Job · Chapter 6

(Job's Response)

'Then Job answered' — that is, [he begins by saying] 'Would that my vexation were but weighed' (6:2). 'And my calamity' — from [the doubling in the expression] 'disaster upon disaster' (Ezekiel 7:26).

Explanation of the words of this response — 'Then Job answered and said.'

Introduction to the Third Exchange – Job's Response Job returns to reinforce the position he had laid down: that the earth has been handed over to the workings of the arrangement of the constellations, and that no reckoning — good or bad — is kept of what a person does, for all his actions are entirely compelled, and it is not within his power to change what has been decreed for him by his fortune and by the arrangement of the constellations governing him. Consequently, there is no difference between the righteous and the wicked. All of this he proved from the fact that a righteous man is seen to perish precisely through his righteousness (Ecclesiastes 7:15), as he had shown from what had happened to him: that he had become like a lost vessel (Psalms 31:13), even though he was righteous and upright. Eliphaz had countered this proof by maintaining that the evil that overtakes a righteous man is only temporary, and that no righteous man is ever found to perish outright; rather, a righteous man is found to suffer for a light sin, so that this light sin be cleansed through mild, temporary afflictions, in order to save him thereby from eternal loss. Job's own sufferings, in Eliphaz's view, were of this kind. Against this Job argued that he had been struck with a blow of death and utter destruction, such that he would not survive this illness of his, as he had established with proofs (Job 6:4-13). If so, of what comfort is it to him that through these afflictions his light sins would be cleansed, and that through them he would escape eternal harm, or death and destruction, and would yet live again after his fall — seeing that no hope remains to him except to long that his death be hastened, so that he might be freed from the greatness of his pains (Job 6:4-13, and Job 7:11-17). And if it be said that he had committed such great sins that death had justly been decreed against him, he asks in response that he be told what his transgression and his sin actually were (Job 6:28-30). And as for his [Eliphaz's] proof of Job's guilt from the fact that he did not withstand the test but immediately raised a complaint, as he had said, “for now it has come to you, and you falter…” (Job 4:5), Job responds that his complaint is slight in proportion to his suffering and to the greatness of his calamity (Job 6:2-5). Beyond this, Job philosophically refutes Eliphaz's position as a whole, including his premise that a righteous man may be found to suffer in order to cleanse his sin and save him from death on account of that sin. Against this premise Job sets up another, true premise: it is well known that every living creature and every existing thing is necessarily created for some purpose. Now, there are some existing things that display no action or activity whatsoever, and of necessity their very being and their continued existence, for as long as they endure, is itself their purpose. But in the case of most existing things, we observe that all things labor, act, and are acted upon, each one at the task it performs, as though pursuing thereby the purpose for which they were created. And man, as one of the beings of creation — indeed the choicest of them — must necessarily seek some perfection toward which he strives all the days of his existence. But what are the intermediate conditions that lead him to his perfection? Opinions on this differ, for: • Some say that the deed which serves as the means to his perfection is finite — that once he completes that deed, he has already attained his perfection, • And some say that it is not finite in itself but only on the side of man — that a person must labor all the days of his life, and his perfection depends on this, whether or not he completes the deed. We find a similar dispute in the words of the Sages (Sanhedrin 111a) on the verse, “and has opened her mouth without limit”: Resh Lakish says: [this means] one who has not fulfilled so much as a single statute — he goes down to Gehinnom; while Rabbi Yochanan says: [it means] one who leaves even a single statute unperformed. It is clear from this that, in Resh Lakish's view, the condition for a person's perfection is fulfilling the whole Torah without leaving anything out, while in Rabbi Yochanan's view a single statute suffices, for perfection depends on a person's doing whatever he is able to do throughout the days of his life. Now, in our own inquiry, we would say that some hold the view that a person must engage in Torah and mitzvot constantly, all the days of his life, and that by this he attains his perfection — whether he lived long and had the ability to fulfill all six hundred and thirteen commandments, or whether he died young, or other causes prevented him so that he fulfilled only some of them, he has nonetheless already acquired his perfection. For his perfection does not depend on the quantity of his service, but only on its constancy throughout the days of his life, whether little or much. And some hold the view that a person must complete his quota by fulfilling all the commandments, and only then has he attained his perfection; and if he did not fulfill them all — even if he was prevented by circumstances beyond his control — he has not perfected himself. In any case, according to both views, Eliphaz's words cannot be correct — he had said that for a light sin the righteous man committed, namely that he did not complete his service as befits the greatness of the One being served — God, Blessed be He — Hashem would bring afflictions upon him to cleanse his iniquity. But surely these afflictions put a stop to his service altogether! His cure thus turns out to be his ruin. This is comparable to a king's servant or hired hand who was somewhat negligent in his work, and whom the king, for his own good, put in prison to atone for his offense — but by this he has only added to his idleness from work throughout the whole time of his imprisonment, so that this “good” turns out to be a great evil for him! So too, how would Hashem be doing good to a righteous man who had not exerted himself in his service as befits the One being served, by afflicting him in a way that must necessarily add still more slackness and idleness to that very service? (Job 7:1-6). And as for Eliphaz's claim that through the afflictions He now brings upon him, he will be saved from dying before his time and being lost forever, Job responds: is he not, by this very means, already dead now? For through these afflictions he is made to cease from his labor — the sacred labor for which he was created — and it is as though he is not alive during the days of his sickness and suffering. What difference does it make to him whether he dies at the end of his days, or is effectively dead for a period in the middle of his days? For the portion of time in which he cannot engage in his perfection passes away into nothingness, as though it never was — and this too is an eternal loss with respect to that lost time. (On this the Sages said: “Which are afflictions of love? Any that do not involve neglect of Torah and prayer” — for when a person is kept from his service by his afflictions, they are for him a great evil, and are accounted as death.) And it is better for him to die at the end of his days than to die in the middle of them (Job 7:7-8). And as for what Eliphaz had hinted to him about the World of Resurrection, in saying, “without anyone regarding it, they perish for ever” (Job 4:20), Job denies this. For just as he denied Providence and free choice, attributing everything to the workings of nature and the arrangement of the constellations, so too he denies resurrection and future reward — and, as the Sages said, Job was a denier of the resurrection of the dead (Job 7:8-9). And as for Eliphaz's claim that this answer had reached him through prophecy and a night vision, Job responded that if it were true, as he said, that Hashem's word had come to him about this, then it would have been fitting for that utterance and vision to come to Job himself, so as to reveal these truths to him and calm the turmoil of his spirit. And by what path did Hashem's spirit pass from him to Eliphaz, who is no more worthy of Hashem's word than he is? (Job 6:13-14). Beyond this, Job raises an argument against Providence, saying: how can it be conceived that God, Blessed be He, exalted above all, should single out His individual Providence for so lowly a creature as man — and all the more, that this Providence should be so particular and so constant that even the number of afflictions, their coming and their going, should be from Hashem? And how can we say that a person's sin brings about this particular safeguarding, whereby He is compelled to keep him from dying of his illness, so that he suffers only at a fixed rate and remains alive — as though He had some need for man's continued existence, and as though there were some loss in his sin and some gain in his perfection and self-correction? All of this is far from the mind of the philosopher (Job 7:17-21). This is the substance of Job's response as a whole, together with what appears in his words by way of complaint against his companions who betrayed him, and his account of the greatness of his pains — in the manner of a man of sorrows, stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted (Isaiah 53:4).

