Job · Chapter 32

'So these three men ceased to answer Job, because he was righteous in his own eyes' — Explanation of the words of this section: Job's three companions rested from answering him, because he was righteous in his own eyes, and they could not find any argument against him by which to establish that he had indeed already been proven guilty in judgment. 'Then the wrath of Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite was kindled' — he was of the sons of Buz, the son of Abraham's brother [Nahor], as Scripture says, 'Behold, Milcah, she too has borne children to Nahor your brother: Uz his firstborn, and Buz his brother' (Genesis 22:20-21); and he was of the family of a certain man of the offspring of Buz, whose name was Ram. His wrath was kindled against both Job and his friends: against Job, because he justified himself more than [he justified] Hashem; and against his three friends, because they could not find an answer with which to answer Job's arguments, and this was the reason they condemned Job for hurling words against Hashem. Or the meaning of the phrase 'and they condemned Job' may be that Elihu was angry at them because they had condemned Job and attributed many sins to him, even though they knew him to be righteous and upright — for it was this very claim [of theirs] that was the reason they could not find an answer to Job's own argument on his own behalf, that he was righteous. And Elihu waited on Job with words, and did not answer as soon as he heard his words, but waited to see whether his companions would answer him; and when he saw that no one answered him, his wrath was kindled. Explanation of the words of the response: 'Then Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite answered and said.'

'So these three men ceased' — the three friends mentioned stopped answering Job, because he maintained that he himself was righteous, and from then on they could find no response concerning the sufferings that had come upon him.

Ceased (vayishbotu) - They rested and stopped, as in 'the oppressor has ceased (shavat noges)' (Isaiah 14).

