Job · Chapter 34

Explanation of the words of this response — 'Moreover Elihu answered and said.'

'Moreover Elihu answered' — since in his first response he answered Job regarding the revealing of a person's transgression to him, and he now comes to answer regarding the reward of merit and the punishment of sin, he therefore left a pause between the one topic and the other, so as to reflect well on each matter, and broke off from the first and began the second.

'Hear my words, you wise men' — he turned his face toward the companions and said: you who are wise, hear my words, and you who have knowledge, give ear to my sayings, for understanding is with you to grasp my speech.

And you who have knowledge (viyod'im) - Possessors of understanding.

'Hear my words, you wise men' — Elihu comes to take issue with what Job had argued (in chapter 9): that individual governance cannot emanate from Hashem, since this would mean attributing to Him an injustice whenever evil befalls a righteous man. From this Job had proven that Hashem does not oversee the private affairs of individual human beings, but has handed their governance over to the celestial order, from which comes this injustice that makes no distinction between righteous and wicked. And when Bildad objected that this itself is an injustice — handing governance over to a celestial order that will destroy a wholehearted righteous man for nothing — Job answered that this is no evil relative to the totality of existence: even if the whole earth were to perish through the general natural necessity, and all flesh were to expire together, righteous and wicked alike, this would still be no injustice as regards the preservation of existence as a whole. For He created a world of generation and decay, in which the earth and everything in it are like a grain of sand relative to the whole of existence. It is against this that Elihu now comes to expose the fallacy in these words, and to show how they contain a self-contradiction.

For the ear tests words as the palate tastes food.

'For the ear tries words' — just as the ear tests the sound of words to know whose they are, and just as the palate tastes what is fit to eat, to know whether it is bitter or sweet, so too men of wisdom discern words of truth and justice.

'For the ear tries words' — just as the palate tastes food and distinguishes bitter from sweet, so the ear tests words to distinguish between truth and falsehood.

'Let us choose for us that which is right' — let us, I and you, choose for ourselves a fair judgment, to make the truth plainly clear, and let us know among ourselves what is good, so as to distinguish the unjust from the just.

'That which is right' — one who wishes to reach a decision on any matter must stand on a single foundation and not depart from it — not leaping between two positions and saying something that contradicts itself, as is the case with Job's position, as will be explained. This is the sense of his words: we must choose one principle — for example, either we assume that it is impossible for Hashem to do wrong, or, conversely, we assume that this is possible — and by this we shall know among ourselves what is good, rather than leaping between two contradictory principles.

my right [my] To prove my words.

'I am righteous' — I am righteous and innocent. 'God has taken away my right' — He has removed from me the judgment of the reward that was due me.

(5–6) 'For Job has said' — He begins to recapitulate Job's words, dividing them into two parts: • A) The premise Job had laid down: since he is righteous, yet was punished without justice — and since it is impossible for Hashem to do wrong — it must follow that this did not come from Hashem at all, by His judgment, but rather through his own bad luck and the necessity of the celestial order; for Hashem does not oversee particular individuals. This is the sense of Job's words: 'though I am righteous, God has taken away my right, and afflicted me for nothing.' Therefore, 'concerning my judgment I declare it false' — meaning: I deny, and give the lie to, anyone who would say that this came about through judgment, for that is impossible; for 'my wound is incurable, though I am without transgression' — and this was not by way of judgment. From this it is evident that this did not come from God the Judge, who does not pervert justice, but rather came about through the celestial order and not through judgment. So Job said.

I call a liar I accuse my Judge of being a liar, because He did not judge me fairly. incurable Heb. אנוש, My wound is sore, like (II Sam. 12:15), “and it became mortally ill (ויאנש).” my wound Heb. חצי [lit. my arrow].

'Notwithstanding my right' — because I seek justice, they say that I am lying. 'My wound is incurable' — the meaning is from the same word as 'chitzi' [my arrow, i.e. my wound], in the sense of 'your wound is incurable' (cf. Jeremiah 30:12). 'Though I am without transgression' — that is, without iniquity. Or it may continue the sense of 'my wound' [chitzi], even though he did not sin — in the sense of 'to a hairsbreadth, and not miss' (Judges 20:16); and this is a figure of speech.

'My wound is incurable' [anush chitzi] — meaning: my wound is grievous.

'Notwithstanding my right I am accounted a liar' — besides the judgment of my due reward, which I say has been withdrawn from me, my wound is now incurable though I am without transgression — meaning, it is not enough that He robs me of my reward, He even afflicts me further for nothing.

Accounted a liar (achazzev) - An expression of cessation/failing, as in 'whose waters fail not (lo yechazzevu meimav)' (Isaiah 58). Incurable (anush) - Exceedingly painful, as in 'her wound is incurable (anushah makkoteha)' (Micah 1).

'What man is like Job' — one who is like Job deserves 'to drink scorn like water' — said as a figure of speech, because he has kept company [in argument with the wicked]: it is as though he belongs among the company of the wicked, judging by his own words.

'What man is like Job' — is there to be found a man so eminent in wisdom as Job, who indulges so freely in mocking speech, like one who drinks water and drinks his fill, since there is no need to pay any price for it?

(7–8) 'What man' — To this he responds: and is it conceivable that a man like Job — so great a man as he — 'should drink up scorning like water, and go in company with workers of iniquity'? For he drinks scorn, mocking the very foundations of faith with empty words, and by this beats a well-worn path to join company with workers of iniquity — for once a person denies providence and divine justice, then everyone will do as his heart desires, since 'there is no God who judges on earth' — no judgment and no judge.

'Who goes in company with the workers of iniquity' — and travels a path so as to join with the workers of iniquity. 'And walks with wicked men,' etc. — the matter is repeated in other words.

A man derives no benefit A man derives no benefit if he perfects his ways.

'It profits a man nothing' — that is, does not benefit, like 'reasoning with useless talk does not profit' (Job 15:3). 'That he should be in accord with' — that is, when he does God's will.

'Profits' [yiskon] — meaning: benefits.

'For he has said' — this connects back to what was said above, 'What man is like Job,' etc.: he speaks the way Job himself spoke, saying, 'It profits a man nothing,' etc. — meaning, no benefit or advantage comes to a person from wishing to walk with God, in His way and by His commandments.

It profits (yiskon) - An expression of benefit and profit, as in 'can a man be profitable to God (hala'El yiskon gaver)' (above, 22). In according with Him (birtzoto) - From the term 'ritzuy' (pleasing) and 'ratzon' (favor).

'For he has said' — Now he explains the rest of Job's words, and the contradiction they contain. Job said this: 'have we not seen that it profits a man nothing that he should be in accord with God' — that is, however favorably disposed a man is toward God, and however much he serves Him, no benefit at all comes to him from it. (This he had proven from the suffering that came upon him, even though he had served Hashem.)

'You men of understanding' — meaning, men whose hearts hold wisdom. 'Far be it from God, that He should do wickedness' — that He should withhold the reward that is due. 'And from the Almighty, that He should commit iniquity' — that He should reward the wicked with good and the righteous with evil.

Far be it (chalilah) - [Something] profane and disgraceful.

'Therefore' — (all this is still part of Job's words) — he had said: since going with God does not avail him to remove the arrows of misfortune from himself, and this runs counter to justice and uprightness, 'therefore hearken to me, you men of understanding,' as to what I conclude from this — for this much reason itself concedes: 'far be it from God that He should do wickedness, and from the Almighty that He should commit iniquity.' This much, at least, reason certainly demands.

'For the work of a man will He requite to him' — according to a person's deeds, so He repays him, whether good or evil; and according to a man's way, so He provides for him; and the matter is repeated in other words.