and my calamity my ruin. placed together on a scale with a weight opposite it. even if [this weight] were the sand of the seas, it would outweigh it.

"My vexation and my calamity" — this is precisely what happens when, out of a broken spirit, a person grows angry at himself. And his meaning is: if only they would weigh them — set them on the scales and place them together with the matter set opposite them, in the manner of those who weigh.

Oh that (lu) — Its sense is like 'if only,' as in 'had you but let them live' (Judges 8:19). My vexation (ka'ashi) — Like ka'asi ('my vexation'), spelled with a samekh. And my calamity (vehavati) — An expression of a broken spirit, as in 'calamity (hovah) upon calamity' (Ezekiel 7:26).

'Oh that' — Against what Eliphaz brought as proof that Job's heart was not whole with Hashem — since he did not stand firm under the trial, and the very first time affliction came upon him he cried out and complained against Hashem, which Eliphaz took as proof that Job had not served Hashem out of love, as he had said, 'For now it has come upon you, and you are weary; is not your fear of God your confidence?' — Job answers him: Oh that my vexation were but weighed, and my calamity laid in the balances! Meaning: let them place my vexation, with which I complained against Hashem, on the one side of the scale, and my calamity and ruin on the other side, and weigh them. Would that they came out equal, their weight the same — that is, would that my afflictions were not greater than my vexation and complaint. For then I certainly would have kept silent and accepted them with love. But it is not so.

stammer Heb. לעו. They are uncertain, like a person who has no strength to pronounce a word properly. Likewise (Obad. 16), “And they shall drink and stammer (ולעו),” because it is usual for a drunkard to stammer in his speech.