Introduction to the Eighteenth Speech — Elihu's Response After Job's words came to an end, and the three men had ceased answering him, because Job had bested them with his arguments, a mighty man of valor (cf. 1 Samuel 16:18) went out to the battle line (cf. 1 Samuel 17:20) — one discerning in speech, with Hashem with him — and spoke with the disputants at the gate (cf. Psalms 127:5), turning the battle back to the gate (cf. Isaiah 28:6), and did valiantly (cf. 1 Samuel 14:48), setting forth the truth of these matters in these questions. He prepared them and searched them out (cf. Job 28:27), with the spirit of Hashem upon him (cf. Judges 3:10), and with the secret counsel of the holy ones (cf. Psalms 89:8) and of Him who is perfect in knowledge (Job 37:16) that were in his heart — until, at the end of his words, he revealed the secret of Hashem (cf. Jeremiah 23:18): what had happened when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Master of all the earth, Satan also among them, just as is told at the beginning of the book. So the conclusion of the debate is to be found in the book's own introduction. And all of this was known to Elihu from the secret Hashem shares with those who fear Him (cf. Psalms 25:14). First, the author of the book sets forth that even during the debate itself, Elihu's anger had already been kindled against both sides: • He was angry at Job for justifying himself rather than God (cf. Job 32:2): for although he knew of himself that he was righteous and could find no reason for his suffering, he should not have allowed the truth as it exists for the knowing subject to override the truth as it exists in the object known. For once it is granted that no lack of wisdom, ability, or will can be attributed to Hashem, blessed be He, this is a truth established in itself, just as it is a truth that Hashem exists — for the proofs of reason that teach us that there exists a single, boundless being, who brought all of existence into being by His wisdom, ability, and infinite will, likewise teach us that this being is perfect in the utmost degree, that all deficiencies must be kept far from Him, and that He governs and oversees with boundless wisdom, will, and ability. Now, even though observation and experience (from what he knew of himself, that suffering had come upon him without sin) would decide the contrary for him — that there is a flaw or injustice in His governance — surely the proofs of reason must override the proofs of sense-perception and imagination, for the senses sometimes err in their judgments. Just as the astronomer-geometer, who established through mathematical proofs that the sun is 170 times larger than the globe of the earth, overrides, by these proofs of his, the sense-perception that sees the sun as a small bowl, and labors to show that the senses err in this and to clarify the cause of their error — so too should he [Job] have set aside the truth that merely seemed so to him from his own private experience, in favor of the comprehensive truth established by the proofs of universal reason. • Yet he was likewise angry at the debating companions, for a philosopher, too, ought not simply deny the evidence of the senses, even where reason offers a proof to the contrary; rather, he should strive to find a middle path, so that reason and sense-perception can be reconciled, and the truth hidden within the nature of the intellect can agree with the truth revealed to the eyes. Nor should they have condemned Job, who was righteous in all his ways (cf. Psalms 145:17), there being no iniquity in him (cf. Psalms 92:16). After this preface, Elihu's words follow in four responses, one after another. In the first response, he explains the reason for his silence until now: it was because, up to this point, he had thought that the foundations of knowledge are the senses and experience, and so he had hidden himself among the baggage (cf. 1 Samuel 10:22), out of deference to the elderly disputants — for through their many years they had made various trials, tested out the lessons of time, and their hearts had seen much wisdom and knowledge (cf. Ecclesiastes 1:16). But now he came to understand that true knowledge is implanted in the human soul itself, in keeping with the view of Plato, that there are truths given to the soul as an inheritance from the quarry from which it was first hewn (cf. Isaiah 51:1) — called 'Ideas' — whose foundation lies neither in sense-perception nor in experience, but rather on the holy mountains, from the womb of the dawn (cf. Psalms 87:1; 110:3) — an inherited possession that the soul brought with it from its supernal root, given to it by God. Among these are the truths fixed in every soul: that there exists a sublime Being who creates all, watches over all, rewards and punishes, is good and merciful; and that the soul is a daughter of God, abiding forever, and the like. On the strength of these truths, known to him from God — truths not attained through observation or length of days, but only because 'there is a spirit in man' (Job 32:8) — he considers himself as standing in God's own stead, for his wisdom is a portion of God's wisdom, and his soul a portion of the Divine from on high (cf. Job 31:2); and he announces to Job that he will stand in for God, to argue on His behalf. And since the divine element within his soul is, like Job's own, clothed in flesh, Elihu's own dread and awe will not frighten him [Job] (cf. Job 33:6-7), and he will be able to set forth all his arguments without dread or fear. He also informs him that God does not exceed man's measure (cf. Job 33:12) — meaning, He does not demand of man a service commensurate with the greatness of the One served, which would be far beyond man's own strength; rather, Hashem has made Himself the equal of man, as though He were no greater or grander than him. For He has raised man up toward God by allotting him a share of His wisdom and of His true knowledge, so that a steadfast, well-nursed faith should dwell in his soul, like one of the sons of God. And He has come down from His divinity toward man, to the point that He does not wish to be served or to receive from him beyond man's own limited and finite capacity, and asks no more of him than that — not, as Job supposed, that He seeks pretexts and charges against him, punishing him for matters that are not within man's power or choice. He further shows him that Job complained in vain about Hashem hiding His words from mankind, not making known to them their sin and where they had gone astray (cf. Jeremiah 3:21) — for which He then visits their transgression with the rod (cf. Psalms 89:33) — since He has already made known to man heavenly messages, in dream and in vision. For it is through true dreams that He opens people's ears (cf. Job 33:16), making known to them their iniquity and what the future holds for them. He also makes this known to them through sickness and suffering, for all these are the words that God speaks, as it were, to man, in order to turn him back from his evil way, that he may live (cf. Jeremiah 26:3). 'So these three men ceased' — these three men, who had not recognized the true cause of Job's suffering, namely, that it was a matter of a trial (as will be explained in Elihu's response, Job 36) — and so they could justify Hashem's ways only by attributing to Job some sin or defect: either an open, past sin, per Eliphaz's view; or a hidden, concealed past sin, per Zophar's view; or some lack of perfection he still wished to attain in the future, per Bildad's view. And especially in the second round of debate, they aimed their arguments at the prosperity of the wicked as it applied to him, and held him to be utterly wicked. But none of these arguments sufficed to overturn Job's own conviction, for he knew of himself that he had sinned neither openly nor in secret, nor did he lack any perfection. For this reason they ceased answering him further — because he was righteous in his own eyes. This was the foundation of his argument, and to it they found no reply. And the philosopher [Aristotle] has already said that it is impossible to debate with someone who denies the very premises on which the argument is to be built. In the second response, he debates with him about two things: A] That he laid his cornerstone (cf. Job 38:6) in arguing, from the sufferings of the righteous, that individual judgment does not issue from the righteous Hashem Himself, but that He has handed governance over to the celestial order. The foundation of his view was that, since neither injustice nor a lack of ability can be attributed to Hashem, and since the gratuitous suffering of the righteous is itself either an injustice or a lack of ability, this cannot come from Him but rather from the ruler appointed over the