Will He requite (yamtzi'ennu) - An expression of presenting and handing over, as in 'and the sons of Aaron presented [it] to him (vayamtzi'u eilav benei Aharon)' (Leviticus 9:12).

'For the work of a man will He requite to him' — (and not only does He requite him for his deeds; it is fitting that He requite him in the manner of a man, not meting out his reward and punishment to him in the manner of God — that is, one should not accuse Him of wanting man to serve Him in keeping with the greatness of Hashem, which is without limit; rather, He requites him for his deeds according to the way and manner of a man, who is corporeal, and it is fitting that He take into account the weakness of his strength and his inclination, and not burden him beyond his capacity.) All of this reason itself concedes. If so, it is astonishing: why should it not avail a man to be in accord with God? Why would He not requite him his reward? Is it not 'far be it from God to do wickedness'? From this Job had proven that individual, personal justice does not emanate from Hashem — for He does not oversee particular matters, but has handed this governance over to the celestial order, which does not distinguish between righteous and wicked. And since this governance serves the needs of existence as a whole, that is, the general world of generation and decay — and so —

'Indeed, of a surety' — the word 'for' is omitted, as though it read, 'indeed, for'; meaning, all the more so is it true that God will not act wickedly — that is, He will not mete out to one who has not sinned the punishment due to a wicked man. This is an elliptical verse, self-explanatory. 'Neither will the Almighty pervert justice' — He will not even pervert judgment so as to withhold the reward that is due.

(12–15) 'Indeed, of a surety, God will not do wickedly' — even if all flesh should perish together: that is to say, even though it may follow, by the order of the celestial mechanism, that the globe of the earth as a whole be destroyed, and together with it all flesh perish as one — namely, every living thing upon the face of the earth — 'and all mankind return to dust' — even so, He would not be doing wickedly, nor perverting justice; for this serves the need of existence as a whole, since the entire earth is as nothing relative to the whole of existence. For 'who has given Him a charge over the earth, or who has disposed the whole world?' — since it is He who created existence as a whole, the earth is to Him but as fine dust. So, too, God would not be doing wickedly, nor perverting justice, if He were to set His heart upon it and gather back to Himself the spirits and the souls that He gave to every living thing on earth, so that all flesh perish together. None of this would be wickedness or a perversion of justice, for it serves the general world of generation and decay. All this is still part of Job's words.

Who gave Him a charge over the earth Who rules over Him, saying, ‘Why did You do so?’ or ‘I did not command You so’? For who gave Him a charge over His dominion, and why should He find pretexts for His creatures? He need not answer one who rules over Him by saying ‘Because of this I harmed him.’

'Who gave Him a charge over the earth?' — or: who created the entire world?

'Who gave Him a charge over the earth' [mi fakad alav artzah] — meaning: who is it that decreed and arranged these things that exist on earth, whose very creation displays a perfection and abundance of wisdom beyond estimation. 'Or who has disposed the whole world' [umi sam teivel kulah] — meaning: and who ordered all these matters, in their totality, that are on earth?

'Who gave Him a charge' — and who commanded Him to create the earth, or who created it apart from Him? Did He not create it, and create it of His own will? If so, its entire existence comes from Him, and everything is in His hand.

Gave ... a charge (pakad) - Commanded, as in 'and he has charged me (hu fakad alai)' (Ezra 1:2).

If He puts His heart on man to destroy him, why should He come upon him with a pretext? He can immediately gather in to Himself... His spirit and His soul His spirit and His soul that He blew into him, and no one will stop Him. Thus, all flesh will perish together.

'If He set' — that is, if the Omnipresent were to set His heart upon mankind, in the sense of 'that You set Your heart upon him' (Job 7:17) — then at once He would gather his spirit back to Himself, in the sense of 'the spirit returns' (Ecclesiastes 12:7).

'If He set His heart' — if He were to set His heart on the world, to turn everything from being to nothingness, could He not gather back to Himself, from the world, the spirit and the breath that He placed within it? Meaning, He would withhold from the world the sustaining influence that flows from Him, and it would revert to nothingness.

He gather (ye'esof) - He brings in/withdraws.

'All flesh shall perish' — that is, the body; and man, who is visible, shall return to dust. Some say instead that [the earlier verse means] if man sets his heart toward the Omnipresent — but this is far-fetched.

'All flesh shall perish together' — then all flesh would perish together, all of it as one, and even mankind would return to the dust from which it was taken. It is as if to say: were His deeds not governed by justice, but He instead sought pretexts against man, regarding him as an enemy, and wished, out of vengefulness, to destroy him — what need would there be for Him to multiply kinds of suffering? Is it not in His power to put an end to him swiftly, off the face of the earth — indeed, to all flesh together, since everything is His? Who, then, could stay His hand?

And if you wish, understand And if you wish, understand. hearken to this This בּינה is not a noun but an imperative expression, like (Ps. 5:2), “consider (בּינה) my meditation.” Therefore, these two are accented on the first syllable, on the “beth,” whereas all the others are accented on the final syllable, on the “nun.”

'If now you have understanding' — if you have understanding, hear this and grasp it, and give ear to the sound of my words, to what I will yet say.

'If now you have understanding' — To this he responds: if you understand well — 'hear this, and hearken to the voice of my words' — and you will see how your own words contradict themselves. For you wished to justify Hashem for the evils that come, for nothing, upon a single righteous man, by claiming that these evils did not proceed from His providence but through the celestial order. But do you not, by this, attribute to Him an even greater injustice — handing over the whole of governance to a celestial order that will bring evils not upon one righteous man alone, but upon mankind as a whole, since it makes no distinction whatsoever between the innocent and the guilty? How, then, can you say that Hashem did not do this particular evil to this particular righteous man alone, but instead did a general evil to all mankind together — when by this the question only grows greater still? For surely it may be asked —

Will...even one who hates judgment Will the Omnipresent heal [even the one who hates the judgment] of the just Judge? If you say that [to do so] is not judgment, for He acted not in accordance with the law, is it possible that you should condemn One Who is very righteous? very Heb. כביר, an expression denoting “exceedingly.”

'Shall even one who hates right govern' — that is, rule, in the sense of 'ya'atzor' [holds power], like an heir who holds authority. And likewise: 'I will not be a ruler' (Isaiah 3:7).

'Govern' [yachavosh] — meaning: rule.

'Shall even one who hates right govern?' — will you go so far as to say this too: that it is one who hates justice who rules? For you would claim that dominion is given over to the celestial order, and that the righteous and the wicked share the same fate, without any justice. Is it right that, with such false words, you should condemn the Omnipresent — who is in truth righteous and mighty, and does not pervert the judgment of reward — so as to hand everything over to the celestial order?

Govern (yachavosh) - An expression of dominion, so called because a ruler confines (chovesh) the guilty in prison; as in 'I will not be a ruler (lo eheyeh choveish)' (Isaiah 3:7). Mighty (kabbir) - Strong.

'Shall even one who hates right govern?' — Would He commit this further injustice: not only failing to repay the righteous according to his deeds, but actually setting as ruler and governor over the world one who hates justice — namely, the celestial order and fate, whose governance follows nature alone and not justice? That would be a still greater injustice. So too, 'will you condemn Him who is just and mighty' — that is, will you condemn Him extensively, on a grand scale (here 'kabir' means 'greatly')? For whereas at first the complaint was only that He had done wrong to a single righteous individual, without cause, now you would condemn Him on a grand scale — for having done wrong to mankind as a whole, by appointing over them a ruler that hates justice, namely the celestial order, so that the entire governance of the world would be without justice. Would you then declare Hashem righteous in this?

Is it proper to say of a king, ‘scoundrel’ Is it fit and proper to say of a king, ‘scoundrel,’ or ‘wicked’ of nobles?

