saving the human race from their ravages? Moreover, since they live <i>like beasts of the forest (Psalms 50:10)</i> away from civilized people, God could wipe them out in the darkness of their dwelling-places without prejudicing free-will. He goes on to consider the general question Job had raised concerning reward and punishment, on the basis of which he had concluded that everything is determined by the Cosmos, even the volitional acts of human beings; and that man’s deeds are predestined. And so, just as mill-stones, rotated by the rush of water, are neither paid wages for grinding the flour nor punished if they crush the skull of someone who gets too close to them, humans too deserve neither reward nor punishment.
  Replying to this, Elihu asserts that Job and his companions had made the mistake of regarding reward or punishment as something distinct from the deed, implying that God behaves like a king who enacts laws for his servants, and instructs man and admonishes him concerning certain acts for His own benefit. For as regards a king’s servants, any work done by them is of benefit to him and any who disobey him cause him harm, and the manner in which he rewards or punishes them has no intrinsic connection to the actual deed.12<i class="footnote">The king's only concern is for the benefit or otherwise that accrues to him from his servants. There is no inherent link between the nature of the work done and the form of payment. The payment depends just on the value of the work and is made in whatever form is mutually acceptable. However, there is no reciprocity between man and God because there is nothing God needs from man. Where Providence is concerned, the reward or punishment for our deeds is inherent in the deeds themselves.</i>
  But this is all wrong, for God is neither impressed by man’s deeds nor has He any need for his work; nor does his rebelliousness bring about any change in Him. He is like a doctor who prescribes treatment for a patient. Whether the patient listens to what the doctor says or refuses to do so, the reward or punishment is inherent in the very act upon which his health and life, or his sickness and death, depend.13<i class="footnote">This was the solution put forward by Hasdai Crescas, the 14th century philosopher, theologian and statesman. Hasdai was a severe critic of Maimonides, and his major work Or Adonai is a critique of the Guide of the Perplexed. Hasdai's resolution saves God's omniscience by limiting human freedom and the justice of reward and punishment by asserting that it is inherent in the way things are. Just as death follows from the swallowing of poison, so suffering ensues from wrongdoing. Whether Malbim was familiar with Hasdai's writings at first hand is uncertain. </i> This is the way in which the reward and punishment for human acts is linked with the acts themselves. A man who controls his appetites and instincts will <i>enjoy good health (Psalms 73:4)</i>, whereas he who pursues the pleasures of the flesh will become sick <i>and be sorely chastised (Job 33:19)</i>. Similarly, a commonwealth which endeavors to act properly and humanely, to do justice to the oppressed and to remove evil-doers from the land, will enjoy quiet and security <i>free of any evil threat (1Kings 5:18)</i> or destroyer. But when <i>right and justice are usurped in the state (Ecclesiastes 5:7)</i> murderers and gangsters multiply.
  Providence has provided every living being with a defense against its enemies: either the means to fight them or stratagems to protect against them. For example, some of the birds that God has placed in nature are frail and sing at night to keep each other awake, on guard <i>against their enemies and they that seek their souls (Jeremiah 19:9)</i>. God has likewise ordained the nature of man, that governments and the human race should work together <i>to maintain law and justice in the land (Jeremiah 23:5; 33:15)</i>, ever vigilant in eradicating the terrorists, murderers and others who would ravage society. And in this way, the human race continues to exist. For there are always more good people than bad in society and their strength, when they join together to protect the common weal, is greater than that of the minority who, <i>like beasts of the forest</i>, devour and destroy, steal and murder. 
  Wherefore, He has entrusted the prosecution and conviction of the wicked destroyers of civilization to mankind, that they should by their nature eradicate them <i>and remove the evil from amongst them (Deuteronomy 17:7)</i>. But when evil overcomes good and there is no <i>law and justice</i> (Job 36:17) in the land and the human race becomes fish-like, it is they themselves who have brought this evil upon them. Why should they be angry with God if it was their own stupidity that led them astray? 
  And in this he hints that Job himself was to blame for everything that had happened to him as a result of the rustlers’ plundering of his possessions, for he had not tried hard enough to do justice and to deal with them <i>when it was in his power (Genesis 31:29)</i>. <i>Whereupon, he continues to berate him (Deuteronomy 25:3)</i>, both for his stupidity for not thinking of returning from his evil ways, <i>adding iniquity to sin (Job 34:37)</i>, and for complaining against God, something which is itself a crime. And thus did he prepare <i>death traps for himself (Psalms 18:6)</i>. 
  The fourth response comprises two statements:
   •  In the first of these, Elihu reveals the true cause of Job’s suffering: that it was a trial. He explains the whole matter fully and shows <i>how God’s ways were justified by it (Hosea 14:10)</i>. Elihu finally reveals everything, even what was written in the Prologue concerning Satan’s challenge. And with this the argument is settled.
  •  In the second statement he reproves Job for <i>having the nerve (Lamentations 3:41)</i> to inquire into matters greater and more wondrous than he can imagine such as the immortality of the soul, the substance of knowledge, free-will and so on. Man does not even comprehend God’s wisdom in those natural things he sees in front of his eyes. And since He has <i>closed the door in front of him (2Kings 4:4)</i>, preventing him from entering <i>the inner sanctuary (Leviticus 10:18)</i> <i>to look at God (Exodus 3:6)</i> and to investigate metaphysical matters, he should have <i>hidden his face (Micah 3:4)</i> <i>and not climbed God’s mountain or even touched its edge (Exodus 19:12)</i>. 
  And with this the debate is concluded, in its entirety.
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  "...and angry with the three companions for not finding the answer and for condemning Job instead".15<i class="footnote">The two mediaeval commentators, Rashi and Ibn Ezra, note that this is one of the eighteen places in the Hebrew text of the Bible that were amended by the scribes (תיקוני סופרים) in order to avoid an apparent irreverence. According to this, the original reading was 'condemning God'. Malbim, makes no reference to this but the 14th century halachist and exegete R. Simeon ben Zemah Duran notes that by their silence, the companions had appeared to accept that Job's heresy, viz. that he was more right than God.</i>
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  Elihu explains that, hitherto, he had believed that the fundamentals of wisdom were sense-perception and empirical investigation, both of which require time and experience. Hence, he had assumed that old people are wiser than the young since they have lived longer and have had more experiences. However, he now realized that the fundamentals of wisdom,17<i class="footnote">Malbim understands the term 'חכמה - wisdom' as encompassing 'all the ways of Providence that involve good and bad; it cannot be acquired through human intellect, only by grace from God'. Elsewhere (glosses on Proverbs 1:2) he defines the term as: 'to know all aspects of all those things...that involve opposites, such as cruelty and mercy, pride and humility, arrogance and shame, eating and fasting, holiness and uncleanliness...and everything that is designated good or bad...and it is a general rule that the ways of wisdom cannot be understood by man from himself...they are received from God alone...'</i> like the Forms of Plato’s philosophy, are embedded in man’s soul, an inheritance from its Divine Source. They are present in the young as well as in the old and so wisdom is not, as he had previously thought, the exclusive possession of the elderly.
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  Having listened to the arguments presented by Job’s three companions, Elihu concludes that they had failed to convince because they all reduced to the same empty truth: that God is not a man and that His ways are not our ways and so we cannot understand Him. Is this wisdom? Would such arguments convince anyone?
  