governance of the world, to govern according to the order of nature, without distinguishing between the righteous and the wicked. And this is not to be called an injustice, since under the natural governance of the world's order of generation and corruption, individual beings must inevitably perish from existence; and even were the globe of the earth itself to be destroyed, this would be no evil relative to the existence of the universe as a whole, the earth being but a grain of sand by that measure — as we explained at length in the introduction to Job's fifth speech. To this he offers him a parable: this is like someone who wishes to defend a minister who has wronged one of the nobles of his people, unjustly, and who argues in his defense that he did not do so in order to harm this particular noble, but only because this is simply his manner of governing all the people of his nation — to harm them all, since in his eyes they are all like grasshoppers (cf. Numbers 13:33), like his own servants and possessions, to do with as he pleases. So too, how can you justify Hashem for the injustice done, in particular, to one specific man — namely, Job — by saying that this injustice is universal, extending to all mankind and to all creatures, in every place and at every time, since He made them all like the fish of the sea, like creeping things that have no ruler (cf. Habakkuk 1:14), handing all His creatures into the hand of a cruel angel — a blind ruler with sealed eyes, who hates justice? Can this be excused merely by saying that 'he has done much evil'? For the question still remains: why did He hand governance over to this cruel ruler, and why does He not Himself watch over things, to repay each man according to his deeds — is it for lack of ability, or out of envy, desire, and wickedness of heart?! • Second, he responds to Job's claim and grievance against Hashem: why does He not punish the wicked at once, openly, before the eyes of all? To this he answers that Hashem has prepared judgments for scoffers (cf. Proverbs 19:29), and He knows their deeds; there is no darkness in which they can hide from His punishment (cf. Job 34:22). But it is not for man to ask such questions — why He punishes them in a hidden way rather than by an openly miraculous one — and to instruct Hashem in how and by what means to punish them. For in His wisdom He chose to punish them in secret, so that there would remain room for doubt as to whether the punishment truly came from Him, leaving room for free choice. And at times they themselves are the agents of His providence and the rod of His anger (cf. Isaiah 10:5), to chastise mankind for the evil of their deeds. Therefore, not only does He not destroy them, He even grants them strength and dominion to destroy and lay waste to many — until He has accomplished His purpose, to chastise nations and rebuke peoples (cf. Psalms 149:7) — and then He breaks the rod, and the staff of wickedness is cut down. It is enough for us to know that the Holy One, blessed be He, is slow to anger, yet in the end collects what is His own; and whoever says the Holy One, blessed be He, forgoes what is due Him — and so on (cf. Bava Kamma 50a). In the third response, he sets out to debate with him about the great question Job had raised (Job 24): that there are indeed wicked men — murderers and bandits, on sea and in the wilderness — who lay the world waste; so why does Hashem not destroy them from under His heavens (cf. Lamentations 3:66), to remove their evil and preserve the human race that they are destroying — all the more so since they dwell like beasts of the forest (cf. Psalms 50:10), apart from other people, and Hashem could cut them off in the darkness of their dwelling-places without any harm to free choice? And he goes on to the general question of reward and punishment. But from all this, Job had concluded that everything is governed by the celestial order — even the discretionary deeds of human beings — and that man is compelled in his actions, and therefore deserves neither reward nor punishment for them, just as no wages are paid to the millstones that turn by the force of water and grind the flour, nor are they punished if they crush the skull of someone who comes too close to them. • To this he answers that he and his companions err, in thinking that reward and punishment are something separate from the deed itself — as though Hashem commands man and warns him regarding certain acts for His own benefit, like a king who commands and warns his servants, so that the servant who performs his service brings the king benefit, and the one who defies him causes him harm, and therefore he pays them reward and punishment apart from the deed itself. But all this is mistaken, for Hashem is not affected by the deeds of men, nor does He need their service, and their rebellion produces no change whatsoever in Him. Rather, He is, for them, like a physician who instructs a patient: whether the patient heeds the physician's word or defies it, the reward or punishment is bound up in the very act itself, since on it depend his health and life, or his sickness and death. So too, the reward and punishment for man's deeds are tied to the deeds themselves: the man who restrains his cravings and desires will be sound in health, while the one who chases after fleshly pleasures will fall ill and be struck with suffering; and a commonwealth that strives to do good and kindness, to render justice to the oppressed and to root out the wicked from the land, will dwell in peace and security, free of any harmful mishap or destroyer — but when justice and righteousness are seized by force in a state, murderers and bandits multiply. And just as supreme providence has furnished every living creature with the means to save itself from its enemies — such as the weapons with which to fight them, or the stratagems by which to guard against them — and we have seen that Hashem set it in the nature of some of the weaker birds to sing at night, so that they would all be alert against their enemies and those who seek their lives — so too has Hashem set it in the nature of man that the commonwealth and the mass of mankind help one another and rouse themselves together to root out the violent and the murderous, the destroyers of civilization, and to establish justice and righteousness in the land. And through this the human race endures, for the good among mankind are always more numerous than the wicked, and their strength, when they unite to safeguard the common good, is greater than the strength of the minority who become like beasts of the forest, to devour and destroy, to steal and to murder. This being so, this judgment against the wicked, the destroyers of civilization, He has handed over to human beings, so that by their own nature they should destroy them and root out evil from their midst. But when evil overpowers good and there is no justice or law in the land, and people become like the fish of the sea, they themselves have brought this evil upon themselves — so why should a man's heart rage against Hashem, if it was his own folly that perverted his way (cf. Proverbs 19:3)? And with this he hints to him that everything that had befallen him — the loss of his possessions to raiders — was itself his own fault, for not having striven to see justice done and put an end to them when it was within his power (cf. Genesis 31:29). And what added greatly to his suffering was his own foolishness in not taking to heart that he should turn back from his wrongdoing — adding sin to transgression by complaining against Hashem about a matter that was his own fault — thereby setting snares of death for himself (cf. Psalms 18:6). The fourth response is divided into two utterances: • In the first utterance, he reveals the truth of what had caused Job's suffering — that it was a matter of a trial — and explains the matter to him fully, showing how Hashem's ways were justified in this. So that, in the end, Elihu discloses even what was written at the beginning of the book concerning Satan's accusation. And with this the debate is brought to completion. • In the second utterance, he rebukes him to his face for having dared to inquire into things too great and too wondrous for him — the survival of the soul, and the matter of knowledge and free choice, and the like — and shows him that man does not grasp Hashem's wisdom even in the natural things right before his eyes; how much more so, then, since He has shut the door before him, barring him from entering into the inner sanctuary to gaze upon God and inquire into matters beyond nature, should he have hidden his face and not gone up onto Hashem's mountain, nor even touched its edge (cf. Exodus 19:12). And with this the debate as a whole is brought to its conclusion.