'Is it fit to say' — is it a matter of moral conduct to say to a worthless king, or to say to one of the nobles, 'you are wicked'? All the more so, since God 'does not show partiality to princes, nor show favor' (cf. Job 34:19) — 'nikar' being like 'yakir' [i.e., 'shows partiality'].

'Is it fit to say' — is it fitting to say of a king that he is base, or to call one of the nobles wicked? How much more so to think such a thing of the Omnipresent!

(Verses 18–19) 'Is it fit to say' — this explains the matter by way of a parable. Suppose there were a tyrannical king who did wrong, unjustly, to certain individual nobles, and people said of him that he was wicked because of what he had done to those nobles. Now suppose one person came forward to argue in his defense: that he had not done this only to those particular nobles, but that his rule over the people as a whole — poor and noble alike — treats them all the same in his eyes, to do with them as he pleases, since they are all his servants and his possessions, and he does with them whatever seems good to him. Would this defense justify the king? On the contrary, it would only compound his guilt still further. This is the meaning of 'is it fit to say' — would one argue in defense of a worthless king who is wicked toward nobles, who does wicked deeds to nobles, saying in his defense that he does not show favor to princes nor recognize the noble over the poor, since they are all the work of his hands and all alike as nothing in his eyes? Would this justify such a worthless king? Surely the opposite is true.

Who did not respect princes That is to say, the King of the world, before Whom there is no favoritism. a prince Heb. שוע, a prince, as in (Isa. 32:5), “nor shall a deceitful person be said to be noble (שוע).”

'The rich' [shoa] — meaning: the noble and wealthy.

'That respects not the persons of princes' — is He not the One who shows no favor to princes, granting them no concession because of their rank, and before whom it makes no difference who is rich and who is poor, so that they should be treated differently in the judgment of recompense? For they are all the work of His hands, and there is no distinction between them before the Omnipresent.

Rich (shoa) - A person of noble/generous standing, as in 'nor shall the churl be called noble (shoa)' (Isaiah 32).

In a moment, they die when He wishes. and at midnight as He did to the Egyptians, an [entire] people quakes in a moment and passes away. it is not in their hands it is not in their hands, and they have no strength.

'In a moment they die, even at midnight' — at the time of rest. 'The people are shaken' — that is, they tremble, like 'they were shaken, because He was wroth' (Psalms 18:8). 'And pass away' — that is, they die, in the sense of 'it is passed, it is gone' (Song of Songs 2:11): for the one who is born comes into being, while the one who dies goes and passes away. 'Are taken away' — that is, the mighty one dies. 'Without hand' — that is, not by strength and not by force.

'Are shaken' [yigo'ashu] — meaning: they sway and are stirred. 'And pass away' [veya'avoru] — meaning: and they vanish from the world. 'The mighty' [abir] — meaning: the powerful.

'In a moment they die' — when a sudden death comes, such as a plague or the like, as a punishment in requital, do not both die in a single moment alike, whether poor or rich? 'Even at midnight' — sometimes, suddenly at midnight, the people are shaken and driven about and pass away from the world, because they have sinned against Him; and they themselves remove the strength that is in them — not by the hand of another, but from themselves and within themselves.

Are shaken (yigo'ashu) - An expression of swaying and violent commotion, as in 'and like rivers that surge (uchneharot yitga'ashu)' (Jeremiah 46). The mighty (abbir) - Strength and might.

'In a moment they die' — the subjects of this king: even though they know that they may die in an instant the moment they rise up to rebel against him, they will nevertheless all risk their lives to remove him from his rule. 'And at midnight the people are shaken' — the whole nation rises in tumult, rebels, and 'removes the mighty one — without hand,' meaning with great ease, for all of them will rebel against him in order to rid themselves of his wrongdoing. If so, how then could you justify the King above in this way — by saying that He does no wrong against individual nobles, but only against all His creatures alike, since they are all the work of His hands and all equal before Him, and therefore He does not attend to their individual affairs, but hands them over to His cruel servants, the officers of the celestial order, to do with them as they please?

'For His eyes' — therefore a person need not dwell on this any longer. And it further teaches: that one should always walk before God in justice.

'For His eyes are' — for the Omnipresent watches over all the ways of man, etc.; and when they sin against Him, He swiftly sends forth His word to destroy them from the world, whether poor or rich, even if they are many, and even without any prior cause.

'For His eyes are...' — Elihu now responds to the argument Job raised from the prosperity of the wicked — namely, why Hashem does not punish them openly and publicly, so that all would recognize that it is Hashem's hand that did it. He replies that there is a difference between a human being who punishes those who rebel against him — who hastens to punish them at once — and Hashem, and this for two reasons: 1) Because of his lack of knowledge: he does not always know who has sinned against him, or how; therefore, once some sin or rebellion becomes known to him, he hastens to punish it before the wrongdoer can bring further harm upon him that he would not know to guard against. 2) Because of his limited power: he fears the offender may flee or hide from him, leaving him unable to punish him. Not so with Hashem — it is inconceivable that He would need to hasten to punish because He might not know the sinner. 'For His eyes are upon the ways of a man' — meaning that He watches continually, both over the paths of a person's soul — his thoughts and character traits — and over his actions, for 'He sees all his goings.' Nor is there any fear that the sinner will later hide from His punishment, for —

'There is no darkness' — no darkness can darken itself before Him so as to become a hiding place for the workers of iniquity, that their deeds should not be seen before Hashem.

'There is no darkness, nor shadow of death' for the workers of iniquity to hide themselves there from His punishment, so that He would not see them or find them there. If so, a person who inquires into Hashem's governance in punishing the wicked need only know these two things: 1) That Hashem sees, watches over, and knows the deeds of the wicked. 2) That it is always within His power to punish them. What need has a person to offer counsel to the Ruler above as to how, when, and in what manner He should punish them? This is the meaning: once you know that Hashem knows the way of the wicked, and that He will surely punish them — then —

For He will not place additional [guilt] on a man That is to say: You said (23:6), ‘He will not place upon me anything but my sins,’ only my sins alone, and I reply to you that the Holy One, blessed be He, will not place on His creatures additional accusations over their transgression. [The word] עוד is an expression of addition. to go to God in judgment When He comes upon His creatures to debate with them.

'Appoint a time' [yasim od] — meaning: He arranges and decrees in advance what He will do in the future.

'For He does not,' etc. — for it is not His way to impose upon a person a punishment beyond what is fitting, such that the person would need to say, 'I will go before God in judgment,' claiming that the punishment was excessive for the transgression. For this reason He watches over each particular deed of man, to repay him according to the measure of the deed.

Further (od) - An expression of addition and increase, as in 'and he wept on his neck yet more (od)' (Genesis 46).

'For He does not appoint... to any man' — He has not placed this matter upon any person; that is, it is not incumbent upon him to go before God in judgment, to plead with Hashem and dispute with Him, saying —

He shatters Heb. ירע, [like] ירוֹצֵץ. He shatters, and like (Isa. 24:19), “has broken (התרעעה).” and He stands others in their stead.

'He breaks in pieces' — that is, he shatters, like 'you shall break them with a rod of iron' (Psalms 2:9).

'He breaks in pieces mighty men' [yaroa kabirim] — meaning: He shatters the powerful.

'He breaks in pieces' — behold, He shatters mighty men without number, and sets others in their place, over their dominion.

He breaks in pieces (yaroa) - He shatters, as in 'You shall break them with a rod of iron (tero'em beshevet barzel)' (Psalms 2).