  Verse 14
  
  Elihu’s thesis is totally different from those of Eliphaz, Bidad and Zophar, and so the points raised by Job in his rebuttal of the latter are immaterial with regard to it
  
  Verse 15
  
  One was confounded and dropped out of the debate; Zophar, who had dropped out of the third round, another was lost for words. Bildad, who had so little to say in the third round.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  Elihu now addresses Job directly.
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  At the end of the first round of speeches (Ch.13:20-22) Job had pleaded that he be given the chance to argue his case with God on equal terms. Elihu now presents himself as the answer to this cry: he will stand-in for God and answer Job’s case. He can do so because he reasons on the basis of the Divine Forms in his soul and not empirical evidence. Consequently, when he speaks, he will be expressing God’s ideas. At the same time, since he is mortal, Job will have no reason to fear him or be in awe of him as he would be in the presence of God, whom 'no man can see and live'  (Exodus 33.19). 
  
  and the divine breath of the Almighty sustains me.20<i class="footnote">Following the Kabbalistic tradition, itself based on the categories listed in Bereshit Rabbah 14:9, Malbim identifies a hierarchy of levels (referred to variously as מדרגות, תכונות or חלקים) within the soul. In this instance, the higher one is designated 'נשמה - divine breath', and that below it 'רוח - spirit'. These provide the basis for Elihu's qualifications to act as God's attorney:That as a creature of God, he is endowed with God's 'spirit';That as a living being, he is endowed with the 'divine breath' of the Almighty.Malbim explains: 'Elihu believes that the 'רוח - spirit' is present in unborn human embryos and is that which shapes the body and clothes it... Afterwards comes the 'נשמה - divine breath' of God, which is the Godly Soul conferred from on high, the 'daughter of God' that is its life [and its intrinsic immortality, reuniting with its Source at the body's death] and in which are planted the divine Forms...'Elsewhere (glosses on Song of Songs 8:8) Malbim explains that the 'spirit' is the primeval soul associated with the material body. 'It is not intrinsically immortal ...however, by virtue of the efficacy of deeds, instruction and work, chemical processes operate to refine it until it achieves the property of immortality and becomes a discrete entity that remains alive after the death of the body.'</i>
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  As is the custom of lawyers, Elihu opens his own argument by summarizing Job’s case against God. 
  