Elihu’s Address of the family of Ram Abraham, as it is stated (Josh. 14:15): “the greatest man among the Anakim.” This is Abraham. than God More than the Omnipresent.

'The Buzite' — from the sons of Nahor, Abraham's brother: 'and Buz his brother' (Genesis 22:21). And it is possible that he belonged to that family through his mother's side, like Jair son of Manasseh, who was actually of the tribe of Judah, as is explained in Chronicles (1 Chronicles 2:21-22). 'Of the family of Ram' — the more likely view is that this is the father of Amminadab, one of the children of Israel. 'His wrath was kindled against Job' — because he justified himself more than God, and declared God to be in the wrong, speaking out of the greatness of his anguish.

'The Buzite' — of the descendants of Nahor, Abraham's brother, as it says, 'Uz his firstborn, and Buz his brother' (Genesis 22:21). 'Of the family of Ram' — for Ram was descended from Buz. 'Against Job' — his wrath was kindled against Job because he justified himself more than God; for he claimed that he had done justice and righteousness and deserved a good reward, and that the Omnipresent had handed everything over to the workings of fate, so that he had been cheated of the reward of his righteousness.

'Then his wrath was kindled' — [Scripture] relates that Elihu, to whom the true reason for Job's sufferings had already been revealed, was nevertheless angry at both parties even during the course of the debate. He was angry at Job for justifying himself rather than God: even though Job knew within himself that he was righteous and did not know the reason for his suffering, this should not have led him to decide the matter against the well-established truth that Hashem does no wrong, that no deficiency can be attributed to Him, and that for Him to govern with injustice would be a deficiency in the perfection of God. Job should have set aside the certainty of his senses — by which he knew, through direct perception, that he was righteous — in deference to the proofs of the intellect, which establish decisively that Hashem does no wrong. And nevertheless, he was also —

and condemned Job This is one of the verses wherein the Scribes rectified the language of the Scripture. “And they condemned,” as directed against the Omnipresent, by remaining silent, should have been written, but Scripture euphemized. Similarly (Num. 11:15), “and do not let me see my misfortune.” It should have been written: “and do not let me see their misfortune,” but Scripture euphemized, and so many [other] instances, in Sifrei (ad loc.) and in the Great Masorah.

'Also his wrath was kindled against his three friends, because they had found no answer, and yet had condemned Job' — because they had declared Job wicked; and so they had said to him: 'is your wickedness not great?' (Job 22:5); 'your own mouth condemns you, not I' (Job 15:6); 'will you keep the ancient path?' (Job 22:15). And it is taught that this reading is one of the tikkun soferim, the scribal emendations; but those who say so know something that is hidden from me.

'His friends' — that is, Job's friends. 'Had found no answer' — they were unable to find a reply to Job's words. 'And yet had condemned Job' — this phrase reflects a scribal emendation (tikkun soferim), the word here standing as a euphemism for the Omnipresent; the sense is that, by failing to find an answer, they had condemned the judgment of Heaven. Without the emendation, it would mean that by not answering him, they caused Job to sin still further, multiplying his complaints, since he would think that his friends had conceded he was right.

angry with his three friends — they, too, should not have denied the plainly evident fact that Job was righteous, and condemned him unjustly merely because they could find no answer. They should instead have searched for a reason that would validate both truths together: that Job is righteous, and that, even so, his sufferings had come upon him justly.

because they were older than he in days [i.e.,] the others [were older than he]. Therefore, he refrained until they were still.

'Had waited' — like 'therefore wait for me' (Zephaniah 3:8).

'Now Elihu had waited' — until now he had held back from answering Job with the words he had kept stored in his heart ever since Job began to complain; and this was because those three friends were older than he in years, and he did not wish to speak his words in their presence, as he will state further on.

Had waited (chikkah) - He waited, as in 'therefore wait for Me (chakku li)' (Zephaniah 3).