'Are broken' — like 'and they drank, and swallowed' (Obadiah 1:16), meaning: they vanished, as though swallowed up. And some say it is Aramaic for 'jaws,' but this is far-fetched.

'Are broken' — meaning corrupted.

"For now" — then it would now be known to everyone that my calamity is heavier than the sand of the seas, were it weighed against it. "Therefore" — because of the greatness of the pain, my words come out confused: I multiply complaints, cast doubt on providence, and say one thing at one moment and the opposite at the next.

Are broken (la'u) — An expression of confusion and ruin, as in 'and they shall drink, and gulp down' (Obadiah 1:16).

'For now' — were they weighed in the balances, my calamity and ruin would be heavier than the sand of the seas: the scale of affliction outweighs the scale of complaint, as heavy as the sand of the seas — meaning that my complaint counts for nothing against the greatness of my afflictions. That is why 'my words are broken' — I have multiplied words of complaint out of the sheer greatness of my afflictions.

venom Heb. חמתם, their poison. It was the custom of the Persians to apply snake venom to their arrows.

'The terrors of God' — like 'a trembling of God' (1 Samuel 14:15). 'Set themselves in array against me' — meaning: they array war against me.

'The arrows of the Almighty' — meaning mighty arrows, comparable to 'like the voice of the Almighty' (Ezekiel 1:24) and 'the Almighty shall be your treasure' (Job 22:25). 'The poison of which' — meaning their venom, comparable to 'their wine is the venom of serpents' (Deuteronomy 32:33). 'The terrors of God' — meaning mighty terrors, comparable to 'a wind of God' (Genesis 1:2) and 'like the mountains of God' (Psalms 36:7).

"For the arrows of the Almighty" — the arrows of suffering that come from the Almighty remain constantly with me. (Even though Job himself thought that everything comes by way of the celestial order, he nonetheless phrased his words to match Eliphaz's view, that everything comes from Hashem through providence.) "The poison of which" — this is the putrid discharge that flows from a severe sore; he draws the image from the practice of the Persians, who would smear their arrows with snake venom. "The terrors" — the frights that come from God, blessed be He, array themselves in battle against me.

The poison of which (chamatam) — Their venom, as in 'the venom of serpents' (Deuteronomy 32:33). The terrors (bi'utai) — A form of the words be'atah ('terror') and charadah ('dread').

'For' — In response to what Eliphaz told him, that the afflictions had come upon him for his own good — since he would be made to suffer only for a limited time, to purge his sins, and would thereby be saved from the eternal punishment his sin would otherwise have deserved — Eliphaz had concluded that a righteous man may be made to suffer, but a righteous man will never be found to perish completely. To this Job replies that his very afflictions are proof that a righteous man can indeed be found to perish: for it is utterly impossible that he should recover from this illness and return to see the light of life. A sick person, after all, can be cured only in one of two ways: 1) If his illness is not a dangerous one; 2) Or if the foundations of his body are strong and his constitution vigorous enough to withstand the illness, until nature overcomes the sickness. But both of these conditions are reversed in his case. As for the illness itself: 'the arrows of the Almighty are within me' — already lodged within my heart and my innards, arrows smeared with deadly poison, 'the poison of which my spirit drinks up.' An arrow so smeared with venom cannot be healed. And even so, the hand of the archer has not yet let up on its arrows, for 'the terrors of God still set themselves in array against me' — He is still marshaling a battle line against me, and will shoot new arrows at me again, each morning bringing a fresh rebuke from Him — like a man struck a mortal blow in war, whose enemy will not stay his hand from finishing him off, but keeps shooting more firebrands, arrows, and death at him. And as for the strength of his body — whether it can bear all these blows and overcome the illness — if his body has grown so weak that his soul loathes all food, there is no hope that his strength will prevail over his illness. And so he says next:

Does a wild donkey bray That is to say, do I cry out for nothing? Even a stupid animal does not bray when it has food, neither does an ox low unless it does not have grain fodder. With a wild donkey, the expression used is נַהַק, braying, and with an ox, the expression of געיה, lowing.