  Verse 9
  
  Basing himself on Job’s own words in The Seventh Oration (Ch.13.20-28), he reiterates that Job claims —
  1. to be innocent of any sin and that —
  2. even had he done something wrong, he should not be held responsible, as he has no freedom of choice, everything being predestined by the Cosmos to whom God has transferred governance.
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  Implicit in Job’s argument is the idea that God is hostile or at best indifferent to man; that He makes impossible demands of him, punishing him for acts over which he has no choice and denying him guidance or acknowledgment. Elihu rejects this, saying that God repeatedly calls upon man to repent, initially through his conscience by such means as a dream, and if this fails, by means of the warnings implicit in visitations of sickness and pain.
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  Malbim gives the following explanation of how these dreams work:It is the moral force implanted in man's soul that gives him his sense of right and wrong. And it is by virtue of this force that he is roused to be moved by the dream and to examine his deeds. For the moral sensibility embedded in his [divine] soul prophesies to him, through the impact of the dream, that he has exceeded the bounds of morality. Thus it appears as though the dream inscribes these things on his soul. And in order that he believe that the message was from God, the moral force in his soul puts its signature to it, authorizing and confirming the truth of the message, so that he should feel, by the nature of his soul, that he has sinned and been warned from above.The moral force in his soul first makes man take note of the dream and then confirms its truth. The overall result is that his conscience has been pricked.
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  All good and evil traits are embedded in the human soul, deep in its recesses, from where the רוח–spirit raises their semblance up to the mind, stimulating the person to do and act according to the particular trait or disposition. And if evil images such as pride, anger, revenge, cruelty etc., rise from the recesses of the soul and the person is drawn to behave according to these evil traits, the dream alerts him to abandon them and to plunge them back into the deepest recesses of his soul. There they remain concealed from him, lest they rise again into his mind. Thus, are man's darkest passions hidden from him...and remain just a disposition (תכונה) and not a trait (מדה) to be acted upon'
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  Elihu details three ways by which a man can be saved from this state. 
  The first is by virtue of his good deeds.25<i class="footnote">Underlying the Malbim's interpretation of this verse is the idea that a person's good deeds are his advocates. The way it works is that for each good deed a man does, an angel who watches over him is created. This notion appears in Shemot Rabbah 32:6: 'If a person fulfills one of His commandments, the Holy One Blessed be He gives him an angel to watch over him...two commandments, two angels...many commandments, half His camp...'</i>
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  The second way is by prayer.
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  And the third is if he apologies and makes restitution to those he has offended or hurt.
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  God makes repeated attempts to save the person.
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  Elihu now urges Job either to reply, if he has anything to say, or if not, to continue listening attentively.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  In the Fifth Oration, Job had argued that the governance of individuals cannot emanate from God , for this would require that the injustice of the suffering of the righteous be attributed to Him. On the basis of this he had concluded that God does not Himself administer the governance of individual human beings but has handed it over to the Cosmos, which does not distinguish between the righteous and the wicked. Bildad had rejected this proposition on the grounds that for God to have delegated governance to an entity that annihilates righteous people for nothing is itself an injustice. To this Job had replied that on the scale of all existence, no injustice is involved, for on that scale the Earth is no more than a speck of dust. And, if as a result of natural processes, the Earth, together with all its inhabitants, good and bad, should be destroyed, this would be no injustice in terms of the universal balance of nature. Elihu now sets out to demolish this argument.
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  Elihu starts by reiterating the first argument Job had used to substantiate his assertion that individual governance does not emanate from God. Job could not believe that he deserved his suffering. It was unfair and such unfairness could not emanate from God. It must have another origin, one that is indifferent to good and evil.
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  Unable to restrain himself, Elihu interjects that Job’s thesis is scandalous, for it emboldens the wicked, assuring them that they have nothing to fear.
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  Elihu returns to his recapitulation of Job's argument. Job had reasoned that if individual governance was in God's hands, then by the logic of His Perfection, it would be administered in a proper and just manner. Paraphrasing Job's thesis, Elihu says "Therefore, listen to me" etc.
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  But since it is evident that individual governance is not administered properly and justly, it cannot be in His hands. It has been delegated to the Cosmos and has become an integral part of Nature. This being so, no injustice would be incurred if, as a result of natural events, the Earth together with all its inhabitants was wiped out.
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  Having completed his summary of Job’s position, Elihu now sets about demolishing it. In order to exonerate God from the evil of the injustice done to himself, a single righteous individual, Job had heaped an infinity of injustices on Him. For if God has indeed delegated individual governance to the merciless and indifferent Cosmos, it is not just Job who is denied justice, but everyone in the world. If the logic of His Perfection made it unthinkable that God would do an injustice to a single person, how can it allow for an infinity of injustices to be done to the multitude of mankind? Thus Job’s argument was self-defeating.
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  Elihu now turns to the second argument Job had drawn from the prosperity of the wicked, namely, that if individual governance is indeed in God’s hands, why does He not punish the wicked at once, in public and for all to see. In reply, Elihu argues that human justice eschews delays in punishment because of a lack of knowledge and a lack of ability.
  1.  The lack of knowledge is that most crime goes undetected and so when a criminal is caught he is punished at once and before he can commit any more crimes;
  2.   the lack of ability is that the criminal may escape or hide and so avoid punishment. However, unlike human justice which misses out at times, Divine justice does not. God, who is omniscient and omnipotent, has no imperfections and can therefore react how and when He chooses. Consequently, Divine justice does not necessarily require instant punishment. Furthermore, if reward or punishment was manifestly a Divine reaction to a specific human act, there would be no basis for the free-will, doubt or faith without which it has no purpose.
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  Malbim suggests that one of the ways God might make a public example of the wicked is by an earthquake in which, providentially, only wicked people perished, the righteous being left alive.26<i class="footnote"> One wonders if he knew of Voltaire's novel Candide in which he recounts that heretics were publicly burned after the Lisbon earthquake of 1755 because the University of Coimbra declared 'that the sight of several persons being slowly burned in great ceremony is an infallible secret for preventing earthquakes.' The ultimate reason for things is unknown and unknowable, wrote Voltaire: 'All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds,' but the predicament of man has become anything but 'passable.'</i>
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  Job had been misled by the invisibility of God’s justice into supposing that the governance of individuals is not in His hands, as it should be. He was wrong: God does hear and respond to the cries of the oppressed. Elihu suggests a further reason for God’s sufferance of the wicked, namely, that they are the instruments of his wrath: '<i>The Assyrian, he is the rod that I wield in my anger and the staff of my rod is in his hand. I send him against a godless nation...to spoil and plunder'. But after His judgments have been carried out: 'When the Lord has finished all that He means to do on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem: I will punish the king of Assyria for this fruit of his pride and for his arrogance and vainglory.' (Isaiah 10:5-12)</i> Consequently, God’s apparent silence in the face of wickedness cannot be used as evidence that He has delegated individual governance to another entity. On the contrary, it can just as well be argued that it is evidence of Providence.
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  God’s forbearance is His privilege and His alone and Job has no grounds for challenging it. Now, having rebuffed all the arguments against Providence that Job had drawn from the prosperity of the wicked, Elihu gathers strength for the next stage: he will not give up until he has convinced Job beyond all doubt.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  What if man in fact has no free-will: that it is all an illusion and even our apparently voluntary acts are predestined; that whether we are righteous or wicked is decided naturally by the Cosmos; that there is no reward or punishment? This would undermine Elihu’s explanation of why Providence acts invisibly: it isn’t invisible; it just doesn’t exist, for without free-will there is no meaning to Providence. This in turn would remove the question of any injustice on God’s part.
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  Elihu now comes to the crux of his argument. He points out to Job and to his three companions that they had totally misunderstood the nature of Providence. It is not based on a reciprocity between man and God, for that would imply that there is something God needs from man and for which He is prepared to reward or punish. Were this so, a man as good as Job would be right to complain if God took away his prosperity: he had given God what He supposedly wanted and was entitled to expect his reward. But Providence does not work like that for there is nothing God needs from man.
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  The only person affected by man’s behavior is man himself. Elihu’s thesis is that man’s relationship with God is like that between a patient and his doctor. The doctor neither rewards his patient for taking the medicine he prescribes nor punishes him for refusing to: the patient’s reward or punishment is inherent in the prescription. Thus, the reward the patient gets for taking the medicine is that he gets better and his punishment for not taking it is that he doesn’t and might even die. This principle applies both to persons and to societies: their reward and punishment is inherent in their choices and actions. Furthermore, all creatures have been endowed by God with ways of protecting themselves. In addition, mankind has been endowed with the faculty to govern its own affairs. If they do so properly, they prosper; if they do not, they suffer. Therefore, let man look to himself for the reasons for his own condition. Referring specifically to Job’s complaints about God’s apparent indifference to the way the wicked exploit the weak,31<i class="footnote">The Fifteenth Oration, in particular Ch.24.</i> Elihu adds that it is not only God’s job to deal with tyrants, pirates and other evil-doers but man’s as well, through the instruments of human government. And if man is negligent in this duty, what right does he have to complain about God.
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  (Malbim adds that human beings should also learn from the animals how to protect their own species and its individuals; they too should unite to defend themselves against bandits and murderers.) 
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  As 'the greatest man in all the East', Job should have ensured that justice was properly administered in his society: this was his mission from God. Had he used his wealth and influence to organize a campaign against crime, there would have been no rustlers and gangs of bandits to take off his livestock. But when Job failed to recognize the providential nature of the loss of his own livestock, God's anger was so aroused that he brought the further afflictions down upon him, namely, the death of his children and his sickness.He should have realized that he himself was the cause of everything that had happened to him. His possessions were stolen because he had not wiped out crime; his children were killed because he did not take this to heart and make amends for his sin; and he was also the cause of his own body's suffering because of his luxurious and indulgent life-style.According to Malbim's interpretation, Elihu appears to be accusing Job of being the sort of righteous person who only cares for himself. He is scrupulous about what he himself does but is less concerned with the problems and shortcomings of society: politics are beneath him.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  Thus far, the tone of Elihu’s oration has been polemical, as he refuted the arguments Job had presented against the existence of individual Providence. It now changes as he turns to answer the original question raised by Job, namely, what had been the true reason for the series of catastrophes that had befallen him? The answer to this question has of course been known to the readers of the book from its very beginning. They know that it was a trial, initiated by Satan and agreed to by God, designed to test whether Job would be as steadfast in his faith under conditions of deprivation as he had been when God was good and gracious to him. Elihu now reveals this to Job and his three companions. He had not arrived at this intelligence from the evidence of sense-perceptions or by means of conjectures linked to space and time but, as he explains, by virtue of the Forms or Ideas planted in man’s soul by God. And since Forms are of Divine origin, intelligence gained through them must surely be true.
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  Elihu now lists the Forms concerning the nature of God that are to be found in the human soul:
  