'Now Elihu had waited' — but since the friends' arguments had not been right in his eyes, [one might ask] why he waited until now. [Malbim] explains that the reason Elihu waited to address Job in words was that he waited and held back for them [his elders, to finish]. The reason was that they were older than he in years, and so he deferred to their right of precedence; for although he was older than they in wisdom, they were older than he in years.

'And when Elihu saw' — when he saw that there was no answer in their mouths, his wrath was kindled against them as well, and he waited no longer.

'And when Elihu saw' — but now that he saw there was no answer at all in their mouths, and that they could not even conclude the debate on their own terms, his wrath was kindled in particular; for at the very least they should have been able to maintain their own position, rather than being defeated in argument.

'I held back' — that is, I was afraid.

'Therefore I held back' — I was afraid; and from the same root come 'zochalei afar' [creatures that crawl on the dust], because people are afraid of them, in the sense of the Eimim ['fearsome ones'] of old (Deuteronomy 2:10). Some say the meaning of 'zachalti' is: I drew back, and the word is used this way in the language of Kedar (Arabic) as well. And 'those who crawl on the dust' are called so because their gait moves backward, the reverse of a person's.

'Declare you my opinion' [mechavvot de'i] — from the same root as 'higid' (to tell); meaning, to tell my opinion.

'I am young' — as if to say: know that my having been silent until now was not because I did not know what to answer, and that I have only now learned something from your words. Not so — the answer has been ready in my mouth all along; but because I am young in years and you are old, I was afraid to declare my opinion to you.

I held back (zachalti) - An expression of dread and fear, from the term 'dachalti' (I feared), with the zayin interchanging for a dalet; similarly, 'my days are extinct (yamai nizaku)' (above, 17), which is from the term 'nid'achu' (extinguished), with a dalet. Declare (mechavvot) - From [the term for] telling, as in 'and I will declare unto you (ve'achavveh be'ozneichem)' (above, 13).

'And he said: I am young' — there are two reasons I kept silent until now: • A) On my part, because I am young in years; • B) On your part, because you are very old. For one young in years ought not to reveal his opinion at all, and in the presence of the very aged, even one full of years ought to remain silent. He then explains: 'I am young in years, therefore I held back' — I was like one crawling in the dust, afraid to lift up his head; and as for 'you are very old, and I was afraid' — he explains that 'therefore I held back' means holding back from declaring my opinion even to myself, and 'I was afraid' means fearing to declare my opinion to you, because you are very old.

'I said' — for I said to myself: just as the passing of many days teaches a newborn child to speak, so too a multitude of years imparts wisdom to those who possess them, since with more years one increases in inquiry and diligent study. And so I said, what do I know that they do not know? And for this reason I held back my words, for I feared lest I become an object of scorn.

'I said' — for until now I thought that wisdom takes its first principles from sense-perception and empirical observation, and that one young in years, who has not yet experienced enough of the course of time to abstract general principles from his observations, could not speak at all on matters of wisdom. This is the meaning of 'I said (until now), days should speak' — that to speak on matters of wisdom requires many days, in which one has experienced the passage of time and events, and only then can he speak; and 'a multitude of years should teach wisdom' — that to convey wisdom, which is an organized, absolute system established through clear proofs, requires many years, for a few days do not suffice for this. This explains both points: that because he was young in years, he held back entirely from speaking, thinking that only days should speak; and that even had he not been young in years, he would still have been afraid to speak in their presence, since they were aged, and clear wisdom is thought to be found in them.

Indeed, it is a spirit in man Wisdom [is a spirit in man] and [comes] not through days or old age, but it is the spirit of the Omnipresent.

'But it is' — in truth I see now that it is the rational spirit within man that teaches wisdom, whether he be young or old. 'And the breath' — the soul that comes from the Almighty is what gives understanding to all, young and old alike; and this repeats the same idea in different words.

'But it is' — indeed, but now I have seen that this is not so: wisdom does not take its first principles from sense-perception and experience; rather, the insights of reason are hidden within the spirit of man. Truths are found imprinted within man's spirit through the spirit of God — an inheritance to him from the root of his soul; and even one young in years draws water from the source of his own spirit, through the spirit of Hashem that rests upon him. I have seen that wisdom 'is a spirit in man' — a spirit emanated from on high and planted within him from the source of his soul; and 'the breath of the Almighty gives them understanding' — the soul, which is a divine portion from above, imparts understanding to man, by which he understands the truths and derives one thing from another. Therefore I have now concluded that —

'It is not the great that are wise, Nor the aged that discern judgment' — the word 'not' serves both this clause and the next, as though it read: 'nor do the elders understand.'

'It is not the great' — and therefore many wise men are not to be found in the world, even though many are those who apply themselves diligently to the study of wisdom and to inquiry, for the matter depends on nothing but the rational spirit, and few are those who have acquired it. 'Nor the aged' — the word 'not' does double duty for both clauses, meaning: nor do the aged discern the judgment of wisdom, even though they prolong the days of their effort and the diligence of their inquiry.