'Bray' — this word has no cognate in biblical Hebrew, and it resembles the language of Kedar [Arabic]. 'Over his fodder' — from [the roots in] 'and gave the donkeys fodder' (Judges 19:21) and 'savory fodder' (Isaiah 30:24). The sense: one who sits at ease neither roars nor frets — and so it is with you, Job says to his friends; moreover, that you speak words with no substance to them — the sense of 'can that which is unsavory be eaten without salt?' (6:6).

'His fodder' — meaning his feed, which he eats.

"Does [the wild ass] bray" — Does the wild ass cry out when it stands on the grass and lacks nothing to eat? Does the ox low when it stands over grain mixed with straw? As if to say: surely a senseless animal does not cry out for no reason — how much more so a man like myself.

Bray (yinhak) — This is the name for the cry of the wild ass; it is a form of the word in 'and shall groan with groanings' (Ezekiel 30:24), with a heh interchanged for an aleph. So too, 'among the bushes they bray' (below, 30:7). Low (yig'eh) — This is the name for the cry of the ox, as in 'and it went, lowing' (I Samuel 6:12). His fodder (belilo) — A form of the words bilbul ('mixing') and irbuv ('mingling') [i.e., mixed feed].

(Verses 5–6) 'Does it bray' — and the two halves of the verse run in parallel: Does the wild ass bray when he has grass? Can that which has no savor be eaten without salt? Does the ox low over his fodder? Or is there any taste in the juice of mallows? Meaning: the wild ass, whose food is of poor quality since it eats nothing but grass — does it grow disgusted with its food and bray, saying, 'How can I eat this grass, which has no salt in it? How can I eat food that has no savor, without salt?' Or the ox, for which they mix inferior feed, blending in mallows, a moist, flavorless green — does it low, saying, 'How can I eat these mallows — is there any taste at all in their juice and sap?' Now, an animal whose food is very poor nonetheless does not grow disgusted with it. Not so I: even though my food is well-seasoned and choice, I am nevertheless so disgusted by it that—

Can bland food be eaten A thing that has no salt and must be salted, but was not salted, is called תָּפֵל in Mishnaic Hebrew (Shabbath 128a, Hullin 113a, Nedarim 51a). or is there taste in the saliva that comes from strong tasting foods, for the one who eats a strong-tasting food that increases the saliva, e.g. garlic. That is to say, Do you think their replies that have no substance are acceptable? רִיר [means saliva] as in (I Sam. 2 1:14), “and let his saliva (ריר) run down upon his beard.” חַלָמוּת is like (below 39:4), “Their sons wax strong (יחלמו),” an expression of strength. Some interpret it as an expression of a dream (חלום), but this does not appeal to me because of the dagesh in the “lammed.”

'Mallows' — in the words of our Rabbis: the yolk within [an egg]. And some say it is the mucilage of a plant, which in their language is also called 'chalamah.'

'The juice of mallows' — this is the spittle of one who is sound and living [the word being connected with the terms for 'healthy' and 'alive']. His point is that there is no flavor in the spittle of a healthy person, whereas the spittle of the sick does have flavor, on account of the excess humor that dominates it. Or perhaps 'the juice of mallows' means the white of the egg — for the egg is at first entirely yolk, and afterward nature separates from it the finer part, namely the white — and that resulting fluid is found to have no flavor in it.

"Can it be eaten" — Does a person eat the meat of an animal or of a fish while raw, unless it is thoroughly salted? For there is no way to eat them except by means of a great deal of salt, and not otherwise. "In the juice of mallows" — this refers to the saliva of the healthy; for in the saliva of the sick there is a taste from whichever of the four humors dominates in him, but in the saliva of the healthy there is no taste at all. As if to say: shall I accept from you empty words, devoid of the taste of wisdom?

That which has no savor (tafel) — Its sense is something not properly seasoned; so too, 'daubing it with untempered [plaster]' (Ezekiel 13:10). In the juice (berir) — The spittle of the mouth, as in 'he let his spittle run down' (I Samuel 21:14). Of mallows (chalamot) — An expression of health and vigor, as in 'and You restored me to health and revived me' (Isaiah 38:16).