  
  God is not jealous of or threatened by human will and intellect. Man who seeks to imitate God is loved by Him.
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  This follows from the Idea embedded in the soul that God is the source of good and so He must hate evil. Consequently, the wicked cannot possibly expect any sustenance or support from Him.
  This follows from the Idea embedded in the soul that His Statute, which is the ultimate of perfection, is without fault. To assert that that He does not give justice to the poor is to impute an iniquity in His Statute and that would be a fault on His part, for it is unthinkable that God would do evil or the Almighty act iniquitously.
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  The sixth Form, and for Elihu’s purposes the most relevant one, is that Providence is ever attendant upon the righteous, not turning from him even for a moment. Moreover, Providence is drawn by the deed and so the more the person perseveres in his righteousness and devotion to God, the more closely Providence marks him and everything he does. God watches over the righteous as a father does over an only beloved son, tempering him with tests and trials, that he might fulfill his true potential. This program of examination may involve his elevation to the greatest heights, even kingship, or his reduction to the very lowest depths. The righteous person’s true mettle will be revealed by the way he reacts to the fortune or misfortune that befalls him.
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  The insincerity of those who are not truly righteous might not show up during times of fortune; when they are well off they can afford the luxury of virtue. But as soon as misfortune strikes them, their hypocrisy comes to light.
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  Turning to Job, Elihu now reveals the truth, that which we the readers have known from the beginning. That it was a trial and though Job had appeared virtuous when blessed with prosperity, he had failed the test of suffering. Whereas he had blithely accepted God’s bounty without raising questions about the workings of Providence, the moment his prosperity ceased he began questioning the very fundamentals of faith. In retrospect, this placed the sincerity of his virtue when he had prospered in doubt: Satan had been proved right. God had permitted the trial to test Job, to temper him and to teach him the vanity of earthly happenings. As events proved, He was justified in doing so.
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  Elihu is referring to Job's demand (Chapter 24) that God should annihilate the evil-doers who cause havoc to the world and who live far away from civilised people. God could wipe them out in the darkness of their dwelling-places by means of those elements that are not subject to the rule of the Cosmos without prejudicing free-will
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  God seeks to strengthen man and to raise him through trial to a higher spiritual level, where the good things in the earthly world become equivalent in his eyes with the bad: prosperity with poverty, physical health with human pain, birth with bereavement. When this happens, he will have risen over the material matters to one that which is above the nature of the flesh: a godly matter in which those who truly walk with Him are tested.
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  From this point on, Elihu’s oration is essentially a summing-up of the whole debate. As regards Job’s speculations about the essence of the soul and its perpetuity, its reward and remuneration, God’s Omniscience and free-will, etc., he asks why he insists on challenging God and investigating metaphysical matters that are clouded in mist. First see if you can understand the workings of Nature, those that you can see with your eyes and perceive with your senses at all times, and then attempt to climb the mountain to investigate the metaphysical. But I will show that you do not even comprehend the visible and mechanical workings of Nature, so how can you presume to discuss the wonders hidden from Nature.
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  The mystery of the workings of Nature is illustrated by the example of the weather and rainfall. Though we are familiar with these everyday phenomena, our understanding of them is limited and specific predictions about them are quite beyond us.41<i class="footnote">It has been recognized in recent years that the behavior of large physical systems can be unpredictable even though they are subject to deterministic laws. This occurs when the system is sensitive to minuscule changes in their initial conditions or are affected by an excessive number of variables. An example of this 'deterministic chaos' is the so-called Butterfly Effect. It is suggested that meteorological dynamics are so sensitive that the flap of a butterfly's wings at one place may result in violent changes in the weather thousands of miles away.It has been suggested that the vagaries of individual fate could also be accounted for in terms of deterministic chaos. Though the rules by which fate is determined are in principle deterministic, e.g., good is always rewarded and evil always punished, the mechanism is so sensitive to changes in initial conditions and is affected by so many variables that it defies analysis and prediction becomes impossible.</i>
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  It is known from the nature of rainfall that when the air is clear the vapors retain within them the heat and the fiery matter they contain, which is the electric matter. And this heat scatters the vapors and they are spread out and dispersed in the air. As a result, the sky is clear and the clouds are invisible for the heat scatters the particles, which still remain in the air.If the earth's atmosphere was absolutely homogeneous, the sky would appear black to observers looking up from its surface even during the day.43<i class="footnote"> Some 50 years after the Malbim's time, the English physicist Lord Raleigh (1842-1919) showed that the blue of the sky and the appearance of clouds are both the consequence of the presence of water in the atmosphere. The blue sky results from the scattering of sunlight by minute particles of water-vapor in the atmosphere; clouds appear when the particles coalesce into discrete drops.</i>
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  As terrifying as thunder might be, it is still a natural sound; just a whisper relative to God. So how can a being that is frightened by thunder face up to the power of God’s supernatural voice? Metaphysical concepts such as this, that are the key to understanding the ways of Providence, are simply beyond man’s grasp
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  According to Malbim, the thunder is emitted first, before the lightning. There are two possible reasons as to why they are observed in the reverse order: (i) whereas the sense of sight reacts instantaneously to light, the sense of hearing only reacts to sound after a short lapse of time; (ii) because the sound of the thunder reaches the observer after the flash of light from the lightning. It is unclear which explanation Malbim believed to be correct. Whatever, if the thunder was heard as soon as it was emitted, there would be no time-lag between them.
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  Elihu explains that God governs mankind and produces the overall effects He desires by manipulating the underlying laws of Nature. For example, the basic property that determines whether it rains or snows at a particular location is the variation in the heat content of the air and the water in the atmosphere above it. This single property or law was decreed by God and it is what causes it to rain in summer when it is warmer and to snow in winter when it is colder. This cycle of seasons is unending: variation is inherent in Nature. In His Wisdom, God manipulates these natural variations and cycles to do His will and to execute His decrees in His Governance of the sublunar world, for good or for bad
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  Divine Governance has three modes: correctional, routine (earthly) and merciful. In His Wisdom, God governs through the basic laws of Nature. For example, using them to adjust the rainfall in order to punish, to preserve or to favor, as the case may be.
  
  Verse 14
  
  If a full comprehension of the physical earthly world is beyond man’s grasp, how can he possibly hope to understand the wonders of the metaphysical heavenly world.
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  If, a priori, man is incapable of grasping the metaphysical, perhaps this whole debate was a waste of time and should never have taken place.
  
  Verse 20
  
   On the other hand, how could Job’s assertion that God has delegated Governance to the Cosmos be left unchallenged? 
  
  Verse 21
  
  When Job’s three companions fell silent, Elihu had been right to take up the challenge and to demonstrate the sublime truth that God does indeed govern.
  
  Verse 22
  
  In his final words, Elihu asserts that it is by virtue of the deep mystery that surrounds Providence that God’s Majesty is manifest and man is endowed with freewill.
  