'It is not the great that are wise' — for according to those who hold that the first principles and foundations of wisdom are sense-perception and experience, wisdom would become clear through the multitude of investigators, since each relies on the experience of his fellow and combines them to derive general laws. But in my present view, it is not the many who become wise, for the spirit rests upon one singular individual — 'a man in whom is spirit.' Likewise, according to the earlier view, the understanding needed to derive one thing from another by the rules of wisdom would depend on the elders, who have tried out many branches of wisdom and persisted in inquiry and study; but in my present view, it is not the aged who understand judgment.

'Therefore I say' — since wisdom depends on the spirit of man, I therefore said to Job: hearken to me, I too will declare my opinion, even though I am young in years, for perhaps my spirit has been more richly endowed.

'Therefore I say' — 'hearken to me': though I do not have with me the experience of the passing days and the testimony of the senses, 'I also will declare my opinion' — that is, the true convictions imprinted in the soul, whose root does not lie in observation and sense-perception. This, too, I am able to declare, even though I am young in years, for the spirit rests upon me, granting me understanding of the truths through the spirit of Hashem.

'I listened' — like 'a'azin' [I will give ear], the full form of the verb.

'I waited' [hochalti] — I held back, waiting. 'I listened' [azin] — like 'a'azin' (I will give ear).

'Behold, I waited' — behold, I had already kept to the proper conduct of restraint, for I waited until I should hear your words, and I was listening to your statements until your words of understanding were finished, until you had completed searching out what to say; and this repeats the same idea in different words.

I waited (hochalti) - An expression of waiting, as in 'and he waited yet again (vayachel od)' (Genesis 8). I listened (azin) - I paid attention with my ears.

'Behold' — that is to say, I have already discharged my duty in every particular. For to weigh a fellow's words and examine his view, one must: • A) Hear his propositions and the conclusions his reasoning produces; • B) Trace them back to the premises and foundations from which the conclusions are drawn; • C) Hear all his words from beginning to end. And all this I did: • A) 'I waited for your words' — I held back and kept silent until you had finished all your words; • B) 'I listened for your reasons' — I inclined my ear all the way to the head of your premises and their rational foundations, for the first principles on which the structure of wisdom is built, from which inferences and conclusions are drawn, have their source in the wellspring of reason; • C) 'While you searched out what to say' — I waited through your inquiries, their conclusions, and their formulations, until you had investigated every inquiry, and had explained and elaborated your words in all the particulars derived from them.

Yea, I attended to you I attended to you, and I saw that there is no one to convince Job.

'Indeed, I attended to you' — and I paid close attention to your words, and behold, there was none among you who made a clear case to Job; not one of you answered him with words fitting for him — as if to say: I heard nothing but the sound of words, but there was no substance in them.

And unto you (ve'adeichem) - And to you, as in 'shall it reach unto you (tigga adeicha)' (above, 4).

'I attended to you' — This adds a further point: that Elihu not only weighed, balanced, and scrutinized their words in themselves, but also paid attention to the relation between the arguments and the one who spoke them. For sometimes a thinker reasons according to one particular approach that he holds, using premises and assumptions accepted within that approach, even though they are not accepted by other thinkers who hold a different approach — that is why he says, 'and I attended to you' [that is, to each of you individually, on your own terms]. And even so, I saw that none of you could refute Job — that all your words did not suffice to refute Job and disprove his claims. Nor is that all: not even one of you answered his words, able to give him a relevant reply — even granting that he could not refute Job himself with clear demonstrative proofs, he ought at least to have been able to answer him with arguments meant merely to win the debate.

Lest you say You shall not say We have found wisdom by remaining silent in order not to provoke him anymore. for God will crush him and not a man You should not have belittled the honor of the Omnipresent thereby.

'Beware lest you say' — beware lest you think to say: behold, we have found a wise and intelligent answer, telling him that he bears a great sin, since God has turned against him and it is He who drives him away — and not a man like myself; and the Holy One, blessed be He, is not to be suspected of executing judgment without justice. As if to say: in truth you did not speak with wisdom, for this is not a fitting answer to silence the turmoil of his heart, seeing that he himself knows that he bears no great sin — and the matter is stated briefly here, because it is self-evident.

May vanquish him (yiddefennu) - An expression of pounding and repelling, as in 'a driven leaf (aleh niddaf)' (Leviticus 26).

'Lest you say' — that is, can you say concerning this, 'we have found wisdom' — meaning, by this we answered him and vanquished him, in that we replied to him, saying, 'God may vanquish him, not man' — that the God who would vanquish him is not a man? For this was the essential response of all three companions, who argued that God is not a man: that God cannot be conceived to lack will, wisdom, or ability, nor to have jealousy or the other faults found among men; or, as they put it, that we cannot grasp God's governance (as Zophar argued), or that a man cannot be found righteous before God (as Eliphaz claimed) — all their arguments amounted to saying that God is not a man. Is this wisdom, and would this vanquish Job?