What my body refused to touch That is to say, I have reason to cry increasingly, because things that my body refused [to touch] and was disgusted to touch... [לנגוֹע] is an expression of touching. as cloths for my food Now they are prepared for me to touch them like my tablecloths upon which my food is placed. כִּדְוֵי is an expression like (II Sam. 10:4), “and he cut off their garments (מדויהם).” I heard this from Rabbi Meshullam the physician. Another interpretation: Like cloths with which they strain the cooked foods and the food runs out of them. דְוֵי is an expression of דָוֶה, running. my food Heb. לחמי, lit. my bread. All food is called לחם, as in (Dan. 5:1), “made a great feast (לחם).” and as in (Jer. 11:19), “Let us destroy his food (בלחמו) with wood.” which Jonathan renders: poison into his food. Another explanation: They are as the sights of my food. That is to say: I am accustomed to looking at them, at the worms, as I look at my food. This is Mishnaic Hebrew: “and they walk when they look (דוי)” in Tractate Shabbath (53b).

'My soul refuses to touch them' — the sores that my soul refuses to touch, before they became the sicknesses of my body. And some say: 'to touch' — means 'to weaken,' as in 'they weakened Joshua.' The sense: that my soul refuses to grow weak and die. 'They' — refers back to 'his fodder' (6:5).

'They are as the sickness of my flesh' — meaning: like my sickness; here 'my bread' [lachmi] is used for 'my flesh.'

"[My soul] refuses" — the sores that my soul has always refused to touch, because of their repulsiveness, are like the disease now in my flesh. Meaning: the sores I refused to touch out of delicacy and softness of heart, and the sores that are now upon me — this one resembles that one. How then can I hold myself apart from my own flesh? And why then should I not cry out bitterly?

Refuses (me'anah) — A form of the word mi'un ('refusal'). As the sickness (kidvei) — A form of the words madveh ('illness') and choli ('sickness'). Of my flesh (lachmi) — Flesh is called by this term; so too, 'and their flesh (lechumam) like dung' (Zephaniah 1:17).

'My soul refuses to touch' — that is, all the repulsive, loathsome things that my soul is disgusted to touch are, in my eyes, like a sickness in my food, until bread itself has become the most loathsome thing in my eyes, with every other loathsome thing ranking beneath it. If I wanted to convey that something is utterly repulsive and disgusting, I would say it disgusts me like bread. And since my soul finds all food loathsome, how can I overcome this severe illness through the strength of my own body?

"Oh that" — would that my request might come to pass, and that God would grant the thing I desire and hope for.

'Oh that' — In response to what Eliphaz said, that if he accepted his afflictions with love, Hashem would heal him and let him live, since he is only made to suffer and not to perish, Job answers that his whole hope, rather, is that death should hasten to him. And I say: would that my request would come — for he is uncertain whether Hashem hears his plea at all, and even if He does hear it, he is uncertain whether He will grant what he asks. He therefore requests two things: 1) That my plea would come before Hashem, and that He would hear it; 2) That God would grant my hope and fulfill what I am asking for — namely:

desire and may He want. and crush me [This is] an expression of death. enlarge his hand May He enlarge His hand with His plague like (Exod. 9:3), “Behold God’s hand is.” and finish me off Heb. ויבצעני, and finish me off, as in (Lam. 2:17), “He has carried out (בצע) His word,” and (Zech. 4:9), “and his hands shall finish it (תבצענה).”

'That He would crush me' — completely. 'Let loose His hand' — like 'behold, the hand of Hashem is coming' (Exodus 9:3). 'And cut me off' — [meaning] that He would finish me off, like 'when Hashem performs' (Isaiah 10:12).

'And cut me off' — a term of finishing and consuming, and the sense is 'and put an end to me'; or perhaps it is related to the idea of severing — either way the meaning is the same.

"Even that it would please" — that God would consent to crush me out of the world, and would loose His hand to strike me until He puts an end to the days of my life.

That it would please (vayo'el) — [Means] 'and He would be willing,' as in 'and Moses was content [to dwell]' (Exodus 2:21). Let loose (yatter) — A form of the words hatarah ('untying') and petichah ('opening'). And cut me off (vayivtza'eni) — An expression of completion, as in 'and his hands shall complete it' (Zechariah 4:9).

'Even that it would please God to crush me' — even more so, until I die at once, rather than as He does now, crushing me with one hand while gripping and steadying me with the other so that I do not die. Instead, let Him loosen His hand and let go of me, until He finishes me off and cuts short my life, and I die at once. This is my request and my hope. And if so, how—

Then should I yet have comfort And this shall yet be to me for comfort. and I will beg, shuddering, that He should have no pity And I will beg of Him with shuddering (Shem Ephraim) that He not refrain from finishing me off: I cannot find any similar word in Scriptures, except that in Mishnaic Hebrew it is an expression of fear and concern, that the hand fears them lest it be scalded in boiling water. That is to say, I will shudder with concern and with shuddering request this. for I have not denied I did not fail to fulfill His words.