  Verse 23
  
  God's inscrutability is the proof of His Supremacy. The fact that He is not at our call and does not explain Himself is the sign that His Governance is full of justice and charity. At times it is expressed as justice based on human actions and at other times as charity that is independent of any human act. Both are exercised in His Sublime Wisdom which is beyond human comprehension.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  The Nineteenth Oration - God’s Answer to Job
  At the close of the symposium, which had been based on thought and reasoning, the Lord appears to Job <i>out of the tempest (Job 38:1)</i>, commanding that <i>he be restored to himself (Job 38:3)</i> and regain his strength, and that the afflictions be lifted from upon him and he join the Lord in debate. The appearance of God Himself effectively brings the whole argument to a close, <i>for it patently proves that (Deuteronomy 4:35)</i>:
   1. God’s Providence extends over mankind severally, in as much as <i>He had listened attentively (Psalms 116:2)</i> to everything Job had said and had now come to argue with him and <i>teach him some sense (Ecclesiastes 12:9)</i>. This testifies to the existence of individual Providence <i>over all the steps a man takes (Psalms 37:23, Proverbs 20:24)</i>. Thus, Job’s thesis that God does not administer the world is refuted.
  2. Man’s soul is divine1<i class="footnote">בת אלוהים - a daughter of God.</i> and immortal, alive and protean. For the only way we can conceive of God speaking with man is by virtue of his soul being a part of Him. And when the soul sheds its bodily coat, it perceives with that Divine Perception which is an integral part of the Selfhood of the Blessed One.2<i class="footnote">The actuality of the Revelation is more significant than its content: the medium is indeed the message. The metaphysical is made physical through revelation. Instead of the Neoplatonist postulate of a Logos, viz. a transcendental intellect standing between God and man to whom knowledge and Providence is ascribed rather than to God himself, Malbim postulates that man's soul is a 'piece of God'. When God speaks to man He is in fact speaking to his soul - to the 'piece of God' that is clothed in man. The soul's divinity is only manifest when it is separated from the body, i.e., during a prophetic experience or in the Hereafter.</i> Thus, all the doubts Job had expressed concerning the immortality of the soul and the concept of redress in the world to come are shown to be unfounded. For he now has a living experience of how the soul separates from the body during a vision or an encounter with God and of the spiritual bliss it enjoys from glimpses of His Holiness. 
  With this, God directly answers all the questions Job had asked concerning the suffering of the righteous. For it makes him realize that man’s essence is his soul. which is distinct from the body and cleaves to God; <i>to gaze upon the pleasure of the Lord (Psalms 27:4)</i> <i>and to hear His voice from the fire (Deuteronomy 5:20);</i> And this is the essential reward that awaits the righteous after the wasting of the body, <i>when the spirit returns to the Lord who gave it (Ecclesiastes 12:7)</i>. 
  God addresses him at length on this point, elaborating on how His Providence extends severally over everything He created; over the totality of existence as well as each individual creature. How He concerns Himself with the needs of each creature, availing it of food and shelter, and providing for the survival of its species, both in the matter of its birth and the sustenance of its offspring; and all the more must this Providence extend over man, the chosen-one of the creatures. 
  After explaining all of this, God goes on to deliver a second lecture to Job, in which He replies to the question he had asked concerning the prosperity of the wicked, namely, why God does not wipe out the wicked who ravage civilization like beasts of prey. In His response, God points out that a similar question can also be asked concerning the animal world: why He created both weak and strong animals that live alongside one another, the strong preying on the weak. According to Job, He should only have created weak and powerless creepy-things! But that would not have befitted the greatness of the Creator. His stature requires that He create awesome and terrifying creatures whilst providing, through His Providence, for the weaker species to survive, thereby demonstrating <i>that from on most high, a guardian</i>, (Ecclesiastes 5:7) a Single One, rules over all of them. Likewise, there are fierce, tyrannical and powerful individuals amongst mankind, but He has nevertheless provided, through His Providence, for the survival of humanity by making it societal by nature, endowing it with the power <i>to do justice and act with probity</i> (Proverbs 1:3, 2:9) as Elihu has already clarified in Chapter 35.3<i class="footnote">It might well be asked why God did not take the opportunity of revealing to Job the simple truth, that we the readers have known all along, namely, that his suffering and the loss of his family and all his possessions occurred within the setting of a contest between God and Satan as to whose evaluation of his integrity was correct. That God does not do so is perhaps of no lesser significance; there are some things that a person just does not have to know. </i>
  At this point, Job confesses that <i>he had not spoken sense (Job 34:35)</i> in all his arguments. He reveals that throughout the entire debate <i>his mind had not been at one (2Kings 5:26)</i> <i>with the words in his mouth (Psalms 36:4)</i>. For in truth, in his heart, he had believed all along in Providence and the immortality of the soul. His whole polemic was just an attempt to find a way to this end through the medium of study and thought: it was all by way of being a search. As the master of the prophets [Moses] had said, <i>Show me Thy Glory</i>. (Exodus 33:18) He too had first investigated this subject by the use of reason and had worked on composing the <i>Book of Job,</i> in which he recorded all his investigations and insights in these matters. But when he saw that no solution could be found by the use of reason, he had asked that God Himself make the glory of His judgments and Governance known to him, as He had to Job,4<i class="footnote">Carried away by his faithfulness to the rabbinical tradition, namely, that Moses was the author of Job, Malbim is driven into contradiction. If Moses wrote the Book of Job before the Exodus, as Malbim postulates, he must have known the truth concerning the workings of Providence that Job is about to learn from God before the revelation at Mount Sinai and the sin of the golden-calf. Consistency requires that Moses must have been asking for something else when, following these events, he asks of God: 'Show me Thy Glory'.Alternatively, perhaps Malbim is suggesting that Job and Moses are one, and God's lectures here in the Book of Job were His reply to the request made by Moses,</i> <i>and He showed him... and told him; (Deuteronomy 34:1)</i> and he was then comforted <i>for being dust and ashes (Job 42:6).</i> 
  
  Verse 2
  
  This Revelation, out of the tempest,5<i class="footnote">A tempest was the same agency as had swept away Job's children. Malbim quotes the Midrashic adage (Exodus Rabbah 23:3, 26:2, 48:5, 50:3; Leviticus Rabba 18:5) that unlike man, who 'strikes with a knife and heals with a plaster,' God strikes and heals with the same instrument. In the Talmud (T.B.Pesachim 68a), this notion is the basis of a suggested reply to those who deny that the concept of the revival of the dead is implied in the Torah. Commenting of the verse '...I put to death and I keep alive; I wound and I heal...' (Deuteronomy 32:39) the Talmudic Sages asked: <i>...is life one unit and death a separate unit as is generally supposed?'</i> They reply that '<i>...just as the blow and the cure comprise a single unit, so death and life [after death] comprise a single unit</i>.</i> at once settles the central issue raised in the debate: God, and He alone, governs. For it is God Himself who appears to Job and restores his health and well-being; He Himself who now addresses the issue with His own series of questions; He and not an agent who now proclaims the Majesty of His Creation and Governance; and finally, it is directly to Him that Job ultimately submits. And when this is all over, it is again God Himself who restores Job’s household and all the possessions he had lost, blessing him with even more riches than he had before his trial. Who is this who with empty words, would cloud my design in darkness? Who had dared to suggest that God does not govern? Who had argued against the existence of Providence and ethical Governance? God had been listening to the debate and had now appeared; ergo there is Providence!
  