(Verses 24–25) 'He breaks in pieces' — By strict justice it would be fitting for Him to shatter and crush mighty wicked men without inquisition, and to set up other men who are not wicked in their place and stead. And He would do this so that, from it, the deeds of the wicked would be recognized — so that by this the whole world would come to know the punishment for the deeds of the wicked, and the reward received for their service to evil. That is: there would be an earthquake in a place where righteous and wicked stood together, and Hashem, by His particular providence, would see to it that all the wicked found there perish in the quake, their skulls crushed, while all the righteous found there would remain standing, unharmed, in their place. Then all would see that there is providence, and that there is a difference between the righteous and the wicked. But Hashem did not act this way, to destroy the wicked so openly. Rather, 'He overturns them by night, and they are crushed' — He did not crush them by day, in the open, so that their deeds would be recognized; instead He overturned and crushed them at night, in secret. And this is what He did.

Because He recognizes their deeds Because He recognizes their deeds, whether good or evil, He does not need to debate. He turns night A time of darkness and trouble for them, and they are crushed.

'Their works' — that is, their deeds, like 'and their works are in the hand of God' (Ecclesiastes 9:1). 'And He overturns them in the night' — He turns their light into night.

'Their works' [ma'avdeihem] — meaning: their deeds.

'Therefore He takes knowledge' — because He takes note of their deeds, He therefore overturns them in a single night, to set others in their place, while they themselves are crushed from off the earth.

Their works (ma'avdeihem) - Their deeds; for the Targum's rendering of 'ma'aseh' (deed) is 'ovda.' They are crushed (veyiddakke'u) - They are broken and shattered.

In the place of the wicked Heb. תחת, in their location. He smote them The people of Sodom. in the place of viewers Before everyone’s eyes.

'As wicked men' — that is, in the place of those wicked ones; ['He strikes them' is understood] like 'and he clapped his hands' (Numbers 24:10). 'In the open sight of others' — so that others may take warning.

'He strikes them' [sifkam] — meaning: He struck them.

'As wicked men' — because they are wicked, He strikes them and crushes them in a place where there will be onlookers to see, so that they may take a lesson from it.

As (tachat) - On account of, as in 'an eye for an eye (ayin tachat ayin)' (Exodus 21:24). He strikes them (sefakam) - An expression of striking, as in 'and he clapped his hands (vayispok et kappav)' (Numbers 24:10).

'He strikes them as wicked men' — in a place where there are wicked people, Hashem wants doubt to remain in their hearts, so that it will not be made openly clear to them that Hashem punishes the wicked. (For He wanted the wicked to remain in doubt about reward and punishment, so that there would be room for free choice, reward, and punishment.) Therefore He left them in doubt 'in the open sight of others' — for in a place where there are witnesses, He did not punish them there, since then the doubt would be removed and they would know for certain that there is punishment, and they would fear to do evil, leaving no room for free choice. For this reason, when He does wish to punish them, He punishes them by overturning them at night, in secret.

Because they turned away from following Him Heb. אשר על-כן as in (Num. 10:31), “because (על- כן) you knew our camping in the desert.” [This is] like: because (מפני אשר) they turned away from following Him, and they brought before Him and upon Him the cry of the poor.

'Because' — for they perished because they turned aside from following Hashem. 'And any of His ways' — they had no regard for even a single one of all His ways; and so too, the phrase 'concerning any matter of transgression' (Exodus 22:8) — its rule is: for any one matter of transgression.

'Because' — and because He does not punish the wicked openly, before the eyes of onlookers, so that doubt remains regarding providence, on account of this 'they turned aside from following Him.' And therefore 'the heart of the sons of man is fully set to do evil' (cf. Ecclesiastes 8:11). 'And would not have regard to any of His ways' — meaning, they fail to understand that He concealed the punishment of the wicked intentionally, so that they would not comprehend it, and so that room would remain for free choice. And through this they brought it about…

'So that they cause the cry of the poor to come to Him' — that is, the poor whom the wicked had robbed.

'So that they cause the cry of the poor to come to Him' — for this reason He destroys them from the world, to bring upon each of them the recompense for the cry of the poor man whom he oppressed, and the recompense for the cry of the many afflicted whom He hears — for he oppressed both the individual and the many, and their cry came before the Omnipresent.

'So that they cause the cry of the poor to come to Him' — the poor man, murdered and oppressed by these wicked men, cries out to Hashem and complains: why does Hashem not punish the wicked man, and why does He not save the poor man from his hand? This is the very question Job asked (in chapter 24): that there are wicked men who are destroyers of civilization, and 'the soul of the wounded cries out,' yet 'God imputes it not for unseemliness' (Job 24:12). But the truth is that He does hear the cry of the poor. And to this too there is an answer: sometimes the wicked man is the rod of Hashem's anger, meant to punish people for their evil, as it is written, 'Ah, Assyria, the rod of My anger' (Isaiah 10:5). Therefore He does not punish him, but rather grants him yet more strength and power, until the time allotted to him for chastising nations and rebuking peoples has run its course — as it is written, 'And it shall come to pass, when Hashem has performed His whole work upon Mount Zion and Jerusalem, I will punish the fruit of the stout heart of the king of Assyria' (Isaiah 10:12). And this is what he [Elihu] said.

When He quiets He gives the poor [some peace and] quiet from those who oppress [them]. Now who will deal wickedly anymore? And as long as He hid His face, who will see Him? whether [it be done] to a nation or to a man, alike As for individuals, [or] as for a multitude it is the same to Him to quiet [them] and to hide His face.

'Who then can condemn' — that is, [the word] means he stirs up strife, and likewise 'and wherever he turned, he prevailed' (1 Samuel 14:47); the sense is the opposite of 'quiet' — for at a time of strife people become agitated. Do you not see that it is written, 'but the wicked are like the troubled sea, which cannot rest' (Isaiah 57:20)? 'And when He hides His face' — the opposite of 'quiet'; then all conflicts are stirred up. 'Whether it be done to a nation' — that is, concerning a nation, or also concerning a single individual; and He enthrones a godless man only from among 'those who ensnare a people' (cf. Job 34:30), in order to take vengeance on them.

'And when He gives quietness' — when the Omnipresent decrees that a person shall dwell in quiet and security, who then is there to trouble and confound him? And when He hides His face from someone, so as not to attend to him and provide for his want, then who can behold him — meaning, who will look after him to fill his want? For everything is from the hand of Hashem, and the celestial order has no power either to distance or to draw near. 'Whether it be done to a nation' — whether upon an entire nation or upon a single individual; for He has power even over the general, and He watches over the particular as well.

Can condemn (yarshia) - He terrifies and confounds; as in 'and wherever he turned, he put them to confusion (uvechol asher yifneh yarshia)' (I Samuel 14:47). Can behold Him (yeshurennu) - He sees Him, as in 'I see him, but not near (ashurenu velo karov)' (Numbers 24:17).

(29-30) 'When He gives quietness' — the sense of the two verses together is: 'And when He gives quietness' from the reign of a godless man, from the snares of the people — 'who then can condemn?' Meaning, Hashem may arrange for a godless man to reign, one who agitates and convulses the earth; or He may arrange 'snares of the people' — that many wicked men arise to become a snare to the people: murderers, robbers, and destroyers of civilization — in order to punish the world through them, and to serve as the rod of His anger and wrath. And the evil of the tyrant who convulses the earth, or of the wicked who are snares of the people, has a set time and a fixed limit according to Hashem's decree — until the time comes when Hashem grants mankind quiet from the godless man and from the snares of the people, and puts an end to their evil. Then 'who can condemn?' — for then the wicked will be cut off and wickedness will cease. But so long as He 'hides His face' from the reigning of a godless man — which lasts the whole time appointed for chastising the nations — during that time Hashem hides His face and does not punish the godless man, the snares of the people, and the wicked who lay the world to waste. 'Who then can behold Him' — for then providence is hidden and concealed, and Hashem does not punish the wicked. 'Whether it be done to a nation' — and this will sometimes be against a single nation, where He arranges for a tyrant and snares of the people to punish through them a particular nation that has sinned against Him; and sometimes it will be 'to a man, alike' — against mankind as a whole, as with Sennacherib and Nebuchadnezzar, who laid waste to and conquered the entire world. In any case, you cannot prove from this that there is no providence and no reward and punishment, merely from the fact that He does not cut off those who convulse these lands — for on the contrary, they have been appointed by Him, through His providence, to chastise people for their evil deeds; and their dominion and power stand firm in their hands, granted by Hashem, until the day of their own calamity comes, for 'their doom comes speedily' (Deuteronomy 32:35). And all this follows from what he said: that henceforth no man may go to God in judgment. For over all these matters, no person can be brought to judgment with God, or ask Him why the wicked man prospers and why Hashem does not cut him off. And he goes on to say.

