Job · Chapter 11

Explanation of the words of this response — 'Then Zophar the Naamathite answered, and said.'

Introduction to the Sixth Speech — Zophar's Response After the first two disputing companions had agreed with Job's premise that if God watches over the world, it would be impossible for a righteous man to perish, and had only argued with him, each in his own way, that in fact no righteous man ever truly perishes, Zophar now comes and rejects that whole proposition. In his view, even though Hashem does watch over the world, it is conceivable that a righteous man perish, and there is no injustice at all if a righteous man perishes in his righteousness. This rests on what has been established through philosophical inquiry: that grasping things has two modes: • A] Grasping things as they are in themselves; • B] Knowing things as they are sensed. And it is known that we can never grasp things as they are in themselves, but only as they act upon our senses. Since all human knowledge and understanding comes by way of the senses — the intellect abstracting its concepts from the later back to the prior — and since the conditions by which the senses grasp things are not the true conditions of the things themselves, we cannot judge things as they are in themselves, but only by the relation their external surface bears to our senses, and to the conditions under which the senses experience their sensations — in time, in place, and in the other conditions of sense-perception. We cannot say that these are truly the inherent conditions of the things themselves. It follows that we can have no clear knowledge of anything at all, for we can only judge that we have grasped the outward appearance of a thing as it acted upon our senses, not that this is the thing as it is in itself. But an intellect stripped of matter, which grasps the essence of things through simple, direct knowledge and not by way of the senses, would see things in an entirely different way than we see them through our own instruments of perception — namely, the senses. Accordingly, though by the perception of the external senses it would be an injustice to see a righteous man perish, it need not be an injustice to the abstract intellect, which grasps the essence of things as they are in themselves — and this applies both to the subject, 'righteous,' and to the predicate, 'perish': • As regards the subject: we judge who is righteous by the impression our senses form of him. If we see him doing good and shunning evil, we judge him righteous. Yet it is conceivable that a man be righteous by the reckoning of the senses and nevertheless wicked as he truly is in himself. For we do not grasp a person as he is in himself, but only as he appears to us in his external body — which is the outer garment enclosing the essential person, the soul hidden beneath the body. We cannot know the nature of the soul, or what constitutes righteousness and wickedness with respect to it, since the senses cannot perceive the soul, which is man's true essence. So it may be that a man is righteous in the conduct of his body, and yet wicked in terms of the perfection required of his inner soul. • This also fits the view of the Sages that Job lived before the giving of the Torah, and that all of Job's righteousness was merely civil righteousness in matters between man and his fellow. But there are commandments and perfections necessary for the perfection of the soul that cannot be known through reason alone, nor achieved through a civil code that governs righteousness and wickedness only by reference to bodily conduct — and in this, Job did not perfect his soul. • This also fits what Ralbag wrote on this matter: that righteousness and wickedness are measured by what a person was capable of doing well according to his own particular disposition, for man was created to do what lies within his capacity according to his disposition. Accordingly, it may happen that people are considered good because they do good deeds as far as we can see, while in truth they fall far short of the good they were capable of doing according to their disposition — and for this they deserve severe punishment, since a minor sin should be reckoned a major one in proportion to the superiority of their disposition. On this assumption, we cannot argue that the evils that befall the righteous are unjust, for we do not know the measure of each person's particular disposition, and so it is hidden from us who is righteous and who is wicked. Nor do we know the measure of good or evil that each person deserves for his sin or his righteousness, so as to be able to say that if he did not receive that exact measure, He is not acting in order and justice. For the measure of good or evil that comes from the goodness or wickedness of one's deeds must vary according to each person's particular level of disposition, whether higher or lower — that is, the very same deed will bring a different reward depending on the level of the one who performed it: the greater his level, the smaller his reward for it, and the greater his punishment for an evil deed. All of this is included in what he says: 'And that He would tell you the secrets of wisdom, that sound wisdom is manifold! Know therefore that God exacts of you less than your iniquity deserves' (v. 6). • As regards the predicate, 'perish': we call 'perishing' only the loss of the physical body, for we have no grasp of the essential person — since, as explained above, our perception reaches only what is sensed, not the essence of things. In truth, it may be that a person's exterior perishes while his essence — his inner soul — is thereby made all the more fortunate and complete, rising to ever greater heights and strength. The outer pain the senses feel is no proof of an inner pain of the soul itself. The Sages have already explained that true reward and punishment do not lie in these sensible goods and evils; for the reward and punishment that befall a person as a human being ought to consist of human goods and evils, not goods and evils that are not human. And since human good consists in the well-being of the soul — for it is by this that a person is truly human, not by the enjoyment and well-being of the body, since nourishment and sensation belong to him as a living creature, not as a human being — and likewise human evil consists in the absence of the soul's perfection, which is its well-being, it is clear that reward and punishment lie in the well-being of the soul, or its absence, and this follows directly from good and evil deeds. So the good and evil that befall a person as a human being proceed in order and justice; and though the body perishes, the soul lives on, enduring and eternal, and receives its reward after death. Of this he says: 'you shall look about you, and shall take your rest in safety...' (vv. 15-19). As for the argument Job built up in chapter 10 to prove that man has no freedom in his actions — since, were that not so, Hashem could not know all the particular contingent events of the future, as explained at length in the preceding introduction — Zophar answers, in the words of Maimonides, that no analogy should be drawn between our knowledge and Hashem's knowledge. For just as the level of His existence is higher than the level of our existence, so the level of His knowledge is higher than the level of our knowledge. And this must be so, since His knowledge is identical with His very self: just as we cannot grasp His essence, so we cannot grasp His knowledge. The philosophers have already explained that the term 'knowledge' is applied to Hashem and to us only as a shared term, and it is clear that when things share only a name, no inference can be drawn from one to the other. Accordingly, the Guide for the Perplexed (Part 3, Chapter 20) explains that His knowledge differs from ours in five respects: • A] That His knowledge, though one in number, applies equally to many things that differ in kind; • B] That His knowledge extends even to what does not exist; • C] That His knowledge encompasses what has no limit; • D] That Hashem's knowledge of future contingent events does not make the known thing necessary; its opposite remains possible, so that alongside the knowledge, the nature of possibility and free choice remains intact; • E] That Hashem's knowledge does not change when something new comes into being among the things He knew before they occurred, even though the thing to which the knowledge relates has itself changed — having first been merely possible and then become actual. None of this can be pictured by our intellect or our wisdom, since the 'knowledge' spoken of with respect to us is not of the same kind as the 'knowledge' spoken of with respect to Him, and we cannot grasp His essence — for the very nature of this knowledge requires that it be unimaginable and incomprehensible to us. This can already be understood from what was said: that we grasp things only by means of the senses, and have no conception of the perception of an intellect stripped of matter, which grasps the essence of things moving from the prior to the subsequent — a wholly different kind of perception. All the more so, then, we cannot grasp the knowledge of Hashem, who is without limit. This is what he means: 'Can you find out the deep things of God? Can you attain to the purpose of the Almighty? It is high as heaven; what can you do? Deeper than the nether-world; what can you know? Its measure is longer than the earth, and broader than the sea' (vv. 7-9). On this basis he concludes that although Hashem knows every future particular, man still has choice and possibility in his actions, and man cannot raise the problem of knowledge and free will at all — arguing that if Hashem already knew he would sin, he was compelled to sin, so why should he be punished — for this is something we cannot possibly grasp (vv. 10-11). Yet nonetheless, it cannot be denied that man has free choice, on the basis of the feeling every person has within himself that whatever he wants and chooses to do, he has the ability to do, with no other force holding him back (v. 13). Now, if someone should ask why Hashem created man in this fashion, and why He did not create him so that he could grasp things as they are in themselves, and reason from the prior to the subsequent without the medium of the senses, and thus not be perplexed by these difficulties — to this he replies that this is like asking why Hashem did not give a donkey intelligence, so that it would be as intelligent as a man; for then there would be no such thing as a donkey in existence. So too, Hashem wanted there to be, in existence, a being called man, who is intellect bound to matter; had he been able to reason otherwise than through the senses, he would have been intellect stripped of matter, and there would be no man in existence (v. 12). 'Should not the multitude of words be answered?' — that is to say: I see no foundation or proof in your response by which you could win your case. Either you think that by heaping up words — replying, and replying again, over and over — you will wear out your opponents until they tire of answering you, and thereby win the debate; this is the meaning of 'Should not the multitude of words be answered?' Or you think that because you are a smooth talker, practiced in fine and eloquent speech, you will thereby be proven right; and to this he says, 'And should a man full of talk be accounted right?' In truth, only genuine evidence and genuine proofs entitle a disputant to prevail — not a multitude of words, nor an abundance of eloquence and pleasant speech.