  Verse 3
  
  During the debate, Job had asked for a hearing with God; this is now being granted to him. However, he had also asked that if it were granted, then first 'let Him remove His rod from my back, and let His awe not terrify me' (Job 9:34) so that they might confront one another on terms as equal as possible. This second request is now also granted and so before God proceeds any further with His questioning, He first restores Job to full health.
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  Malbim regards these verses as referring to God's institution of the gravitational force that holds the universe together and determines the motions of the stars and planets. He writes: 'How far the Earth is from each star is determined by the universal attractive force that the spheres exert on one another, for they all attract the Earth such that it is left hanging between them in its place, as is known from astronomy. But the construction of the Earth itself was done by God Himself.'8<i class="footnote"> According to Rosenblum, Malbim's knowledge of modern astronomy most probably came from The Book of the Covenant (ספר הברית) by Pinchas Eliyahu Horwitz (1795). This popular book had been widely approved by contemporary orthodox rabbis. In order to avoid religious controversy, its author had adopted Tycho Brahe's (1546-1601) model of the universe. In this ingenious amalgam of the Ptolemaic and Copernican models, the sun revolves around the earth whilst all the other planets revolve around the sun. The eclecticism of Brahe's model was perfectly suited to Malbim.</i>
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  The ancient belief in the Music of the Spheres, according to which objects moving through space produce sounds whose pitch depends on their speed, is mentioned by Maimonides (Guide II,8). The Pythagoreans (c500 B.C.E) are credited with the discovery that harmonious sounds are emitted by strings whose lengths are simple ratios of whole numbers. An octave is the interval between the notes emitted by strings of similar composition and tension one of which is twice the length of the other; the fifth is that between strings whose lengths are in the ratio two to three. According to Pythagorean astronomy, the speed of a planet increases with its distance from the Earth, and so as they circle in their particular orbits each emits a different sound. However, their distances from the Earth are such that these sounds are in harmony. Adopting this notion for his own purposes, Malbim sees this verse as depicting the way the force of gravity acts between the heavenly bodies:...the strings of this force of attraction and its proportions correlate with the scales of the musical notes. This shows the logical order, relationship and equilibrium that exists between the earth and the other spheres, all of which is indicative of great Wisdom and Providence.The Pythagorean notion of a celestial harmony—the harmonious notes, beyond the reach of mortal ear, emitted by the heavenly bodies in their motions—was revived and advanced by Johannes Kepler (1571-1630). It led him to the law of planetary motion (Kepler's Third Law) that the squares of the periodic times of the planets are in the same ratio as the cubes of their respective mean distances from the sun. He expressed his joy at this discovery in the following paean to God (Kline p.78):The wisdom of the Lord is infinite, so are His glory and His power. Ye heavens, sing His praises. Sun, moon and planets glorify Him in your ineffable language. Celestial harmonies, all ye who comprehend His marvelous works praise Him. And thou, my soul, praise they Creator. It is by Him and in Him that all exists...To Him be praise, honor and glory throughout eternity.
  
  Verse 8
  
  After describing how planet Earth was fixed in space, God goes on to explain how He then made it habitable. The primeval planet had been formless and void, and totally covered by water. It was as a result of the ordinances God invoked to gather the waters into the seas and the atmosphere that the dry-land appeared. Malbim describes the process as follows: The element water was sandwiched between the element earth below and the element air above.11<i class="footnote">(This notion of a series of concentric spheres, each surrounded by another out to the ultimate sphere, is Aristotelian. According to this notion, earth has its natural place at the center of the universe, and water, being the next heaviest element, has its natural place immediately above earth. The comes air, and above them all, fire.)</i> At God's decree, vapor began to rise from the element water up to the firmament which is the atmosphere, where the clouds are. As it says: 'And the spirit of God hovered over the surface of the water' (Genesis 1:2) and this made the water-vapor begin to rise. As a result of this, the element air was separated from the evaporating water and some dry-land began to appear. Afterwards, God ordained that the remaining waters gather and form the seas, thus making more dry-land appear.
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  Thus far shall you come and no farther... as is written (Jeremiah 5:22): '<i>Have you no fear of Me? says the Lord...who made the shivering sand to bound the sea, a barrier it can never pass?</i>' ...and should your waves surge, here shall you be stayed. The statutes God ordained to gather the waters into the atmosphere and the seas are the Providential instruments expressed by the laws of nature. Though these statutes cannot be frustrated or revoked by man or Nature, they nevertheless remain under God's control and He can suspend or alter them as Providence requires.
  
  Verse 12
  
  Of all natural phenomena none is more central nor wondrous than light. However, as with water, Providence can alter its nature too as circumstances require. Has Job any such power over it?  From the moment the sun and moon were put into position on the fourth day of Creation, the cycle of day and night as we now know it began. In this cycle, daybreak is a shadowy line of longitude that moves continuously across the face of the Earth from east to west with a period of 24 hours. God asks Job if he knows from where that line started to move on the fourth day of Creation. Have you ever called up the morn?... This refers to the first morning of Creation. According to Malbim, during each of the first three days of Creation, i.e., before the sun and moon were placed in position, there was light over the entire planet Earth for 12 hours followed by 12 hours of darkness everywhere. The change from light to dark and back again was gradual, such that '<i>evening came and morning came</i>' (Genesis 1:5).
  
  Verse 13
  
  ...shaking the wicked from it. Lest they be seen, thieves and burglars must return to their lairs at daybreak.
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  At different times, parts of the Earth are in the light and others in darkness. Malbim identifies two such cycles: The first is that which occurs in the Arctic and Antarctic (the Earth's limits), namely, that when it is light round the clock (summer) in the one it is night round the clock (winter) in the other; 
  The second is the variation in the length of the day that follows the sun's passage through the Houses of the Zodiac.
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  God now speaks of other features of Creation and of their use as instruments of Providence: how He had created the Universe to be a home for man. Malbim takes these verses as referring to the permanent snow found on high mountains in places such as Switzerland, the Tyrol, Savoy and Piedmont as well as in the polar regions (Iceland and Greenland), and to the invisible ice-crystals in the upper atmosphere. 
  
  Verse 23
  
  He adds that both are essential and useful, but both can also cause great damage and destruction, as in avalanches or hail-storms as happened, according to Malbim, in the year 5548 (1787/8 - he does not say where). Thus, they can be employed as instruments of Providence.
  