And it shall be quiet, that a flattering man shall not reign because of the snares of the people Over the poor, who reigned. because of the snares of the people [who were guilty] of iniquity, and concerning such a God, you should not have said, ‘scoundrel,’ and ‘wicked.

'That the godless man reign not' — it is He who removes a godless man from ruling, so that there be no snares for the people — meaning, so that he not bring snares upon the people.

The godless man (chanef) - A wicked person who flatters his own inclination and does its bidding.

For to God should be said To be said to Him. It is fitting and proper for all those who suffer pains to say, ‘I bear, accept, and tolerate Your judgments, and I will not destroy myself.’ Further, the one who is judged must say...

'For has any said to God' — can a person say: 'I have borne these afflictions, I will not act corruptly again, I will no longer act destructively' — in the sense of 'and destroy the work of your hands' (Ecclesiastes 5:5)? And the point is: can a person say, 'It is enough for me, I wish no more'?

'I have borne chastisement, though I offend not' [nasati lo echbol] — meaning: I have forgiven [it]; I will not act corruptly.

'For has any said to God' — meaning: since His deeds appear to be just, it is fitting to say to God, 'Behold, I will bear and endure the pain, and from now on I will not corrupt my deeds.'

I have borne (nasati) - I shall bear and endure. I offend (achbol) - I shall act corruptly/destructively.

'For has any said to God' — meaning, it is not for a person to go to God in judgment over [His] having said, 'I have borne.' For even apart from these reasons already given, no person can bring a case to judgment before God, who might say, 'I bear [with them]; I will not harm [them].' For if He says: I wish to endure and bear the anger of the wicked who provoke Me, and to prolong My patience toward them, and I do not wish to harm them — no person can go to Him in judgment over this, if He wishes to prolong His patience for a reason known to Himself.

Besides what I see Besides what I know to perceive in Your words, You instruct me, and if I have committed injustice, I will not continue.

'That which I see not' — that is, apart from what I do perceive. 'If I have done iniquity' — that is, in my speech.

'That which I see not, teach You me' — and besides what I myself may come to understand from Your words, teach me the deed I should do; and if I have committed iniquity out of lack of knowledge, I will not do so any more, once You teach me to know the way I should walk. And it is as if he says: this is the proper way to speak, rather than holding oneself righteous and kicking against the sufferings.

That which I see not (bil'adei) - This term is equivalent to 'milvad' (aside from, except); so too, 'save only that which the young men have eaten (bil'adai)' (Genesis 14). I see (echezeh) - [Meaning] I shall see, as in 'and you shall seek out (techezeh)' (Exodus 18). Teach You me (horeni) - [Meaning] instruct me.

'That which I see not' — (the phrase 'has any said,' [from the previous verse], carries forward here as well). '[Has any said] to God, “That which I see not, teach me”' — meaning, Hashem would say to the one who goes to judgment against Him: Would you teach Me something that I do not see? Do you see and know more than I, that you should teach Me something I do not see — so that thereby, 'if I have done iniquity, I will do it no more'? That is, that once you make known to me — by showing me something I had not seen and had not understood — that I had committed iniquity unknowingly, would I then no longer do the like of this iniquity?

From you should He pay it, for you despised etc. so did Elihu say to Job, “Should the Holy One, blessed be He, have taken counsel from you about repaying you?” for you despised saying (above 7: 16), “I despised [my life]; I will not live forever”; (above 6:9) “enlarge His hand and finish me off.” Do you think that He would collect from you according to your thoughts and your desire, and you would choose the payment—not I? Elihu spoke instead of the Holy One, blessed be He, with a question.

'Shall His recompense be as you will?' — Most of the commentators have gone astray on this verse. Some say it means: shall He make up for the deficiency in my understanding, just because you have rejected my words? Others say: is it within your power to make peace with the evil that has befallen you? For you will choose my words, if I speak the truth. But what seems correct to me is that the plain sense is this: is it up to you whether He repays evil or good? 'For you loathe it' — the sense is: there are people who say, "I do not want to endure evil for the sake of a great good that will be its reward" — in the manner of "neither they nor their reward." 'For you must choose, and not I' — why should you be the one to choose? Perhaps I would be willing to endure a little evil for a limited time, for the sake of a great good in days without end.

'Shall His recompense be' [yeshalmenah] — meaning: will He bring it to completion, to carry it out?

'Shall His recompense be as you will' — is it that the inquiry into the workings of Hashem's judgment is to be settled by you alone? Do you alone get to decide, simply because you reject what others say? And he repeats the point again, saying: is it you who determines the truth of the matter, and not I? Do I not also have a mind, just as you do? Whatever you know from reasoning and argument, speak it, and let us set our minds to examine whether it is true.

'Shall His recompense be as you will' — (here too the phrase 'has any said' carries forward). '[Has any said,] “Shall His recompense be as you will, for you loathe it”' — meaning, Hashem would say to the one who goes to judgment against Him: why do you demand a reckoning from Me as to why I do not punish the wicked man? Is it that, because Hashem does not pay the wicked man his punishment, this payment will be exacted from you — and that this is why you have come to loathe My governance, and this matter does not sit well in your eyes? Surely I do not take the payment of the wicked man's punishment from your hand — so what concern is it of yours? Why should you become embroiled in a dispute that is not yours, as though you are the one to choose, and not I? Or do you wish that the choice of the time and manner of the punishment of the wicked should lie in your hands and not in Mine — that you should choose the time and measure of the punishment, and not I? — so that you argue over why He punishes the wicked man at a later time (whenever He chooses, according to His wisdom) rather than at an earlier time (according to what you would choose). Now, since Hashem — out of His will, His wisdom, and His governance of the whole — sees fit not to punish the wicked immediately and openly, but prolongs His patience toward them for reasons known to His boundless wisdom, and you lose nothing by this, since He does not seek the payment of their punishment from your hand — who are you, that you should go to Him in judgment to demand from Him a reckoning and account of His governance? 'Therefore speak what you know' — meaning, if you have anything more to say and to argue about this, then speak whatever else you know to say.

Men of understanding will say to me that Job does not speak with knowledge.

'Men of understanding will say to me' — indeed I know that men of understanding will say to me — meaning, they will agree with my words — and every wise man who hears me will not depart from them.

'Men of understanding will say to me' — meaning, you will go on speaking whatever else you know. But men of understanding who hear your words will say to me — and likewise, any wise man who hears from me the answer I have given to your words, he too will say, that —

'Job speaks without knowledge' — but Job speaks without knowledge; meaning, because of the severity of his pain, his mind is not whole, and therefore his words are not spoken with discernment; and were it not for this, he too would agree with my words.

'Job speaks without knowledge' — meaning, his words are not drawn from knowledge attained through observation and experience, nor do they agree with the understanding of the philosophers, which is drawn from the proofs of reason. For his words are not spoken 'with discernment.'