'I would exult' — like an egg that leaps [on a hot surface] — a metaphor for the intensity of the pain. And [Job] is astonished that He would show no compassion: yet I have not denied His words, and I have no help within myself. And I have seen that Rav Hai [Gaon], of blessed memory, explained 'va'asaldah' as an expression of rising up.

'Indeed, I would exult in pain' — meaning: even though he was growing feverish, scorched by the anguish and pain that Hashem had brought upon him.

"Then I should yet have comfort" — He returns to comfort himself, saying: I still have some comfort. For even though I am scorched and trembling, since He has not spared me — still, I take a little comfort in that I have not held back the words of the Holy One, and I have no cause to reproach myself, to say that I brought this evil upon myself as a punishment.

I would exult (ve'asaldah) — An expression of heat and scorching; and in the words of our sages, 'the hand draws back from it [heat]' (Shabbat 40). In pain (bechilah) — A form of the words chalchalah ('anguish') and re'adah ('trembling'). I have not denied (kichadti) — An expression of withholding and concealment, as in 'they have not concealed [their sin]' (Isaiah 3:9).

'Then I should yet have comfort' — 'though He spares not' — how could I take as comfort what you offer me: that by accepting my afflictions with love, Hashem will not have mercy on me by killing me at once, but will instead let me go on living longer in a life of suffering? And likewise, how could it be a comfort that 'indeed, I would exult in pain, though He spares not' — how could I sear myself with dread and fear, afraid to complain against Hashem, so that He would not have mercy on me and would not kill me? Is it not, rather, that killing me would itself be an act of mercy, since through it I would be freed from afflictions that have no more cure? How then can you say the opposite — that I should fear Hashem so that He will not show mercy on me? Or that I should find comfort in my affliction through His not showing mercy — 'for I have not denied the words of the Holy One,' meaning: that if I do not deny your prophecy — what you say by prophecy in the name of a certain holy one who spoke to you (that is, the angel through whom the prophets prophesy) — then thereby He will not have mercy on me, and I will remain in this harsh life, which is more bitter than death. And if you say that through this I will yet recover from my illness and go on to live a pleasant life — to this he responds next:

What is my strength How strong is it to bear [my pains]? that I should wait That I should wait until the day of recovery or until the day of death? I should wait Heb. איחל, like (Gen. 8:10), “And he waited (ויחל) again,” concerning Noah. and what Of what importance is my end that I should be able to restrain my desire to bear? my desire Heb. נפשי. This [word denoting] a person’s temptation toward desire [is used] in many places, as (Gen. 23:8), “If it is truly your will (נפשכם).”

"What is my strength" — Now he returns to answer what Eliphaz had said, that through the pain of suffering the sin is purged away and his end will be great. To this he replies: What is my strength, that I should hope for good? My strength has already ebbed so completely that I cannot return to my former vigor. "And what is my end" — What is the end of my days, that I should prolong life and hold my soul within me? Meaning: are not the days of man few — and what good is it to me if good should come after a time, when so few days remain?

That I should wait (achel) — A form of the words tocheleth ('expectation') and tikvah ('hope').

'What is my strength' — this responds to the two things he mentioned (in 6:4–5): 1) That the illness is very severe, consuming his flesh with a terrible sore; 2) That his inner strength is weak and cannot overcome the illness to endure it. Hence he says, 'What is my strength, that I should wait' — that I should hope the strength of my body will overcome the illness? And second, even if I do prolong my life so that my bodily strength holds out and I do not expire from the sheer pain — 'what is my end' — will I not still die from the illness that consumes all my flesh, until my whole body wastes away? This explains what he meant by, 'What is my strength, that I should wait?'

'Or is my flesh of brass' — meaning: is my flesh made of that strong metal called nechoshet (bronze), from which swords are forged?

"Is my strength the strength of stones" — Is my strength like that of stones, and is my flesh as strong as bronze, that I should be able to bear such pains and return to my former state?

Is my strength the strength of stones? Or is my flesh of brass? – In contrast to what he had said, ‘What is my end, that I should prolong my life?’, he now says: ‘Is my flesh brass?’ — that it should not fester and rot from the evil sores that are festering and consuming it.