Zophar’s Answer Should not...be answered by others because of the multitude of his words?

'Should not the multitude of words be answered?'

"The multitude of words" — Is it that whoever multiplies words will get no answer to them? Will an answer not be found even for the greater part of what he says? "And a man full of talk" — Is it that one who knows how to phrase his words in the finest speech will, for that alone, be deemed right?

"Be answered" — From the language of response and answer.

Your fabrications that you invent from your heart. may silence men Heb. מתים, people.

'Your boastings' — like 'your lies,' from the phrase 'which he devised in his own heart' (1 Kings 12:33).

'Your boastings' — meaning your lies.

"Your boastings" — The words you invent out of your own mind silence people, so that they do not protest your complaints, for they assume you have spoken rightly and that the truth is with you. Because of this you go on mocking God to His face, since there is no one to shame you over it.

"Your boastings" — Falsehood invented from the heart, as in "you invent them out of your own mind" (Nehemiah 6). [Source cites ch. 10; the phrase is verified in Nehemiah 6:8 - likely a scan/citation slip.] "Men" — [Meaning] people, as in "men of few number" (Genesis 34).

'Your boastings' — that is, if your boastings and your lofty thoughts silence men, it is because these are weak men, unschooled in deep inquiry, who are overcome by your boastings and fall silent, unable to find a reply — and therefore 'you have mocked,' since there is none to put you to shame by answering you a word — and therefore...

You said to the Holy One, blessed be He, ‘My doctrine is pure, and I was clean in Your eyes.’

'My doctrine' — meaning my rule, and the conduct by which I conduct myself. 'And I am clean' — meaning pure.

"And you have said, my doctrine is pure" — You say to God: behold, the teaching and practice of my way is pure and clear, and even in Your eyes I am innocent and clean — meaning, You know that justice is on my side, yet You withhold my due reward.

"My doctrine" — An expression of teaching and practice, as in "who use their own tongues" (Jeremiah 23). "And clean" — Clear and clean.

'And you have said' — you dare to say, 'my doctrine is pure': that your doctrine, and the teachings you have put forth to deny [divine] providence and free will, are something pure and clear. Second, you say, 'I am clean in Your eyes': that you yourself are pure and cleared of guilt, that you did not sin, and that you were punished for nothing. All this you can say before men poor in wisdom and weak in understanding.

"But oh that God would speak" — But in truth, would that God would speak with you, and open His lips to debate with you.

'But oh that God would speak' — meaning: • A) If it could be imagined that God would speak as a person speaks, with mouth and lips, like you — though in truth this cannot be imagined of Hashem, who does not speak through physical organs — this is a second point: that He would open His lips to speak with you, for even were He to speak, it would be far-fetched that He speak with a lowly person like you. And then —

mysteries of wisdom and you would know that the wisdom is double, i.e., the Torah that you did not fulfill. that [God] lends Heb. ישה, like (Deut.24: 10), “If you lend (תשה) your friend.” He has yet a large debt over you in the matters of your iniquity.

'Manifold' — [wisdom] that people do not know. 'Exacts' — meaning 'forgets.' And some say it is from the root of 'when you make a loan to your neighbor' (Deuteronomy 24:10), used here in an extended sense.

'That sound wisdom is manifold' [tushiyah] — meaning: according to the rule and order by which punishments are arranged from it, offense by offense. 'Know therefore that God exacts of you less than your iniquity deserves' — meaning: Hashem has hidden from you, and made you forget, many things in which you have gone astray, so that you do not reckon that you bear any iniquity for them. But he says this because he observed that a person sins whenever he does not constantly strive to gain understanding and knowledge of Hashem to the best of his ability; and therefore you consider yourself righteous when in fact you are a sinner. This manner of reasoning is as though Hashem had hidden it from man — meaning that He did not create him with the capacity to attain this. For man, owing to his limitation in fully apprehending himself, does not know what good he is capable of doing — the good which, in Zophar's view, he sins by falling short of. But Hashem, who created him, knows his nature and knows what good he is capable of doing, and punishes him if he falls short of it. Or perhaps the word 'yasheh' means 'lends,' and 'of your iniquity' means 'of your punishment,' along the lines of 'my iniquity is greater than can be borne' (Genesis 4:13) — the sense being that Hashem lends on your behalf and defers your punishment until an appointed time, unwilling to exact it from you all at once, lest He kill you.

"The secrets of wisdom" — The hidden secrets of wisdom, which require that punishment come for every sin a person commits. "That sound wisdom is manifold" — For according to the wisdom of the Torah, you actually deserve twice the suffering that has come upon you; but none of it is forgiven — know that He has only advanced you a loan against your iniquities, and you will receive the recompense for the rest afterward; for now, it stands with you as a loan.

"Sound wisdom" — This is what the wisdom of the Torah is called; it is from the language of "yesh" [existence, substance], because it endures forever and does not revert to nothingness, as other things do. "Exacts" — [Meaning] lends, as in "that he lends to his neighbor" (Deuteronomy 15:2).