My Father! May [Job] be tried You are my Father. The Holy One, blessed be He, is the Father of all. If only Job were tried to eternity, in order that there be repentance among men of iniquity. And also to men Scripture speaks in this manner (II Kings 5:13): “‘Master (אבי), if the prophet spoke to you to do a difficult thing etc.’” Another explanation: אבי is like (Ecc. 12:5), “and the sexual desire (האביונה) will fail,” an expression of desire. Menachem (Machbereth p. 11) associated it in this manner, and this is its interpretation: אָבִי יִבָּחֵן אִיוֹב עַד נֶצַח, my wish and my desire are that Job should be tried to eternity (omitted in some editions).

'Would that' (avi) — Some say that this word is like avah, meaning "my wish." But it seems more likely to me that he is addressing God as "my Father," with the sign of address omitted: "if Job is to be tested to the very end, let him truly be tested" — because his answers are like those of wicked men.

'Would that' [avi] — from the root avah [to wish]; the meaning would be 'my desire is...'; or it may be a vocative cry directed to Hashem, concerning [the matter]. 'Because of his answering like wicked men' [teshuvot b'anshei aven] — meaning: because he replies to them [his friends] with answers characteristic of wicked men.

'Would that' — behold, it is my wish that Job be tested by suffering forever, to see whether he will retract his words; and despite all his outcry, may the sufferings not depart from him until he returns to Hashem. 'Because of his answering' — so that answers may be found against the men of iniquity, when they see that the sufferings did not depart from him except through repentance.

Would that (avi) - An expression of desire, of wanting, as in 'my husband's brother refuses (lo avah yevami)' (Deuteronomy 25:7).

'Would that' — this is my wish and desire. 'That Job be tried to the end' — that he be tested, and that I argue with him until he is defeated over answers [fit for] men of iniquity. Meaning, that he be defeated concerning the heretical statements he answers with in his argument — for they belong to 'men of iniquity,' meaning that they are fitting to be found among the wicked, not the sort that should come from a righteous man like him. Therefore it is my desire to test his words, whatever more he wishes to say — as he said, 'therefore speak what you know' — and to argue with him until he is defeated over the heretical answers he gives.

he speaks loquaciously Heb. יספוק is an expression of many words and raising the voice. among us he speaks loquaciously He asks, Why should we be concerned with his words? (above 19:4), ‘And even if I have indeed erred, let my error stay with me,’ and he does not know that we are punished, and he increases iniquities for us because we are listening. So it is explained in Leviticus Rabbah (4:6).

'For' — at every moment he adds transgression to his sin. 'He claps his hands among us' — [the word yispoq means] to excess, as in "if the dust of Samaria will suffice" (1 Kings 20:10). The sense is: what would be enough among us, he multiplies still further against God.