  Verse 24
  
  Malbim sees the action of Providence in the way the light intensifies only gradually at dawn, allowing time for the eyes to adjust to it. He notes that even at his own time, the middle of the 19th century, the nature of light and how it propagates is still an unsolved riddle: is it a 'fluid substance' (from the German Ausstremungsystem) or an 'aerial propagation' (in German: Vibrationsystem) that is generated by the motions of the source of illumination?21<i class="footnote"> The former refers to the Newtonian corpuscular theory of light and the latter to Huygens' wave theory. Rosenbloom (p.258) points out that Malbim was one of the few Jewish scholars of his time to mention both theories. Most of the others, following Mendelssohn (Biur, Genesis 1.3), opted for the wave model.</i>
  
  Verse 25
  
  Not all atmospheric lights are accompanied by thunder. For instance, notes Malbim, the Aurora Borealis (Northern Lights) is silent. In viewing this whole passage as referring to Providence and the precision with which it operates - for example, never confusing איוב (Job) with אויב (enemy) - Malbim follows the line taken by the Talmudic Sages in their interpretation of this verse:Many drops have I created in the clouds, and for each drop a separate mold, so that two drops should not issue from the same mold, since if two drops issued from the same mold they would wash away the soil and it would not produce fruit...Many thunderclaps have I created in the clouds and for each clap a separate path, so that two claps should not travel by the same path, since if two claps traveled by the same path they would devastate the world. (TB Baba Batra 16a).
  
  Verse 26
  
  Rain falling on desolate land can be a blessing or a waste depending on the circumstances; this provides more opportunities for Providence. Sometimes for good? For example, if the people of Israel were absolutely wicked on Rosh Hashana [the annual Day of Judgment] and meager rainfall was prescribed for them but they subsequently repented. Their allotment could not be increased, for the decree has already been ordained. However, the Holy One, Blessed be He, then makes it rain at the right time and where it is needed, all in accordance with the condition of the land. Sometimes for bad? For example, if the people of Israel were absolutely righteous on Rosh Hashana and bounteous rainfall was prescribed for them but they then change their ways. The allotment could not be decreased for the decree has already been ordained. However, the Holy One, Blessed be He, then makes it rain at the wrong time and where it is not needed (TB Rosh Hashana 17b).
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  God asks Job whether he knows the causes of these phenomena or has any control over them.
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  What causes water to freeze solid? Malbim mentions two theories which had been around since antiquity: (i) the existence of a substance that cools and freezes - a primum frigidum; (ii) that the principal nature of water is to be in the frozen state, the addition of heat [caloric] causing it to melt and the removal of heat causing it to return to its natural solid state.24<i class="footnote"> Whether cold, in the objective sense, should be regarded as a real quality or just an absence of heat was long an unresolved question. In his New Experiments and Observations touching Cold, Robert Hooke wrote: '...the dispute which is the primum frigidum is very well known ...some contending for the earth, others for water, others for the air...but all seeming to agree that there is some body or other that is of its own nature supremely cold and by participation of which all other bodies obtain that quality.'</i>
  
  Verse 31
  
  The ancients attributed cold and warmth to forces that emanated from the stars: that there is a constellation of stars called the Pleiades in the north from which cold and freezing issues and another constellation called Orion from which heat issues.25<i class="footnote"> This idea appears in the Talmud: '<i>Were it not for the heat of Orion, the world could not exist because of the cold of the Pleiades; and were it not for the cold of Pleiades, the world could not exist because of the heat of Orion</i>' (TB Berachot 58b).</i>
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  Concluding this section of his address, God asserts that even more remarkable than His creation of the physical world is the way He has united body and soul in man (the microcosm) and, likewise, harmonized heaven and earth in the Cosmos (the macrocosm).
  
  Verse 37
  
  Malbim adopted Tycho Brahe's astronomical system according to which the Earth is at rest at the center of the Universe and the Sun revolves annually around it while the Planets concurrently circle the Sun. In his interpretation of this verse Malbim attempts, not entirely successfully, to unite Kepler's harmonies and planetary laws with Brahe's system and writes:<i>Behold, God ordered the multitude of orbiting spheres by means of the force of attraction that each body and sphere exerts on its neighbor; with the Earth as the center of the orbit in accordance with the ancients' astronomy. And scientists have already shown that if we draw chords from a star to its companion, the force of attraction that one exerts on the other will be in the same ratio as are the strings of a harp, with regard to sound: that a string that is double [the length of] its companion, its pitch is cubed [23 = 8, i.e., the interval is an octave], and so it always is, and so is the action of the force of attraction</i>.
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
  The next chapter should properly begin here, for at this point God turns from describing how His Providence extends over the inanimate world to how He has provided for the existence and survival of living beings in this world. Though man is the most intelligent of these beings, is he capable of contriving such a design.
  
  Verse 40
  
  
  
  Verse 41
  
  Providence also extends to the raven, traditionally regarded as one of the meanest of beasts: 'He gives cattle their food; to the raven's offspring too when they cry out' (Psalms 147:9). The Talmudic Sages asserted that 'when the raven has offspring the male tells the female that another bird impregnated her and so they despise and abandon them. What does the Holy One Blessed be He do? He ordains midges [or flies] for them [the offspring] that come out of their excrement and they eat them' (Tanchuma Deuteronomy: Ekev).
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  Like verse 25 in the previous chapter, this verse too was seen by the Talmudic Sages as proof of the 'fine-tuning' of Providence: <i>The wild goat is heartless towards her young. When she crouches for delivery, she goes to the top of a mountain so that the young shall fall down and be killed, and I [God] prepare an eagle to catch it in its wings and set it before her, and if he were one moment too soon or too late it would be killed...The hind has a narrow womb. When she crouches for delivery, I [God] prepare a serpent that bites her at the opening of the womb, and she is delivered of her offspring; and were it one moment too soon or too late, she would die</i> (TB Baba Batra 16a-16b).
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  Unlike other birds, the ostrich appears not to care for its young. Fleet of foot but unable to fly despite its bounteous plumage, it nests on the ground. It lays a large number of eggs most of which do not hatch, many being consumed by the chicks that emerge from the few that do. An odd bird, proverbially both stupid and heartless,31<i class="footnote">'...<i>but the daughters of my people are cruel, like ostriches in the desert</i>' (Lamentations 4:3) </i> but it too is part of God’s grand design.
  
  Verse 14
  
  Storks can fly and nest high-up, safe from predators; ostriches cannot.
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  Providence did not endow the ostrich with the instinct to nurture its young. Instead God determined that it should lay about thirty eggs so that even if some perish, a sufficient number will be left to perpetuate the species on Earth...However, the stork lays only a few eggs so they must be carefully tended.
  