Have I no help This is an expression of wonder. Will this too come upon me, that I have no help? Those friends that I had to help me are not helping me. or is counsel lost The counsel of counselors is lost from me, because you have risen against me to provoke and to reject.

'And that sound wisdom is driven quite from me' — meaning: has sound wisdom — the proper human conduct by which a person ought to comport himself — been driven away from me?

"Is it that" — Has even this befallen me, that I have no help within me — the help that is now fitting for me, namely the comfort of friends? "And sound wisdom" — Shall everything that lies within my thoughts be driven away from me, since you laugh at my words and mock them?

Sound wisdom (vetushiyah) — A form of the word yesh ('substance').

Is it that I have no help in me, and that sound wisdom is driven quite from me? – Now Job responds to what Eliphaz had said: that a prophecy had come to him revealing the cause of Job’s suffering — that it is only temporary suffering, meant to purge his sin, and that he will yet live again and see good things (which he had hinted at in saying, ‘for I have not denied the words of the Holy One’). Job responds: if, as you say, the spirit of Hashem appeared to comfort me and to inform me that He would leave me a future and a hope, why did the word come to you, and not to me? Is it that I have no help in myself? Am I not worthy that help should come to me ‘from the Sanctuary’ — that is, prophecy — to quiet my turmoil directly, without an intermediary? And why has sound wisdom been driven from me to him who melts his friend with kindness? Why has sound wisdom — that is, the prophetic revelation — been driven away and passed from me, going instead to him who melts his friend with kindness, namely, Eliphaz?

By one who withholds kindness from his friend Heb. למס, by one who withholds kindness. The “lammed” is a prefix, as in (Num. 26:54), “to the numerous one (לָרַב)”; “to the one who returns (?) (לָשָב),” and (Isa. 28:10, 13) “for a precept (לצו).” מָס too is an expression of a verb, like בָּא, comes: שָב, returns; גָר, dwells; these also are an expression of doing [i.e., the present tense]: who withholds kindness, who destroys it, like (Exod. 16:21), “when the sun grew hot, it melted (ונמס).”

'To him who is ready to faint' — like 'and the heart of the people melted' (Joshua 7:5). The sense: 'the one who melts away deserves kindness from his friend' — meaning that Job had thought he would have support from others.

'To him who is ready to faint kindness is due from his friend' — said as a rhetorical question. The sense is: is it conceivable that a man who is melting away — whom the multitude of troubles that have come upon him have caused to melt — should receive reproach from his friend, who says of him that he had abandoned the fear of the Almighty, and that this is why this trouble came upon him? Or, 'kindness' may be read together with 'the fear of the Almighty,' so that the meaning is: is it conceivable that his friends would attribute this to him, on the grounds that he is one who melts away from kindness and had abandoned the fear of the Almighty?

"To him who is ready to faint" — Is it conceivable that a man whose flesh melts away from the greatness of his pain should suffer further disgrace from his friend, who thereby abandons the fear of the Almighty? For has he no fear of God before his eyes, to say: is it not enough for him to bear the pain — why should I add to his provocation?

Ready to faint (lamas) — A form of the words hamasah ('melting') and hamagah ('dissolving'). Kindness (chesed) — Here its sense is disgrace, as in 'it is a shameful thing (chesed)' (Leviticus 20:17).

To him who is ready to faint kindness is due from his friend, Even to him who forsakes the fear of the Almighty – ‘To him who is ready to faint’ (lamas): meaning, he who melts (memases) his friend with a mixture of kindness and reproach, and in so doing forsakes the fear of the Almighty — this is Eliphaz, who reproached him in these words, saying to him, ‘Is not your fear of God your confidence?’, meaning thereby to reinforce belief in Providence and the fear of Hashem, so that people would fear His punishment and His providence. But how could sound wisdom and prophecy come to him who melts his friend, and not to me, who am the party directly concerned? Therefore I do not believe this prophecy of yours.

My brethren Those who defend me. betrayed me like the stream that betrays [many] betrayals, as is explained in this chapter. like the source of streams the source of streams, they pass from the proper trait of friendship. Now what is the betrayal of a stream?

'My brethren have dealt deceitfully,' and 'like the channel of brooks' — strength.

"My brethren" — my companions have dealt treacherously with me, like a stream that repeatedly betrays those who rely on it. "As the channel [of brooks]" — like the current of streams that pass from their place and go their way; the matter is repeated in other words.