'He claps his hands' [yispok] — meaning: he claps his hands and complains against Hashem. Explanation of the words of the response: Elihu responds to some of the things he recalled that Job had said, and he says: 'Hear my words, you wise men, and give ear to me, you who have knowledge, for the ear tries words, as the palate tastes food.' Or his intent is that he will argue against Job from things that are perceptible to the senses, not that he will conceal what is sensibly evident, as Job's companions had been doing. 'Let us choose for ourselves what is right' — that is, let us not simply prefer one view to another except on the basis of reasoned inquiry and the senses, or by way of one of the two; rather, let us strive to determine which of the two views is better. For Job has said, 'I am righteous, and God has taken away my right' — meaning, regarding the judgment by which Hashem has judged me through these afflictions: should I lie by saying that I am righteous? In truth, 'my wound is incurable, though I am without transgression.' What man is like Job — wise and consummate as he is — that he should speak such words of mockery? For in this statement he all but joins company with the workers of iniquity and wicked men, since he says, 'it profits a man nothing that he should be in accord with God' — the straight path. Yet he says this because whoever walks the straight path is described as having 'walked with God,' as in the phrase, 'Noah walked with God' (Genesis 6:9). Therefore, hearken to me, you men of understanding: far be it from God that He should do wickedness or commit iniquity — for He requites a person's deeds to him; that is, He rewards him according to his way, just as 'a hireling looks for his wages' (Job 7:2); and He causes a man to find according to his ways — meaning, He watches over the good and preserves them, while the wicked are abandoned to the misfortunes of time destined to befall them through the constellation. Now, that Hashem does not act wickedly and does not pervert justice is evident from what he says: who is it that has decreed and set in order all these wondrous things that are upon the earth, in this wondrous arrangement of righteousness and wisdom, of which a person can grasp only a little — and whoever ordered this whole world besides Him, is it not true that He alone created it, and that it stands and is preserved always by His power? And if He desired wickedness, to bring evil into the world unjustly, He could gather back to Himself all the life of this world at once and destroy it, so that all flesh would perish together and man would return to dust. But this is not so; rather, we find that Hashem watches over it with a wondrous providence, sustaining it always in its proper condition. It therefore follows that wickedness and injustice cannot be attributed to Hashem. And if you have understanding, hear this. Shall even one who hates right govern? Yet in this world there is found justice and kindness to the utmost degree possible in the creation of the things that are in it — especially in plants and animals — and it is not fitting to attribute wickedness to Him whose righteousness is so mighty in this governance, that He has ordered the affairs of the people of the world with such fairness that no distinction is made in it for princes, nor is any distinction made between the rich and the poor, since they are all the work of His hands. Hence you find that when their day comes, they die in an instant — at the very measure of the moment that divides the night into two halves, which is not truly a duration of time at all, but like a point on a line — they are found to move together with one another and pass out of the world and perish; when their day comes, and the mighty one who ruled over this people is removed along with them, all of them die together without a hand being laid upon them, but by the will and decree of Hashem. This evil comes upon them on account of their own wickedness, through the withdrawal of divine providence from them on this account; and when Hashem hides His face from them, they become a target for the mishaps of time — as it says afterward, 'and when He hides His face, who then can behold Him — whether it be done to a nation or to a man, alike.' And all this is because 'His eyes are upon the ways of a man, and He sees all his goings,' and it is possible that among them there are both righteous and wicked. Hence the evil that falls upon them by chance, through the constellation, is, as it were, aimed at punishing the wicked — for Hashem strives a great deal in matters where benefit necessarily results from them, as has been explained in the Book of Animals. 'There is no darkness, and no shadow of death, where the workers of iniquity can hide themselves' from Hashem, may He be blessed, on account of their wickedness — for without doubt, punishment comes upon them in bodily matters, through the withdrawal of divine providence from them. He does not simply appoint in advance a set time for a person to go do what he will do in the future; rather, everything rests upon his own choice, so that every person is able to go toward God in justice and righteousness, and what has been ordered by the stars regarding a person's deeds and psychic dispositions does not prevent him from this — for, as we have said, this order is governed by the intellect. Hashem 'breaks in pieces mighty men' who oppress people beyond reckoning, 'and sets others in their stead' when they arise, to do them harm just as harm was done to those before them — and this indeed is on account of the hiding of His face. And on account of this, He makes their deeds known to people, that they were evil, when they see the punishment come upon them, 'and He overturns them in the night, so that they are crushed' — in a brief span, like the instant in which night turns to day, since there is no interval between day and night. Thus He has already 'struck them as wicked men,' at the very degree at which the wicked deserve to be struck, 'in the open sight of others,' so that onlookers see the harm that comes upon these evil men, and see that they themselves brought these harms upon themselves 'because they turned aside from following Him and would not have regard to any of His ways,' until His providence departed from them. And in this there is benefit for the good people whom these evil men had been oppressing — the poor and the destitute, who 'cause the cry of the poor to come to Him,' crying out to Him because they were oppressed. It is also possible to say that Elihu holds there to be two reasons here for evil befalling the wicked. The first is the withdrawal of divine providence from them, whose cause is their own turning away from Him and their failure to understand His ways, on account of which the harms fixed for them by the constellation come upon them. The second is the divine providence that rests upon the good — for it is possible for the Active Intellect to watch over the good person, removing from him anything that would harm him, and destroying these wicked men on his account, aiming directly at the benefit of the good. And this, without doubt, is also the view of our Torah — namely, that harm comes upon the wicked for one of these two reasons; and thus the harms came upon the Egyptians for Israel's sake. This is apart from the fact that the Torah also states that this is the general practice; and the Torah likewise mentions the second manner of bringing punishment on the wicked — namely, the withdrawal of divine providence from him, so that he is cast off and abandoned to the misfortunes destined to come upon him — as it says, 'And I will hide My face from them, and they shall be devoured' (Deuteronomy 31:17), and 'Vengeance is Mine, and recompense, at the time when their foot shall slip' (Deuteronomy 32:35). And when Hashem grants a person quiet by preserving him under His providence, [He asks,] 'who then can condemn him,' or punish him? For there is no power in the harm fixed by the constellation to injure a person so long as Hashem's providence rests upon him — and this providence comes to him through his conjunction with the Active Intellect, to the extent of his capacity. But if Hashem hides His face, and the person is cast off and abandoned to chance events, who will look out for him and watch over him, to save him from the evil destined to come upon him? This evil occurs on account of the hiding of His face, to the point that it can befall 'a nation and a man' who rules over it, 'alike.' The reason for this is that when a hypocrite rules over a people, and mishaps and snares abound among that people, it is as though he said: the people are not punished for the king's sin, provided that they themselves stand in a position where Hashem's providence rests upon them, nor is the king punished for the people's sin — rather, the cause of the harm that befalls them is the sin of both together. It is also possible to say that the intent of his words, 'that the godless man reign not,' and so on, is that Hashem, through the strength of His providence, ensures that a godless man does not reign except over a people who are already caught in snares — and so Hashem sends them a ruler to destroy them, whereas if they were good, he would have no power to destroy them, since Hashem, who protects them, would turn the ruler's heart however He wishes, as it says, 'The king's heart is in Hashem's hand, like channels of water; He turns it wherever He wishes' (Proverbs 21:1). Now, the first explanation is more correct, both as to the sense and as to the wording — for according to the second explanation, it ought to have said, 'that a godless man reign over a people caught in snares,' in the reverse order. And given that the matter is as I have said — namely, that Hashem protects those attached to Him from all the harm fixed to come upon them through the constellation, and that harm comes to the righteous by way of providence, in order to protect them from a still greater harm otherwise fixed to come upon them by that order, and that harm comes to the righteous by way of chastisement, when they begin to set foot upon the path of wickedness — then, as for God, who has the power to say, 'I have borne chastisement, though I offend not' — that is, whose power removes the harm fixed to come by the constellation — it would be fitting for you to turn and say, 'that which I do not see, teach me; if I have done iniquity, I will do it no more' — that is, if you did not already know yourself to be wicked, as you claim, and strove to draw near to Him in such a way that His providence would rest upon you, then you would be saved. For this necessarily follows from what I have said: whatever comes upon you comes either by way of chastisement for a sin toward which you have begun to walk, or by way of the arrangement of the stars, through the withdrawal of providence from you, or by way of Hashem's providence over you, to save you from a still greater harm that was fixed to come upon you. As for this third manner, you have no right to complain of it, even if the harm that came upon you came in this way; and if it came by one of the two earlier ways, then the answer given you does not help you, and does not save you from the completion of the harm that had already begun to come upon you. 'Shall His recompense be as you will?' Is it not fitting that something proceed from you that would itself become a cause bringing the harm to completion against you — since you 'loathed' your life and did not strive to draw near to Hashem so that He might remove the harm from you, but instead chose that it should kill you? Or the intent may be, 'for you have utterly loathed' returning to Hashem and submitting before Him — 'you must choose, and not I.' And what do you know, that you should answer my words? 'Men of understanding will say to me, indeed, every wise man who hears me' — that Job did not speak these words of his with knowledge, and that 'his words are without discernment.' My wish is that 'Job were tried' by these afflictions 'to the end,' so that from him there would come replies to men of iniquity — that is, to answer them: 'See what happened to Job for hurling such words against Hashem.' Or its sense is 'answering like wicked men' — because he was giving the kind of replies characteristic of men of iniquity, attributing injustice to Hashem on account of the seeming prosperity of the wicked, as he mentioned. 'For he adds rebellion to his sin; he claps his hands among us, and multiplies his words against God,' as though God were but a man like himself. The general conclusion that emerges from all this is as follows. Job had claimed that extraordinary misfortunes had come upon him though there was no violence in his hands, and he concluded from this that man is cast off and abandoned to the arrangement that stems from the constellation — and on this basis he complained against Hashem, asking how He could have ordered matters in this fashion, devoid of order and fairness, and why He created men of hardship at all, since they have no escape from harm, so that non-being would be preferable to them over existence, and death over life. Elihu answers that Job's words are void, on two counts. The first is that Job claimed there was no violence in his own hands; yet it is clear that he had already sinned by saying that it profits a person nothing to walk in the ways of Hashem — thereby, as it were, joining in that opinion with wicked men and workers of iniquity, who commit whatever wickedness and violence they commit relying on the belief that no harm will come to them from Hashem on that account. And although Job had already defended himself on this point, replying that he did not approve of this wickedness and injustice — as he said in his own response, 'As God lives, who has taken away my right' (Job 27:2) — he nonetheless has no excuse for having entered into this view of his, because of his failure to investigate this question as thoroughly as was proper. Now, it is evident that a sin of belief is graver than a sin committed in matters of character and conduct. For the more noble the subject characterized by an act of rebellion, the graver the sin committed against it; and since a sin of belief is characterized by the intellect, while a sin in matters of conduct is characterized by matter and the material powers of the soul — and the intellect is nobler than matter and the rest of the soul's powers — it is evident that a sin of belief is graver than a sin in matters of conduct, such as theft, robbery, and the like. This is all the more so when the error touches the very belief on which the perfection of humanity as a whole depends — the intellectual perfection — as is the case in this very matter in which Job erred, in this manner of error. That political — that is, communal-moral — perfection also hangs upon this belief is clear from what was said before: people refrain from wickedness and injustice only out of fear that punishment will come upon them for it. And it can further be shown that scientific — that is, intellectual — perfection likewise depends on this belief, in two respects. The first is incidental: when people know that by perfecting their intellect and bringing it from potentiality to actuality they will escape the harms that come by way of the constellation, as has been shown from Elihu's words, they will strive to perfect their intellect. The second is essential: for human felicity consists in a person's apprehending Hashem, may He be blessed, intellectually, to the extent this is possible — and this principle is agreed upon by both the philosophers and the masters of the divine Torah, and it is virtually self-evident to anyone who has studied philosophy and understands the nature of the intellect, and what it is to apprehend intellectually. And since the apprehension of Hashem that is possible for us comes about through our apprehending His works and the manner of His acting in them, and the greatest of these that it is possible for us to apprehend are these very things that are in this lower world — then, when His governance of them is hidden from us, and we fall into this manner of error into which Job fell regarding that governance, the apprehension of Hashem, may He be blessed, that is possible for us is withheld from us. This being so, it is clear that Job's words are unjust when he says, 'I am righteous, and God has taken away my right.' The second flaw is this: Elihu explains that Hashem does not strive at all to bring about wickedness and injustice, but rather keeps it far away in every way; hence it is not proper to say, as Job was saying, that He ordered the good and evil that befall individual human beings in a manner that does not preserve justice and righteousness. That Hashem does not desire wickedness and injustice can be shown by inquiry, and for this we offer the following demonstration, built on a premise whose truth is necessary — namely, that Hashem is the agent of all existing things. Once this premise is granted — and it is undoubtedly true, and its acceptance is obligatory both for the masters of the divine Torah and for the masters of speculative inquiry — then, when we examine as a whole the order that Hashem has arranged in this existence, we find in it a degree of righteousness, fairness, beneficence, and graciousness beyond calculation. I mean that when we investigate the perfection found in the formation of each and every species among existing things, we find that it would not have been possible for them to be brought into being in a more perfect manner — that is, it is impossible for them to possess, in themselves, a greater degree of perfection than what they in fact possess, and it is likewise impossible for some of them to be more perfect in some respect than they in fact are, given the perfection that some have in some respects, and the deficiency that some have in others. It is to these two premises that Elihu alludes when he says, 'Who gave Him a charge over the earth? Or who has disposed the whole world?' — meaning that he mentions that Hashem is the agent who orders the world, and argues, in addition, by this verse, that this order teaches us that Hashem does not desire wickedness — which is what he had said earlier: 'God will not do wickedly, and the Almighty will not pervert justice,' demonstrating this from the very order Hashem has arranged in this world. Given that this is so, it is clear, from these very acts that Hashem performs, that He does not desire the doing of wickedness and injustice; rather, His whole striving is to do justice and righteousness in all existing things. For if He desired the doing of wickedness and injustice, His acts would not display the degree of justice and righteousness that they do — since from one who desires wickedness and injustice, justice and righteousness come about only slightly, and by chance. And no one may object by saying that He is the agent of the species — in whose creation justice and righteousness are found — but not the agent of the individuals, on the grounds that species are nothing over and above individuals, but are in fact the individuals themselves; it is only in individuals that something is added beyond the specific nature, namely, the material factors that give them their particular, individuating features, as has been explained in the Metaphysics. Once all this is settled, it is clear that Hashem does not desire wickedness and injustice, and that where we find Him seemingly not preserving justice and righteousness in the good and evil that befall particular human beings, we ought to inquire how this can be so, without attributing wickedness and injustice to Hashem — and if we cannot work this out, we ought to attribute it to our own limitation, rather than declare, on the strength of the apparent poorness of the order we perceive in what we take to be the good and evil befalling individual human beings, that Hashem arranged this matter in a deficient way, as Job was saying. And should one say that Job did not attribute the matter about which he was complaining to wickedness and injustice on Hashem's part, but rather to weariness and limitation, and that this claim is therefore not overturned by the foregoing argument — Elihu overturns this claim as well, by the force of this same argument, saying that Hashem does not act wickedly and does not pervert justice, and that no weariness or limitation on His part prevented Him from bringing about this order found in the good and evil of individual human beings in a more perfect manner. This is clear, since He alone brought this entire existence into being and ordered it with this wondrous order, which shows that the utmost degree of power and wisdom belongs to its Maker; and if no limitation or weariness affected Him in bringing into being what He brought into being of these wondrous things — the very utmost of wonder found in existence — then all the more so, no weariness or limitation would affect Him in what is lesser than this, namely, bringing good to the good and evil to the evil; and all the more so, He would not grow weary so as to refrain from creating men of hardship, nor would He be limited in grasping whether death is preferable to life for such men or not. Elihu now demonstrates, in a second way, that Hashem does not desire wickedness and injustice. He first sets down — as though self-evident — the premise that bringing good without regard to judgment is not an injustice; that is, bringing good to the wicked as fixed for them by the constellation involves no injustice, for this good comes to them by way of the general providence with which Hashem watches over mankind — that is, by way of the arrangement stemming from the heavenly bodies — and this comes to them because a person was born at a time when the position of the stars was of this particular condition, not on account of what these particular people are morally. And it is clear that Hashem should not be expected to withhold this manner of providence from the human race on account of the wicked people who may happen to be found within it; rather, it would be an injustice and a wickedness only if good came to them specifically because they are wicked, or because of their individual [wicked] nature. Once this is established, we may show from Elihu's own words that Hashem does not desire wickedness. For if He desired wickedness, then, according to Job's own position, it would necessarily follow that His striving would be to bring evil without judgment upon these lower existents by means of the constellation — since, as established, bringing good without judgment in this manner is not wickedness or injustice. Now, if He desired to bring evil, He would destroy this lower existence in an instant, given the power and capacity that belongs to Hashem; moreover, the continued subsistence of this existent world depends on Hashem, and were He not to sustain it through His preservation, it would perish at once. Restating this in terms of the negation of the consequence: but this lower existence is not, in fact, destroyed and perishing all at once; therefore, by the negation of the antecedent, it follows that Hashem does not desire destruction and harm — this being the negation of the consequent in the preceding hypothetical syllogism, from which follows the negation of the antecedent, namely, that Hashem does not desire wickedness. It is to this demonstration that Elihu alludes when he says, 'If He set His heart upon man, if He gather to Himself his spirit and his breath' — explaining what he had said before, 'God will not do wickedly.' And he says, 'and man shall return to dust' — for if Job's view was that this injustice is found only with respect to man, and it is not necessary on that view that His desire to bring evil without judgment should extend beyond man, then it is clear that if Hashem desired to bring evil specifically upon man, He would destroy the human race in an instant. And because Elihu did not explicitly explain that bringing good without judgment to the wicked, by way of the constellation, is not an injustice, this question remains for Job even after Elihu's words — namely, why prosperity is found among the wicked — as we shall explain in our own commentary on Job's dispute with Hashem. Now, as for the evil that befalls the lower existents incidentally, through the heavenly bodies, Elihu has already stated that it should not be attributed to Hashem as wickedness and injustice, since there is benefit in it — to punish the wicked for their wickedness, so that other people receive rebuke from it, and so that the good are likewise saved from the hands of the wicked when the wicked perish. And Elihu also mentions, along with this, that Hashem sometimes brings evil upon the wicked for this reason alone, even where it was not otherwise fixed for them by the constellation, in order to save the righteous from their hands — and all this is justice and righteousness.