  Verse 19
  
  God also created animals for man’s use. For example, the horse, man's accomplice and ally in that most singular of his activities - warfare.
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  To summarize. God has explained to Job how His Providence extends over every species: over their food, their reproduction, the nurture of their young and their habitats. How much more must it encompass man, the loftiest of all species; the one crowned with intelligence, created in the image of God.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  Though Job had voiced no reply to God’s oration, God knew that there were still things on his mind that he wanted to ask. During the debate with his companions, Job had shown little or no reticence despite his suffering and had spoken freely, demanding that God answer his suit. His health and vigor had now been restored him and so God calls upon him to speak up and express his thoughts.
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  Job answers that his silence had denoted his surrender. He had been chastened by God’s oration and now recognized the insignificance of his own suffering. Furthermore, he acknowledges that the thesis he had proposed at the opening of the debate, namely, that the suffering of the righteous denies the existence of Providence, had been totally demolished by God’s revelation and oration. 
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  However, the debate had also considered a second thesis, namely, that the prosperity of the wicked denies the existence of Providence and this had yet to be addressed by God. 
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  Accepting Job’s point, God now turns to the question of the prosperity of the wicked. The gist of His reply is that the wicked are to mankind as the predators are to the animal kingdom. That just as God has provided means for the weaker and smaller animals to survive and prosper despite being hunted down by the predators, so has He endowed mankind with the intelligence and the social, judicial and civil attributes needed to deal with all the dangers surrounding him including those that come from the wicked members of his own species. 
  
  Verse 8
  
  Would Job, if he had God’s powers, do it any differently? Would his governance be better than God’s?
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  Job had asked why God tolerates the existence and prosperity of wicked and arrogant evil-doers; why, if He indeed governs, does He not crush or eradicate them? God now invites Job to imagine that he is in charge of the universe and can do all those things he thinks God should be doing. He could then deal with the evil-doers as he sees fit: bringing them low or even wiping them out. This would certainly make an impression and put the world in awe of him. But what sort of god does he think he would then be? Would he warrant the designation 'Creator' or 'Maker'? A creator’s creations are his glory. What sort of creator creates only weak and feeble things?
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  Continuing the charade, God asks Job how he intends to deal with the two most powerful and imperious beasts He created: the Behemoth, that consumes all vegetation leaving nothing behind for the other land-beasts, and the Leviathan which preys on all the other sea-creatures.36<i class="footnote">According to Malbim's interpretation the Behemoth and Leviathan are archetypes of the beings that exploit their power over others for their own purposes. Whether they are actual or mythological beasts is irrelevant; the question is whether Job has room for such beings and their ilk in his world. </i> Job’s campaign of extermination should start with them.
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  The second mighty beast that Job should put down is the Leviathan. Beyond discipline or training, the Leviathan is the embodiment of ferocious and ungovernable violence; and it knows it and does not care. Many desperate attempts have been made to catch this rampaging sea-monster but all have been in vain. And even were it caught alive it would never submit; and if dead, its carcass would be of no use, as its flesh is too tough to be butchered.
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  Job had asserted that there is no place for such malevolent beings in creation. So God now challenges him to use the power he has been given over creation to make an end to the Leviathan once and for all. He only has to touch him and he will be gone, and the battle will be over.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  It is not for lack of power that God does not put down the Behemoth and Leviathan but because it does not befit He who created all existence to destroy His greatest and mightiest creatures. How can the Creator consent to the destruction of those very creatures that attest to His Greatness and Faculty? The charade is ended. It is once again God who is in charge of the universe and neither Job nor anybody else can tell Him what to do with His creatures. He owes nothing to anybody; He made the Leviathan and is proud of it.
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  God closes the discussion by pointing out that there would be no necessity for Providence if all creatures were equally primitive and weak, and none were exploited by others. How and to what purpose would God impose His Will in a featureless and flat world; what need would there be Him? It is the variance in Nature, its unfairness and indifference to moral and ethical values, that gives Providence its purpose and meaning in the world. If there were no Leviathans on Earth, if nothing ever went wrong, there would be no need for Providence and God would effectively be dead.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  The moment has come for the final denouement of this drama: the revelation that Job had really never lost his faith and had emerged from the trial with his integrity intact. He had never really ceased to believe in Providence, free-will, the immortality of the soul or redress in the hereafter. However, knowledge is preferable to blind faith and matters as important as these should not be shrouded by ignorance; they should not be just incomprehensible mysteries. Accordingly, his intention in initiating the symposium had been to find a way of substantiating these fundamental tenets by means of rational investigation and philosophical contemplation; for this purpose, someone had to adopt the position of denying their existence. However, the attempts made by the other debaters to substantiate these tenets were totally unconvincing. Employing God’s own words, Job explains that it was in the light of this that he had called on Him to appear and enlighten his understanding of these matters.
  
  Verse 3
  
  In his reply to God, Job paraphrases the very challenge God had made to him at the beginning of His oration (Job 38:2). It was because he did not want God's design to remain just a matter of faith, shrouded in mystery and uncertainty, that he had initiated the debate. Responding to God in His own words (Job 38:3), Job explains that just as He had called for answers from Job, so Job had been seeking answers from God. Job's contention had been that rational answers should be given to the great issues raised by ethical monotheism; they should not be just matters of faith. And if man is unable to find these rational answers unaided, God ought to provide them.
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  But all this had been before God appeared to him in a prophetic vision. Now, through the experience of prophecy, Job has been graced with sure knowledge of those truths that previously he could only believe, and perhaps even doubt at times, viz. that God oversees and governs every detail of the world;44<i class="footnote">For He had heard the debate between Job and his companions and had answered Job's call. </i> that man’s soul is divine and has an existence distinct from that of his body; that his soul cleaves to its Sublime Source when separated from his body, as during a prophetic vision or after death;45<i class="footnote">For other than by the separation of his soul from his body, there is no way that man can perceive God.</i> that after death the soul returns to its abode with the Lord of Hosts which is of itself its reward in the hereafter. Therefore do I forbear this life and am comforted for being just dust and ashes. For all the physical joy or suffering in this world is as nothing compared to one moment of the soul’s life with God in the hereafter: the true bliss reserved for the merit of the righteous souls.
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  Job may have uttered sinful things during the debate but he had not really meant them; in truth, he had remained faithful to God. However, just the opposite was true of his three companions: they may have defended God in the debate but had not really meant what they said. As Job had observed: "<i>Were He to investigate you, would it do you any good if, as one beguiles a man, you tried to beguile Him?</i>" (Job 13:9). 
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  Despite the terrible things they had said of him, Job intercedes with God on behalf of his three companions, just as he had in the past for his own children, and their offering is accepted. In reward for this generosity of spirit, God restored all Job’s losses and even doubled his fortune. The book ends with God’s reconfirmation of Job’s virtue and integrity. All his losses are restored,1<i class="footnote">Nahmanides suggests that Job's children had not really been killed nor had his possessions actually been destroyed. They had all only been hidden from him by Satan who had sent the messengers with news of their loss. His children and possessions are now restored to him. The former are endowed with still greater beauty and the number of the latter is doubled.</i> his friends and family are reconciled and Job lives out the rest of his long life in peace and contentment.
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  The Talmud (TB Berachot 17a) relates that whenever Rabbi Yochanan finished reading the Book of Job he would say: "The end of man is death and the beast’s end is slaughter; all are candidates for death. Happy is he who grew in Torah and labored in Torah; who gratifies his Maker’s spirit; who grows in repute and departs the world with a good name. Of such a one did Solomon say: <i>‘A good name is better than the finest oil; and the day of death than the day of birth’ (Ecclesiastes 7:1)</i>. 