'And that He would tell you the secrets of wisdom, that sound wisdom is manifold' — everything that exists and is found is doubled, folded half upon half; that is, existing things divide into two [aspects]: • A) as they are in their own essence; and • B) as they are perceived and grasped by our senses. For we perceive from things only their outward, incidental features, as they act upon our senses, and from this we cannot judge the essential nature of things as they are in themselves, apart from the relation between their outer surface and our senses — since the conditions by which the senses grasp things are time and place, and these are not conditions of the things in their own essence. Accordingly, it is impossible for us to attain any clear grasp of how a thing truly is in itself, only of how it appears to us through its effect upon our senses. But one who grasps the essence of things through intellectual knowledge — not by way of the senses, but by way of what the intellect, abstracted from matter, can comprehend — he will understand the 'secrets of wisdom,' knowing the true nature and reality of things; for everything that exists is doubled, and its essence and reality differ from its outward, sense-perceived aspect. And then — know that 'God exacts of you less than your iniquity deserves': if you could grasp the hidden essence of man as he truly is, not as he is perceived by the external senses, you would know that you are not righteous. For although outwardly, by what is revealed of you, you are wholehearted and upright and without blemish, one cannot judge from the senses — which cannot grasp the essence of things — that this is so; for it may well be that, according to your inner soul, which is the essence of man, you are wicked. Since you did not perfect your soul as it ought to be perfected, seeing that it is a distinct, holy, angelic entity, and you did not do everything within your power to do, in keeping with the great capacity of your soul — this is counted against you as a sin, and for this you are punished. Even though it seems to you that you are righteous by your outward, visible self, you are wicked by your hidden self, which is folded beneath the outward, visible self.

Can you find out the mystery of God that you think that you have fulfilled everything?

"Can you find out" — Why do you complain about the misfortunes of the righteous and the good fortune of the wicked? Can you find out the depths of Hashem's judgment? As if to say: do you know who deserves to be called righteous and who is to be reckoned wicked? It all depends on the measure of a person's innate capacity: one whose capacity is great, yet who falls short in the service of God, is not accounted righteous; while one whose capacity is small — for him, any deed at all is reckoned as much. And who knows the secrets of the heart, whose capacity is great and whose is small? And Zophar seems to be passing judgment on Job's sufferings, as though they came because he fell short in wisdom even though his capacity was great. "Can you attain to the purpose of the Almighty" — As if to say: even if you have gained the wisdom to know something, can you attain to the ultimate end?

'Can you find out the deep things of God' — he now comes to answer the arguments Job raised in the previous chapter: that Hashem cannot know the particulars that depend on free choice, both because this would entail change in His knowledge, and because He does not perceive by way of the senses; and likewise the difficulty of [foreknowledge and] free will — from all of which Job argued that man's deeds are determined and he has no free choice over his actions, so that it becomes conceivable for a righteous man to perish, since he receives no reward for his righteousness, as explained above at length. To this Zophar responds that we cannot grasp Hashem's knowledge, just as we cannot grasp His essence; for just as His essence is utterly hidden from us, so is His knowledge, which is [one with] His essence, and there is no comparison at all between His knowledge and ours. It is therefore conceivable that He knows in advance all things that depend on free choice, and yet the nature of the possible remains intact, and man remains free in his actions. This is the meaning of 'can you find out the deep things of God?' He goes on to explain that man cannot grasp matters of divinity — • A) whether with respect to the very nature of comprehension — since the foundations of human understanding derive from observation and sense-perception, man cannot render an intellectual judgment to know matters of divinity, for these cannot be grasped by the senses, and therefore the proofs of the intellect cannot be applied to them; for even the concept of cause and effect, and the methods by which the intellect operates in its reasoning, hold true only for things perceived by the senses, not for matters of divinity. This is the meaning of 'can you find out the deep things of God,' • B) or with respect to the extent of comprehension — since Hashem is without limit, man, whose intellect is bounded and finite, cannot grasp Him; for that would mean attaining an unlimited comprehension within a finite span, which is self-contradictory. This is the meaning of 'can you attain to the purpose of the Almighty.'

[In] the heights of heaven [About] something that is as high as the heights of heaven, what can you do? And the wisdom is deeper than the grave.

'Deeper than the nether-world' — referring to the counsel of the Omnipresent; or it refers back to 'sound wisdom' (Job 11:6).

"It is high as heaven" — Behold, God's ordering of recompense for the wicked and for the good is as high as the heights of heaven; what then can you do to grasp its truth? And it is deeper than Sheol — what can you know of it?

'It is high as heaven' — he continues to explain his words: there are two paths of intellectual apprehension — • A) the path of abstraction, and • B) the path of specification. And to grasp Hashem, one must travel both of these paths without limit. For by the path of abstraction, one must arrive, through ever-greater abstracting, at the absolute One, utterly simple — and the human intellect has no power to attain so lofty a comprehension; this is the meaning of 'it is high as heaven; what can you do?' Likewise, by the path of specification, one must arrive, through ever-greater specifying, at every possible attribute — for it is a condition of Divinity that it include every perfection that is possible, and these are without limit, so that here too it is impossible for man to attain the fullness of this comprehension; this is the meaning of 'deeper than the nether-world; what can you know?'

its measure Heb. מדה, its measure, but here he mentions measure with a masculine noun (since he did not say, מדתה).

'Its measure' — meaning its dimension: the extent between the height and the depth; or perhaps it refers back to the wisdom of Hashem mentioned earlier, in 'that He would tell you the secrets of wisdom.'

"Its measure is longer than the earth" — The measure of that order is longer than the earth and broader than the sea that encircles the world; how then could it possibly be grasped by the mind's own wisdom?

'Its measure is longer than the earth' — and since the comprehension of Divinity includes both of these [paths] — for He is the absolute One, utterly simple, and yet, at the same time, He includes every perfection and the whole of existence — and between these two there is a limitless distance, which the finite human intellect is incapable of grasping. This is the meaning of 'its measure is longer than the earth, and broader than the sea.'

If He passes and confines with pains the one He wishes, and He assembles all His divine ministers to justify His act in having confined. who among them can hinder Him with words to find injustice in His act? And if because the One being judged is tranquil and silent for many days, that is His way.

'If He pass by' — from the same root as the phrase 'all mortal men' [benei chalof, i.e., transient beings]. 'Or gather in' — this is the opposite [of 'pass by'].

'Pass by' — meaning: cuts off. 'And shut up' — meaning: and places in confinement, in a prison house. 'Or gather in' — meaning: that He gathers people together in one place or one province, without putting them under confinement.

"If He pass by" — Therefore, even if many people are found who are equal in their transgression, they will nonetheless be punished with differing punishments: one of them He will cut off from the world, another He will confine in the prison of suffering, and yet others He will gather together and shut up in custody. Yet for all this, there is no one who can challenge the recompense of His repayment.

'pass by' — he passes away from the world; so too, 'until my relief comes' (below, 14:14). 'or gather in' — he gathers together, as in 'and Moses assembled' (Exodus 35:1).