'For he adds' — for beyond the sin that he sins in his heart, in denying providence, he adds further transgression: among us, in public, he complains to his heart's content, and multiplies his words against God. And if, despite all this, the sufferings should depart from him, this would close the door before the men of iniquity, and they would not return to Hashem, for they would say: everything comes by chance, and just as it came, so it departed. (The conclusion that emerges from this discourse, to be stated once more: that the Omnipresent repays each person according to his deeds, and does not seek pretexts to harm the work of His hands out of hatred for them — for if that were so, why would He need to resort to such elaborate means? Is not everything His, and is it not in His power to destroy everything with ease, with no one to stay His hand? Rather, He does everything in judgment, whether for the poor man or the rich, the few or the many, and the celestial order has no power to annul the decree of the Omnipresent. Therefore it is proper to return to Hashem, and not to kick against the sufferings; indeed, he even desires that the sufferings not depart from Job until he repents, so as to demonstrate repentance.)

He claps his hands (yispok) - Related to the word for sufficiency (sefek); here it means very greatly, as in 'in the fulness of his sufficiency (bimlot sifko)' (above, 20).

'For' — if we do not argue with him until he is defeated, will he not go on adding transgression to his sin, and continue to cling to heresy and to the denial of faith? For does he not cast doubt among us — that even though he sits among us who believe in providence and in reward and punishment, he casts doubts upon that belief? 'And multiplies his words against God' — to argue against Him. Therefore I wish to test him in argument until he retracts from his views and his doubts.