He did not set up words against me This is a plaint: Woe that he did not set up words against me. I would not reply to him with your sayings I would not reply to him with those sayings with which you replied to him.

'For he has not directed his words against me' — even though Job did not direct his words at me, I am astonished at how they grew dismayed and answered no more — referring to Job's companions [Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar].

'For he has not directed his words against me' — as if to say: despite all this, let Job not think that he is in the right; for all the arguments that he arrayed against your words, recounting the uprightness of his way and the merit of his conduct — none of these has he directed against me, meaning, they have nothing in them to turn aside my words; for I will not answer him as you did, saying that this came upon him because of the abundance of his transgression, so that he could deflect it by recounting the uprightness of his way.

Directed (arach) - Arranged.

'He has not directed his words against me' — Job has not directed any words at all to me; that is, the words that express the concepts in which he clothes his argument are not directed at me at all, for I hold a different approach regarding the starting points of wisdom and its foundations, and so different words would be needed to address me. Nor will I answer him with your speeches — the words with which you framed your arguments on the question of the righteous man who suffers; here too my view differs from yours, and my words are unlike your words.

have removed themselves Words have turned away from them.

'Words have departed from them' — some say the sense is [as if negated]: 'words were not carried off from them' — meaning that they did not speak until someone else would relay their words on their behalf. Or its meaning may be that 'he'tiku' is from the root 'atku' [to grow old, be exhausted] — that the words had become exhausted, and so departed from them.

'Words have departed from them' — speech was taken from them, and they remained as though mute.

'They are amazed' — on account of the foolishness of their answer they were broken, for Job refuted their words and they could find no further reply, and words departed from their mouths, and they spoke no more.

'They are amazed' — that is, how could I answer him with your approach and your words? Indeed, among the companions there were some who were amazed and answered no more — that is Zophar, who did not respond at all in the third round; and there were others whose words were taken from them — that is Bildad, who, though he did respond in the third round, answered briefly, having no words left to clothe his arguments at length, only the barest hint, for the words with which he would have clothed his argument had been taken from him.

'They stand still' — they fell silent.

'And shall I wait' — as if to say: behold, at first I waited, for I thought they would answer with understanding; and even when I saw that they had found no wisdom, I waited still further, until they did not speak at all, until they fell silent and answered nothing whatever, and their words came to a complete end.

They stand still (amedu) - They are silent, as in 'I stand up, and You look at me' (above, 30).

'And shall I wait' — even so, I did not answer at once but kept silent, for I thought that perhaps after resting a little they would return and take up the debate again. So I waited until I knew for certain that they would speak no more — for indeed they rose up from the ground and answered no more, and this was a sign that the debate had ceased entirely, since throughout the debate they had remained seated on the ground with him.

'I also will answer' — now I too will answer my share, in the measure that they answered their share, and I too will declare my opinion.

Therefore I too will answer, • A) 'I will answer my part' — for each person has his own portion in the debate, and you have already spoken your portion; I will answer my portion. • B) 'I will declare my opinion' — my approach is that there is da'at, meaning intellectual truths and certainties implanted in the soul, which did not come to it through study and reasoning but were given to it as an inheritance from the source of their hewing, and from Hashem.

'Constrains me' [hetzikatni] — from the root 'matzuk' (distress, a narrow strait); that is, my spirit was constricted within me from my great eagerness to respond to his words.

'For I am full of words' — meaning, I am unable to restrain myself, for I am full of words, and the air within the hollow of my belly is cramped and constricted within me because of the abundance of words it holds; and this is a manner of figurative and hyperbolic speech.

I am full (malti) - Like 'malati' (I am full), with an alef. Constrains me (hetziketni) - An expression of straits and pressure, as in 'that is not settled beneath it (lo mutzak tachteha)' (below, 36). The spirit within me (ruach bitni) - The cavity of my belly, and its air.

'For I am full of words' — I have prepared the expressions and the manner of speech, and they are so many that I am full of words; and also the intellectual spirit that dwells within these words and speeches presses upon my belly, for it seeks to come out.

Behold my belly is full of wind, words to answer eagerly. like wine that is not opened Like new wine that is not opened, and which blows up, and even [if it is] within new wineskins, it bursts them. like...wineskins Wineskins made as tall as a man’s height.

'Behold, my inwards' — by way of a figure of speech, in the sense of 'your stomach shall eat, and your bowels shall be filled' (Ezekiel 3:3), 'like new ovot' [wineskins]. Some say it is as our Sages of blessed memory said: 'a person should not put his head under his ov.' But most commentators say that 'ovot' means wineskins, and this is correct — for [in the phrase] 'do not turn to the ovot' (Leviticus 19:31), the essential belief about [necromantic] ovot was that they were like wineskins.