(Verses 10–11) ‘If He pass by’ — following the premise he had laid down, that it is impossible for man to grasp anything at all of the Divine, he says: if so, how can man grasp His knowledge of His own essence, which is not of the same kind as our knowledge at all? For with Hashem it is conceivable that He knows all the particulars of future events, and yet free choice remains in man's hand — for although these are contradictory matters according to our understanding, nevertheless both hold true together with respect to God, since His knowledge is of a different kind from man's knowledge. So then: if Hashem passes by and removes one of His creatures from the world, or shuts him up in a prison-house — that is, brings sufferings upon him — and gathers together all the people of the world to ask them whether He judged with righteousness and honesty, who could answer Him back that He knew men of falsehood [in advance]? Who could respond and argue against Him, saying: Did He not already know the man of falsehood, and did He not already know beforehand that he would sin, so that he was necessarily compelled to sin, since Hashem already knew he would sin, and foreknowledge removes free choice? And He has already seen iniquity, [though it seems] He does not take note of it — meaning, He already saw that so-and-so would sin in the future, yet acted as though He were not taking note, as if free choice still remained in man's hand, to sin or not to sin. Why then did the sinner pass away from the world, or suffer for nothing, if he was compelled to sin? Who could give Him this answer? Surely no one could be found able to answer in such a way, since man cannot grasp what Hashem's knowledge is like. For Hashem knows everything, and yet free choice remains in man's hand, as it is said, ‘All is foreseen, yet freedom of choice is given’ (Avot 3:15). So then the world is judged well, and He judges rightly in passing by and shutting up the wicked, even though man cannot grasp how this can be. And if you ask why Hashem created man in such a way that he can grasp things only through the senses, and knows nothing at all of the knowledge of the Divine or the knowledge of the essence of things — so much so that he does not even know his own soul and the truth of his own being — and why He did not create him so that he could grasp and understand like an intellect abstracted from matter, which grasps everything by simple apprehension, from the prior to the posterior — this is what he goes on to say:

For He knows deceitful people; when He sees iniquity, He does not consider it [He sees the iniquity] that they commit for days and years, and it seems as though He does not consider it because He is slow to anger.

'And when He sees iniquity, will He not then consider it' — He sees the wickedness and has no need to deliberate over it [He perceives it at once].

'And when He sees iniquity, will He not then consider it' — meaning: He sees a man of iniquity, and one who does not consider Hashem's ways so as to gain understanding and knowledge of Him — for that too is iniquity. Or perhaps the sense is that Hashem knows men of falsehood and deceit, and 'sees iniquity' means one who has erred in his reasoning; and He likewise knows the man who does not consider so as to understand His ways. Thus he mentions here two kinds of folly: the folly that is an acquired state — one who has erred in his reasoning — and the folly that is a mere privation — one who does not strive to reflect upon the nature of existing things. And 'sees' would then carry the sense of intellectual apprehension, as in 'my heart has seen much wisdom and knowledge' (Ecclesiastes 1:16).

"For He knows" — That is to say: if, in man's estimation, all transgressors appear equal in their transgression, that is only because man does not know the measure of each individual's innate capacity. But God, blessed be He, does know the ‘men of falsehood’ — that is, who they are that transgressed knowingly and falsely, for they understood the transgression and dealt falsely with themselves, acting out of the desire of their heart; and He knows who is the one that saw iniquity in his own heart and erred in his thinking, saying there is no transgression here, though he could have arrived at the truth, since the measure of his capacity was great but he fell short in wisdom; and He knows who is the one who does not consider at all, because his heart is devoid of understanding and he did wrong for lack of knowledge. He brings all of them into judgment, and accordingly renders to each one the judgment fitting for him — for in truth they are not equal in their transgression.

But an empty man a hollow man, without a heart [i.e., understanding], who did not understand His way. will gain understanding Heb. ילבב, he will gain for himself a heart [i.e., understanding] to return to his Creator and to search through his deeds—or [he will remain] a man who was like a wild donkey, accustomed to the desert, hasty, without sense. a man will be born He will teach himself to be a new man according to the order of people, and he will determine his way.

'An empty man' [navuv] — like 'hollow, with planks' (Exodus 27:8). 'Will get understanding' [yilvav] — he acquires a heart, that is, wisdom, as in 'he who heeds reproof gets understanding' [konei lev] (Proverbs 15:32). 'And a wild ass's colt' — 'colt' [ir] is the ordinary word for a colt, and 'wild' [pere] describes a human being at the time he is born; and similarly, 'like a docile lamb' (Jeremiah 11:19). Rabbi Moshe said, regarding the word 'cheled' [in verse 17]: it is like 'chaludah' [rust, tarnish] in the language of our Sages, and the sense is that the tarnish will be reversed and it will shine brighter than noon. But the correct view is that 'your cheled' means 'your span of time'; 'it shall rise' means it shall be established, like 'the house shall stand' (Leviticus 25:30). 'Though there be darkness' [ta'ufah] — some say it means 'you shall look,' as in 'will you set your eyes upon it' (Proverbs 23:5). Others say that this word is from the root of 'ayefah,' darkness (cf. Job 10:22), and this is correct. The sense is: if you repent, your span of life will stand firm like the noonday sun, and in the time of darkness it will return like the morning — in the sense of 'he shall return to the days of his youth' (Job 33:25); you shall be renewed like the eagle's youth (Psalms 103:5).

'Empty' — meaning hollow. 'Will get understanding' — meaning: will become wise. 'A wild ass's colt' — read as 'a colt, and a wild ass' — meaning that he is comparable to an animal at the time of his birth.

"But an empty man" — for even the fool, empty of wisdom, though he brought his own trouble upon himself through lack of knowledge, will nonetheless surely be punished; for it is fitting for an empty man, devoid of wisdom, to acquire a heart — to strive after wisdom, to understand the ways of Hashem. For every man, when he is born, is like a wild ass’s colt, without wisdom; but once he prepares his heart, he gains understanding. So too it is fitting for every empty man to prepare his heart, to accustom himself to wisdom.

'empty' — hollow and vacant, as in 'hollow, with boards' (Exodus 27:8). 'will get understanding' — from the word lev ('heart'); that is, he will acquire a heart [i.e., understanding]. 'colt' — this is what a donkey is called while young; so too, 'a colt, the foal of a she-donkey' (Zechariah 9:9). 'wild ass' — the wild donkey.

But an empty man will get understanding — that is, if you ask: should not an empty man get a heart? For the empty, hollow man, who has no heart to grasp the abstractions removed from matter, ought to be given a heart — an understanding mind — to know all these things. And why did Hashem withhold this understanding from man? To this he answers: when a wild ass's colt is born a man — that is, you might just as well ask why Hashem created the wild ass to be a wild ass, and why He did not create it with an intellect like man's. And just as this question would not trouble you in that case, know that Hashem gave to every kind of matter the form that matter is fit to receive; and the matter of the wild ass is not fit to receive the form of intellect, and likewise the matter of man is not fit to grasp abstractions removed from matter, for it is fit to grasp only through the senses and empirical observation. And had He created man to grasp things like an intellect abstracted from matter, he would necessarily have been an intellect abstracted from matter, and would have been an angel, not a man. And just as it is impossible for a wild ass's colt to be born a man, so it is impossible for an empty man to get understanding.

If you would aim your heart after your pains. and spread out your hands to Him in supplication.

"If you" — if you set your heart aright, meaning: if you broaden your heart in wisdom to the full measure of your capacity, and spread out your hands to Hashem, to have your sin removed for whatever you have fallen short in until now, in wisdom and in the service of God, in proportion to your capacity.

If you set your heart aright — and yet nevertheless, from the standpoint of empirical observation, you can verify that free choice is in man's hand, and that man is not compelled in his actions. For you will see: if you prepare your heart to desire to do some thing, then you stretch out your hands toward it — you will see immediately that you stretch out your hands in obedience to your heart. That is, your hands stand at once ready, spread out to obey the heart, to do whatever the heart desires to do, so that your heart rules over your hands, and you are not coerced by any compelling force — neither over the desire of the heart, which is why it says if you set your heart aright, [meaning] that you yourself prepare it toward the desire, not by compulsion; nor over the hands that act, for they are spread out toward the heart to do according to its will and choice. And by this you can verify and see that you are free in your actions, and that the choice is in your hand to do good or evil. And so —

Distance iniquity from your hand, and do not allow injustice to dwell in your tents.

"If iniquity" — if there is any matter of transgression in your hand, put it far away from yourself and abandon it, and let not unrighteousness dwell in your tents; for you shall indeed send it away from you.

If iniquity be in your hand, put it far away — for the choice is in your hand to put iniquity far away. And not only should you put it far from your hand, but let not unrighteousness dwell even in your tents.

For then you would be sure that you could lift your face unblemished, for you would cause yourself to lift your face without any blemish. Because of this... and you shall be strong Heb. מצק, strong, like (I Sam. 2:8), “the pillars of (מצקי) the earth,”

'You shall lift up your face without spot' — meaning: you shall remove yourself from the blemish of the illnesses and afflictions with which you have been stricken. 'Steadfast' — meaning: strong.

"Surely then" — when you act accordingly, then you shall lift up your face upward, without blemish. Meaning: you will no longer walk bent over with your face down, and even your pain will be healed, and you will be without blemish. "Indeed, you shall be steadfast" — from then on you will be strong, and you will not fear any terror, for it will not come near you.

'steadfast' — firm, like something cast from molten metal.

Surely then you shall lift up your face without spot — only then will your face be lifted up without a spot upon it, for if you commit iniquity and injustice, the spot will be found upon your face, since you committed the sin by your own choice. And then you shall be steadfast and firm, master over yourself, and shall not fear, for you are free in your actions, and you can do good and righteousness if you put iniquity and injustice far away by your own choice.

and you shall forget all your trouble. like water that has passed and gone by, so shall be the entire memory of your trouble.

'You shall forget your misery' — meaning: you shall forget the trouble of the misfortunes that came upon you.

"For you shall forget your misery" — the misery that was yours you will forget, because of the abundance of good that comes to you, and only a little of it will remain in your memory — like water that has flowed on from its place, whose memory remains only faintly in people's hearts. Because of this your heart will be lifted up, and you will no longer walk bent over.

For you — he explains to him yet another new point: that a righteous man can indeed be conceived as perishing in his body, and yet this is no injustice on God's part, for the sufferings that occur in this sensible world and that affect the body are not true sufferings, and the loss of the body is no true loss. For the essence of man is the soul, which is clothed in the body, and it is refined through sufferings so that it may return to its dwelling-place and receive its reward in the eternal world, where the true essence of reward and punishment lies. This is why it says, for you shall forget your misery — he is precise in saying ‘you,’ referring to the essence of his own being, which is his spiritual soul, the true essence of man. At the time when it strips off the garment of matter from itself, it will forget the toil and the sufferings that the body endured. And conversely, you shall remember it as waters that are passed away — you will remember the toil and the sufferings the way one remembers the waters that passed by and flooded the land: for although at the time of the flood it seemed a great evil, nevertheless the following year they will remember it for good, since the waters fatten the land and moisten it to yield fruit and produce. (As our Sages said, in the chapter ‘HaRo'eh’: one blesses over the bad just as over the good, if his field was flooded — for even though it is bad at the time, it is ultimately good, since the soil accumulates silt (TB Brachot 60a).) So too, the sufferings you had in this world will turn out to be for your good in the life of souls.

And your luck shall rise more than midday Heb. חלד. More than the light of midday, חֶלֶד shall rise for you, i.e., luck and time, like (Ps. 39:6), “and my age (חלדי) is as nothing before You.” Another explanation: יקום חָלֶד: means, The light of your rust shall rise; i.e., your darkest place shall illuminate more than the light of midday. I heard this, but the first [explanation] does not please me (not found in some editions). your darkness Heb. תעפה. Your darkness shall be like the morning. Another explanation: תָּעֻפָה is an expression of (3:8) “the rays of (עפעפי) dawn.” Because, if it is an expression of darkness, he should have said, “תעוּפה” like תנוּפה, waving, תקוּמה rising, תרוּמה, raising, תנוּמה, slumber.

'Though there be darkness' [te'ufah] — meaning: it shall shine and give light.

"And your life shall be clearer" — a time more radiant than the noon hour will arise for you. "Though there be darkness" — the time of darkness will be transformed to become as bright as the light of morning.

'life' — time, as in 'and my lifetime is as nothing before You' (Psalms 39:6). 'darkness' — a term for darkness.

And your life shall be clearer than the noonday — the term used is ‘cheled.’ This cheled, the new world that arises after this world, which is the life of the World to Come, will arise from the noonday, from the place of light — not as in this world, which arose from a place of darkness and the shadow of death. Though there be darkness, it shall be as the morning — at the very moment of the ‘eyelids of dawn,’ it will at once become like morning; even though, at the time when the dawn is still faint, it is still night in this world, then it will already be morning — the opposite of what Job said, ‘the land is obscured, like thick darkness’ (Job 10:22). For when the night of the life of this world departs, the sun of the eternal light hidden away in the World to Come will shine forth.

'Indeed, you shall look about you' — as if you dug a trench encircling yourself, like the moats dug around the walls of a city.

"And you shall be secure" — you will dwell securely, for there is hope of dwelling securely when you act accordingly. "Indeed, you shall look about you" — as though you had dug a deep trench around yourself so that nothing could come near you; so you will lie down in safety, with none to disturb you.

And you shall be secure — through this you have security regarding the fleeting life of this world, which is lost, for there is hope for a life better than this one, and for eternal pleasantness. And you shall look about you — [reading it as 'you shall dig'] for after you dig yourself a grave, in any event you shall lie down securely.

"Also you shall lie down" — and when you lie down to rest, there will be no one to frighten you. "Many" — the great ones of the people will entreat you to fulfill their requests, once it is in your power to do so.

'you shall lie down' — a term for lying down to rest. 'shall make suit' — they will ask and entreat. 'many' — great men, as in 'and the king's nobles' (Jeremiah 41:1).

Also you shall lie down — there, in safety, with none to terrify you; not like this world, where the sources of terror abound — desires, the battles of the evil inclination, and the mishaps of the world that terrify the soul. Indeed, many shall make suit to you — as people pray at the graves of the righteous.

And the eyes of the wicked your enemies, will fail when they turn to your troubles to see, but will not achieve their desire. Every expression of כליון עינים failure of the eyes, in the holy tongue means one who looks forward to see something but does not achieve [his wish], and as (Deut. 28:32) “and languish (כלות) for them etc.” way to flee Heb. מנוס. That is a refuge and their hope What they hope to see in you will be intense grief for them.