'As wine' [ka-yayin] — like a wineskin of wine [i.e., a vessel filled with wine, needing to be vented]. 'Like new wine-skins which are ready to burst' — and it bursts easily, just as new skins burst easily when wine is put into them.

'Behold, my inwards are as wine' — like a wineskin that has not been opened and whose taste has not gone flat, and which is therefore all the stronger, until it bursts the skin and the wine comes out; and just as new wineskins burst quickly from the strength of the wine within them, so that the wine comes out on its own, so too the words stored up within my belly are, as it were, about to burst my belly and come out on their own.

Wine-skins (ke'ovot) - Like 'ne'adot' (skins); and it has no parallel elsewhere in Scripture.

'Behold, my inwards are as wine which has no vent' — for the spirit that ferments within wine and is held back in it wants to escape; and if the wineskin is old and strong, it can hold back and contain the spirit and the wine, but if it is a new wineskin, it will burst. So too I, who have not yet grown accustomed to holding back my words — my words will burst forth; and therefore —

'That I may find relief' [vayirvach li] — like 'so Saul would find relief' (1 Samuel 16:23).

'I will speak' — for this reason I will speak my words and bring forth utterances, and I will have relief in my belly from being so full. 'I will open' — I need only open my lips, and by this I will answer, for the words will come out on their own because of their great abundance; and this too is a manner of figurative speech.

That I may find relief (verevach) - From the term 'harvachah' (relief), the opposite of pressure.

I will speak, that I may find relief, • A) so that I may find relief from the pressing spirit; • B) meaning, I need only open my lips and I will answer, for my lips will speak of themselves, since everything is already arranged.

neither will I euphemize I will not change my words to replace them [with milder expressions] in deference to his [Job’s] honor, as I said above, “And they condemned Job.” This is a euphemism, which changes the expression because of His honor. I will not even do this, but I will reprove him explicitly.

'Neither will I give flattering titles' [lo achaneh] — I will not conceal a person's name by referring to him with some other title, so as to avoid speaking openly against him; rather, I will call him by his own name, and state explicitly whatever flaw becomes clear to me in his opinions and his words.

'Let me not, I pray you, respect any man's person' — behold, now I will not show favor to anyone's person, to flatter someone so as to cover over his shame; nor will I speak to a person by circumlocutions, as though my words were not directed at him — rather, I will speak of him openly and directly, and not by hint.

Give ... titles (achanneh) - From the term 'kinnui' (epithet), which is not a person's own proper name; as in 'and surname himself by the name of Israel (uveshem Yisrael yechanneh)' (Isaiah 44). The way of it is: one who wishes to conceal someone's name, out of respect or the like, then refers to him by an epithet, as though he means someone else.

'Let me not, I pray you,' — likewise, I will not hold back my words out of favoritism toward Job or his companions, for I will show no favor to any man; nor will I hold back out of a desire to give a person a flattering title, granting him honor, esteem, or worth beyond what is fitting for him, for I will not flatter.

or else...would carry me away He would take me away from the world. Others interpret יִשָׂאֵנִי like (Nahum 1:5), “and the land raised up (ותשא) from before me [a pillar of smoke].”

'Else would my Maker soon take me away' — meaning, He would burn me, as in 'and David carried them away' (2 Samuel 5:21); and the sense is: had I shown favoritism to anyone, the Omnipresent would not preserve me.

'Take me away' [yisa'eni] — it will burn me; like 'and David and his men burned them' (2 Samuel 5:21).

'For I know not' — as if to say: even if I wanted to flatter, I could not, for the matter is so foreign to me, as though I did not know how to do it. 'Soon' — for in my eyes it seems a near and imminent thing that Hashem, who made me, would burn me up for the sin of flattering with titles. (This emerges from that response, in which Elihu gives the reason he had kept silent until now: because Job's companions were older than him in years, he did not feel forward enough in his heart to come and speak his words, for he thought that wisdom is attained through great effort, and they had exerted great effort over a long time; but after he saw that they had not succeeded in their response, and that in the end they stood silent and answered no more, therefore it was no longer possible for him to restrain himself and hold back his words; and he said that from now on he would answer with plain, forthright speech, neither flattering nor giving anyone a title.)

Soon (kim'at) - That is to say, the matter is near and the distance small; and the letter kaf comes to affirm this. Would ... take me away (yissa'eni) - An expression of kindling and burning, as in 'and the earth is burned at His presence (vattissa ha'aretz mipanav)' (Nahum 1).

'For' — the sense of the verse is: 'I know not how to flatter; my Maker would soon take me away' — meaning that even toward my Maker and Creator I do not know how to flatter and give Him titles beyond what is fitting, and if I were to flatter, He would soon take me away and remove me from the world.