'From them' [מנהם] — equivalent to מהם [the ordinary form]. 'The drooping' [מפח] — [connotes] worry and grief. Explanation of the words of the response: Zophar the Naamathite answered and said: Do you think that because of the abundance of your words I will be kept from answering, or do you imagine that you will be proven right in your falsehoods because you have so many words? In truth, you have multiplied lies to the point that your lies silence people, so that they can find no reply, and you have hurled many mockeries against Hashem, and not one of my companions has rebuked you for it. And you have said that the conduct by which you have conducted yourself is pure, and that you are clear and clean in the eyes of Hashem — if indeed He watches over such matters at all. But would that God Himself spoke, and opened His lips with you, and told you the hidden things of wisdom and its secrets — from which it follows how punishment comes for each act of rebellion, in the measure due for it. For according to that order and system, it would be fitting for Hashem to bring upon you evil twice over what He has already brought. And know that Hashem, as it were, extends you credit and holds back your punishment until an appointed time, because He does not wish to exact it all from you at once, lest it kill you — and so He wishes to bring upon you evil after evil, in a measure you are able to bear, and this is what you complained of in your words. Or the intent may be this: you complain of the abundance of the pains that have come upon you, but in truth you deserve twice as much more than this, according to the divine order by which punishment is arranged for each act of rebellion — and therefore you should not feel confident that the hand of Hashem has yet been lifted from you. Now, out of your folly regarding this order, you imagine that Hashem has wronged you by making your afflictions so extraordinary and so many — but that is not so. Know also that you have sinned much, even though you are not aware of it; for you may well have iniquities that Hashem knows to be iniquities, while the fact that they are iniquities remains hidden and concealed from you. And so you imagine that the punishment that has come upon you came though there was no violence in your hands — but that is not so. This is because Zophar held that Hashem punishes a person who falls short of doing the good that is within his power to do — for example, one who falls short of reflecting on Hashem's works and ways to the extent of his ability. And this measure is not known to a person, since he does not know his own nature perfectly, and therefore he cannot gauge what good is within his power to do. Hashem, however, who created him, does know this. And since this is so, folly overtakes you in this inquiry from two directions. The first is that you do not know the measures of punishment appropriate to each act of rebellion, since the measure of the rebellion itself is hidden from us; and sometimes an act that seems to us the lighter rebellion is in fact graver before Hashem — so that we marvel at how a man who committed what seems the lesser transgression received the greater punishment. The second is that there are many people whom you take to be innocent, yet they are wicked, because they fell short of doing the good that was within their power. It is also possible to say that the intent of his words, 'and would tell you the secrets of wisdom,' and so on, is that it is impossible for a person to know who is truly righteous and who is truly wicked. For a person's deeds must correspond to his readiness to receive perfection if he is to be counted righteous by them. Therefore, one who was capable of receiving a great share of perfection, but did not proceed to receive that degree of perfection — attaining instead a lesser perfection than what he was capable of — is wicked in the eyes of Hashem; whereas one who received only a very small share of perfection, yet was not capable of receiving more than that, is righteous in the eyes of Hashem. And this particular readiness, unique to each individual, is hidden from us; and so we take the wicked to be righteous, and the righteous to be wicked, because we do not know what each one of them was capable of receiving by way of perfection. Therefore Zophar said that if Hashem could reveal to Job the hidden wisdom of this readiness with which he was created, Job would know that he ought to have received twice the perfection he actually received, given that readiness — and so Job thinks himself righteous when in truth he is wicked. And his statement about God exacting from him less than his iniquity deserves is to be explained according to the first interpretation we gave, and this is the interpretation we find fitting for this verse. So how can you imagine that this order, by which Hashem apportions good and evil to human individuals, is anything but just? Do you have wisdom like the wisdom of Hashem, that you should know the degree of each person's readiness, and so know what is fitting for them to receive from Hashem in good and evil for their deeds — so that, when the matter does not turn out as you expect, you conclude that this is injustice? In truth, it is impossible for a person to know this, for man cannot fathom the depths of God, nor can he grasp Hashem to the utmost limit of comprehension — so how could you possibly grasp the nature of Hashem's wisdom? Indeed, you cannot even grasp His works: you cannot grasp the height that reaches the heavens, nor the depth that is deeper than Sheol — that is, the center of the earth. The distance between that height and that depth is longer than the earth, and this distance is not a single line alone but has a breadth greater than any ordinary breadth, since it extends on every side from the center to the heavens. And if you cannot even fully grasp the height and depth that Hashem has made — that is, you do not know its length and breadth, or the points where it ends — how could you know the wisdom of Hashem? It is also possible to say that the intent here is: how could you possibly grasp the nature of that wisdom from which this order, found among human individuals in good and evil, derives? For it is as high above you as the wondrous height of the heavens, deeper than Sheol, longer in measure than the earth, and broader than the sea that encircles the earth. For if Hashem metes out to people differing punishments for their rebellions — so that some He cuts off, some He punishes by confinement and imprisonment without destroying them, and some He does not punish by confinement at all but instead gathers and assembles into one place or one country — who is there who could answer back and accuse Him of injustice in His governance, for making the punishment heavier on some than on others, even though, as far as appearances go, their rebellion seems equal? Or who could conclude, when only a little punishment reaches someone, that his rebellion must have been light; or conclude, when more punishment reaches him than expected, that he must be innocent and upright? These are the sources of the confusion and perplexity in this matter — yet none of them can be used to charge Hashem with injustice. For He knows the men of falsehood and deceit, and punishes them for their evil deeds; and He also knows the one whose heart perceives iniquity in his reasoning — meaning, if he erred in his reasoning, He punishes him for his negligence in failing to investigate matters properly, so that this error befell him. And He also knows the one who does not consider Hashem's ways so as to gain understanding and knowledge of Him, and punishes him for his folly. For man is created hollow and empty, yet equipped to gain understanding, so that he should take Hashem's ways to heart and understand them — for at birth he is like the beasts, devoid of knowledge. Hashem has given him his perfection in potential, and has provided him with the faculties by which he can bring that potential into actuality; and so he is punished if he does not strive toward it as he ought. Therefore, much of this remains hidden from us, and we take the wicked to be righteous and the righteous to be wicked; for one whom we have never seen commit wickedness or violence, we take to be innocent and righteous — yet he is not innocent and righteous in the reckoning of Hashem unless he has done the good that was possible for him according to his readiness. And so it may happen that we judge people's rebellion to be equal when it is not equal at all, since the readiness of one person differs from that of another. For the measure of the rebellion is proportioned to the degree of one's readiness — I mean that the very same shameful act is a grave rebellion when done by one whose readiness is very complete, and only a minor rebellion when done by one whose readiness is very deficient. And on account of this we take what is actually just to be unjust — and to this is added the fact that the punishment appropriate to each particular rebellion is hidden from us. Sometimes what we think deserves a lighter punishment in fact deserves a heavier one, and on this account we conclude that there is no order at all in these matters. Now, if you set your heart toward Hashem and spread out your hands to Him — meaning that you draw near to Him, to the extent of your ability, by coming to understand His ways; or the intent may be that if you set your heart to return to Hashem to the extent of your ability, and pray to Him to the extent of your ability that He show you mercy — then you would put iniquity far from your hand, if it is in your hand, whether that iniquity is in your beliefs or in your deeds. Putting away iniquity in belief means abandoning corrupt beliefs; putting away iniquity in deed means restoring to each person what is rightfully his, so that no injustice dwells in your tents. Then you would remove yourself from these pains and afflictions with which you have been stricken, and you would be strong and unafraid. Indeed, the wealth and children you toiled for and lost, you would forget, so that just as water passes quickly away, so would your memory of these things that befell you pass away when you recalled them. A better time would come to you, brighter and more radiant than noonday, and your light would keep growing, so that you would be like the morning, whose light grows stronger the longer it lasts. And you would trust, for there would be hope — meaning that you would no longer fear losing your possessions as you once did, but would instead have hope and confidence that they would be preserved, and fear would be lifted from you — so much so that even if you were to dig and camp in an open field, without fence or shelter, you would lie down there in safety and take your rest, with none to frighten you; and such would be the greatness of your success that many important people would come to seek your favor. The wicked, however, even when they enjoy success, live all their days in sorrow and fear, until their eyes fail from the abundance of their sorrow and their fear; they find no escape, for they find no place they can trust, and they have no hope that good will come to them — instead, they expect evil, and live in dread of it, until their spirit expires from anxiety. The general principle that emerges from these words is that Zophar agrees with Bildad in holding that the good and evil that befall human individuals are all bounded and ordered by Hashem according to each person's deeds. He differs from Bildad, however, in how he resolves the difficulty that arises for this position from the apparent disorder found empirically in the fortunes, good and bad, of individual people. Bildad resolved this difficulty by saying that what we take to be evil among the events that befall the innocent is in fact good, and what comes as good fortune to the wicked is in fact evil, even if we fail to perceive it as such. Zophar, however, resolved this difficulty by saying that the apparent disorder we observe in these goods and evils results from our own failure to grasp the truth of the matter. For Zophar holds that there exist particular forms of readiness unique to each individual, and that a person's deeds must correspond to the degree of his readiness if he is to be counted righteous by them. When he falls short of this, he is wicked, because he has fallen short of doing the good that was possible for him — even though we may observe that he has done nothing shameful, that all his deeds were good, and so we take him to be righteous and marvel at how these evils came upon him. It may indeed happen that we find a man who does only a little good and is nevertheless righteous, because he was never capable of receiving more perfection than that measure; yet we judge him not to be righteous, on account of the little good found in his deeds, and so we marvel at the abundance of good fortune that reaches him. And we should understand shameful deeds the same way: one whose readiness is deficient incurs only a light punishment for a very shameful act, because that act deprives him only of the lesser perfection he was capable of; whereas one whose readiness is complete incurs a heavy punishment for the very same shameful act, because it deprives him of the honorable perfection he was capable of. Since this is so, our failure to grasp the truth about these goods and evils — how the matter ought properly to stand — stems from two directions. The first is that we do not know the nature of Hashem's wisdom, from which follows the measure of punishment for each particular rebellion; and so we marvel when someone who, in our estimation, rebelled only a little, is seen to receive more punishment than someone who, in our estimation, went much further in rebellion. The second is that a person may have iniquity and transgression that we do not perceive at all, so that we marvel at how evil comes upon him. For Zophar holds that there is indeed rebellion when a person fails to strive after rational understanding to the extent possible for him, or when he arrives at a mistaken view in matters of reasoning because he failed to investigate things properly, as he should have — since Hashem created him a rational being for this very purpose. In general, then, it is rebellion in Zophar's view whenever a person falls short of doing the good that was possible for him given his readiness; and it is evident that, judged this way, many will be found wicked whom we fail to perceive as such. Since this is so, it is unavoidable that we find people whose rebellion appears equal to us and yet whose punishments from Hashem differ remarkably — so that some He kills, some He punishes by confinement, and some do not even suffer confinement but are merely gathered and assembled into one city or country. The reason for this is that when we judge their rebellion to be equal, it in fact differs greatly, though we fail to perceive it. As for the good fortune that appears to come to some of the wicked, Zophar resolves this difficulty by saying that they do not escape evil at all; for whatever success they enjoy, they live in constant fear that disaster will strike them, and are perpetually fearful and heartsick — and this punishment suffices for them, given the low degree of their readiness. He further says, later on, that even if they themselves escape punishment, their children after them will be punished — and this too, in his view, suffices as punishment for them, since good whose end is evil is itself evil. Now that this has been established, let us note that this book has already set forth every possible position on this controversy that could occur to a thoughtful person, with each of the disputants taking up a distinct one of them. For the matter necessarily divides as follows: either everything a person receives, of good and evil, is bounded and ordered by Hashem according to his deeds; or nothing that a person receives, of good and evil, is bounded or ordered according to his deeds at all — meaning that doing good would not benefit him with regard to these goods and evils, nor would doing evil harm him; or else some of it is bounded and ordered according to a person's deeds and some is not. This threefold division is exhaustive. Now, whoever holds that all the good and evil that come to a person are bounded and ordered by Hashem is faced with a difficulty from experience, since experience seems to confirm the very opposite of this claim — namely, that some righteous people suffer more evil than some wicked people, and some wicked people receive more good than some righteous people. Clearly, this difficulty must be met either by conceding this claim or by disputing it. And the dispute can proceed only from two directions: by disputing the subject of the claim — which is what Zophar does — or by disputing its predicate — which is what Bildad does. The dispute over the predicate is what was said: that what we take to be evil is not truly evil but is truly good, and what we take to be good is not truly good but is truly evil. The dispute over the subject is to say that whoever we take to be righteous is not truly righteous, and whoever we take to be wicked is not truly wicked — or, if he is wicked, his degree of wickedness is slight, owing to the weakness of his readiness. That is: whoever we take to be righteous has not in fact escaped rebellion, for he has already sinned by failing to do the intellectual good that was possible for him — and by this claim Zophar resolved the difficulty of evil befalling the righteous. As for the fact that it appears that more evil comes to some of the righteous than to some of the wicked, he resolves this difficulty by saying that we do not know the measures of punishment appropriate to each particular rebellion, since we cannot grasp the measure of each individual's readiness, from which this order derives; for the rebellion of one we take to be righteous draws upon him a punishment far greater than the rebellion of one we take to be wicked. It is evident that the proponent of this view must hold that the possibility of doing good is not equal among all people; for if that possibility were equal, then the rebellion of the wicked would necessarily be the greater, since it would already include within it the rebellion of the righteous — namely, that they too failed to do the intellectual good possible for them — and the difficulty would remain: why does more evil come to some of the righteous than to some of the wicked, even though the wicked are beneath them in intellectual attainment? But once it is granted that this possibility differs, since each person's readiness for reasoning differs, it becomes possible to say that the rebellion of the righteous man, in failing to do the good possible for him, is graver than that of the wicked man beneath him in doing good — because the wicked man's readiness for doing good is lesser, relative to the readiness of the righteous man. As for what appears to be good fortune reaching some of the wicked: their wickedness is either due to their falling short in doing good deeds, or due to their actually committing shameful deeds. If their wickedness is due to falling short in doing good, Zophar resolves the difficulty by saying that they are in fact righteous, since they were never capable of receiving a greater measure of perfection. If their wickedness is due to actually committing shameful deeds, Zophar resolves the difficulty by saying that they do not escape fear, which is itself a tremendous evil; and since fear is not something outwardly visible, we imagine that such people suffer no evil at all — yet this punishment suffices for them, even though their deeds are very shameful, because the degree of their readiness is low. He also says, further on, that if they themselves are not punished, their children who come after them will indeed be punished, and this, in his view, is punishment enough for them, since good whose end is evil is itself evil. Bildad, however, as we have said, holds that what we take to be evil is not truly evil, since it leads to a good end; and what appears as good fortune for the wicked is truly evil, since it leads to an evil end. He illustrated this with the image of the reed-grass in the marsh and the papyrus reed, as we explained — showing that their moisture and freshness do not save them from withering quickly. It is evident that there is no third way of disputing the empirically confirmed contrary of this claim, for if we were to dispute both the subject and the predicate together, the difficulty would remain exactly as it was — and this is self-evident. That is to say, if we were to claim that whoever we take to be righteous is truly wicked and vice versa, and that what we take to be good is truly evil and vice versa, nothing new would result beyond the very claim that generated the difficulty in the first place. Now, the resolution achieved by conceding this empirical claim is to say that these evils and goods, which we find befalling people without regard to justice, do not come from Hashem at all, but are to be attributed to some other cause — for instance, folly and foolishness, as Eliphaz holds. And it is evident that this resolution, too, achieved by conceding the claim, falls into one of two positions: either we say that this individual providence extends to every person but not to every one of their affairs, or we say that individual providence extends to some people and not to others. As for whoever holds that none of these goods and evils is bounded or ordered by Hashem at all — he must still hold that they are ordered by something, since we do in fact attain knowledge of them, whether through dreams, divination, or prophecy. And since there is nothing else to which this order could plausibly be attributed except the arrangement of the stars at the time of birth, the proponent of this view is bound to believe that this determination comes from the heavenly bodies — so that righteousness avails nothing and wickedness causes no harm, since everything is already fixed for a person the moment he emerges from his mother's womb. This is, in fact, Job's own position. As for whoever holds that some of this is bounded by Hashem according to a person's righteousness or wickedness, while some is not bounded, because providence does not extend to all people but only to those worthy of it — as will be explained further on — this is the position of Elihu, and it is in fact the truth itself, as will become clear in what follows. Now, Eliphaz came close to this true view, for he conceded that there are evils not bounded by Hashem at all — namely, the evils that come to us through folly and foolishness — except that he held it improper to complain about them, since they should not even be called evils; for a person is created devoid of all the goods, evils, and possessions that he is expected, as it were, to strive for, and if he fails to exert himself to attain them through the causes that bring them about, he has no cause to lament their not reaching him. Except that, from this angle, not all the difficulties are resolved, since we cannot attribute every evil marked by an apparent absence of order to folly and foolishness and whatever behaves in a similar manner. And further, even granting that this angle resolves the difficulty with respect to mistaken beliefs, what shall we say of the disorder found in good fortune that persists for a long time and is found in abundance in a single person — to what shall we attribute that? It is impossible to attribute this to folly and foolishness, since whatever good comes about in that way does not last more than a short time and amounts to little — meaning, it is not plausible that abundant, lasting good fortune of this kind could come to a wicked man through mere chance, as is nevertheless observed of them empirically. The same difficulty can be raised concerning the many evils that befall the righteous: it is impossible to attribute these to folly and foolishness, since whatever is of that character occurs only rarely, its existence being a matter of chance and happenstance. For this reason, Eliphaz's view is, in one respect, more deficient than the views of Bildad and Zophar, and in another respect more complete. It is more deficient in that many of the difficulties that led him to this view remain unresolved for him, which is not the case with the views of Bildad and Zophar. It is more complete in that he did not deny what is empirically evident, but rather sought — without denying what is empirically evident — to resolve the difficulties, as is the way of every wise man; and furthermore, the root principle from which he drew his view is true in itself, though he erred in what he built upon that root. For when he judged it false that all good and evil are to be attributed to reward and punishment from Hashem according to a person's deeds — as experience shows — and judged it equally false that none of it is bounded by Hashem according to a person's deeds, as experience itself dictates (as Eliphaz stated in this book in what he argued against Job) — it necessarily follows that some of it must be attributed to Hashem according to a person's righteousness and wickedness, and some of it not attributed to Him at all. Had Eliphaz said no more than this, his statement would necessarily have been true. But he erred in failing to distinguish fully which of these goods and evils are to be attributed to Hashem and which are not — and so he could not hold his ground when Job raised against him the arguments he raised to refute his view, as will become clear later on. Furthermore, Eliphaz's view was a path toward the truth, even if it is not itself the truth, because he devoted all his effort to resolving the difficulties without denying what is empirically evident; and whoever follows this method — perceiving the difficulties that arise in his view from what is empirically evident, and searching for some other angle from which to hold his view — will find those difficulties resolved without denying what is empirically evident. Bildad and Zophar, however, made statements that are not truly demonstrated, and gave no weight at all to what is empirically evident; instead, they resolved the difficulty simply by saying that these matters are hidden from us. But if that is so, how did they know that these matters are in fact orderly and just? Who told them this? Indeed, they have no scale by which to measure it. And it is not merely that the principle on which they relied prevents them from attaining the truth in this inquiry — rather, whoever follows this method can never attain truth in anything at all; for if people have no starting point for knowledge drawn from what appears to them among things perceived by the senses, there can be no path to knowledge of anything at all.

"But the eyes of the wicked" — but the wicked, despite the greatness of their success, will in the end have their eyes fail, for they will not attain what they hoped for; and when the days of reckoning come, all escape will be lost to them, for they will find no one to flee to for help. "And their hope" — meaning, they are destined for anguish of soul, as though they hoped for it, for it will surely come to pass. (What emerges from this discourse is that Zophar's view is like that of Eliphaz and Bildad — that everything comes through providence; but the reward for one's deeds is apportioned according to the measure of a person's degree of capacity. One whose capacity is great but who falls short in wisdom is reckoned wicked, while one whose capacity is small has even a little credited to him as much — so that most people, though equal in others' eyes with regard to the same wrongdoing, differ in the reward of their punishment. And he passes judgment on Job's sufferings, that they came because he fell short in wisdom relative to the measure of his own capacity.)

'shall fail' — one who longs for something that does not come is described, in the language of Scripture, as kilyon einayim, 'a failing of the eyes.' 'way to flee' — from the term for fleeing and escaping. 'from them' (minhem) — [an alternate form of] mehem, 'from them.' 'the drooping of the soul' — anguish of soul; so called because the soul is close to breathing its last (lifachet) and departing from the body. So too, 'and I have taken away the life (hifachti) of its owners' (below, 31:39).

But the eyes of the wicked shall fail — for they never rest from their cravings; as the saying goes, 'he who has a hundred wants two hundred.' And they shall have no way to flee — for they have no escape from destruction and death. And their hope shall be the drooping of the soul — the opposite of the hope of the righteous, which is the eternity of the soul and the life of the spirit; but their own soul is blown out of their body into oblivion, as it is written, 'and the souls of your enemies, these He shall sling out, as from the hollow of a sling' (1 Samuel 25:29).