As a brook (ke'afik) — Its sense is a current of rushing water, as in 'like streams in the Negev' (Psalms 126:4).

My brethren have dealt deceitfully as a brook, As the channel of brooks that overflow – He likens the treachery of his friends to the treachery of the brook, whose way it is to freeze over in the winter months, its waters congealing and becoming like an ice-crust, so that everyone walks upon it; and when the summer days arrive and the ice begins to melt, the brook then overflows all its banks from the great quantity of melting snow, and because chunks of ice obstruct the flow of its waters, it surges forcefully and overflows its banks, destroying cities and lands, and sweeping away everything it finds in its path, as is known. This is the one treachery, of which he says, ‘My brethren have dealt deceitfully, like a brook.’ The second treachery is that, after the brook settles and flows in its channels and its waters recede, the water then divides into many streams and many branches, until the water is lost and dries up, and afterward there is no water to drink; and this is what is meant by ‘as the channel of brooks that overflow.’ Now he begins to explain the one treachery:

which wrinkle from the ice if ice comes upon them, they wrinkle and become like boards (Shem Ephraim), and upon them the snow disappears—it is covered, for it falls with the ice. This is one betrayal, for it [the stream] is hidden from the eye, and a thirsty man does not find water to drink.

'Which are black' — from the time the ice sets in, the fallen snow becomes hidden and cannot be seen upon them, because of their darkness; similar to this is 'the darkness of waters' (Psalms 18:12).

'Which are black by reason of the ice' — meaning: these streams are dark on account of their great depth, caused by the ice and snow that melt and are hidden within them. For some rivers have their waters from the snow on the mountains when it melts, and such rivers do not flow all year round.

"Which are black" — for the streams grow dark from the onset of the days of ice, which is the time when the waters of the streams increase and the streams darken from the great depth of the water; and the snow that falls upon those streams disappears and is hidden within them, because of their great depth and darkness.

Which are black (hakoderim) — An expression of blackness and darkness, as in 'the sun and moon are darkened' (Joel 2:10). By reason of (mini) — [Equivalent to] 'from.' The ice (kerach) — This is the ice that congeals from the cold, as in 'He casts forth His ice like crumbs' (Psalms 147:17). Hides itself (yit'alem) — A form of the words he'elem ('concealment') and mechuseh ('covered').

Which are black by reason of the ice, And in which the snow hides itself – at the time when they grow dark and freeze over from the ice, it then appears that the snow conceals itself upon them — that is, that the snow lying upon them will remain there forever. But afterward —

At the time they become warm Heb. יזרבו, an expression of יְצֹרָבוּ, they become warm from the heat of the sun. they retreat Heb. נצמתו, retrait in Old French, shrink, contract, as “and the vinegar shrinks them (צומתן), (Pesachim 41a) in Talmudic Hebrew. [In the word יְזֹרָבוּ], the “zaddi” is converted to a “zayin,” like צעקה and זעקה, a cry. [Therefore,] יְזֹרָבוּ is an expression of (Ezekiel 21:3), “and all faces shall be scorched (ונצרבו),” and like (Prov. 16:27), “searing (צרבת) fire.” they jump they jump from their place.

'When they wax warm' — [some explain:] when they cool, following the words of our Rabbis, of blessed memory, because [in Aramaic] 'mizdarvei' [carries that sense]. 'They vanish' — they likewise bind together, following their language when they speak of the 'joining of the tendons' — the place where the tendons are joined. The sense: even though the streams had this much force [flowing strongly, they nonetheless bind up and cease]. 'When it is hot' — when the heat comes, it is as though they had left their place and had never been there — from [the phrase] 'his lamp is quenched' (Job 18:6), which carries the sense of extinguishing and consuming. But the correct view, to my mind, is that this verse repeats the same idea in parallel, as is the pattern of verses in this book and others; and the meaning of 'yezorvu' is 'they grow warm' — a word with no cognate elsewhere. And the meaning of 'they vanish' is: they are cut off, as in 'Hashem shall cut them off' (Psalms 94:23).

'When they wax warm' — meaning: they run off and flow away, and then 'they vanish,' that is, cut off. Some explain 'wax warm' as 'grow hot,' reading the root with a zayin in place of a tsadi, since the two letters share the same point of articulation. Support for this reading comes from the continuation, 'when it is hot, they are consumed out of their place' — meaning that when the heat arrives, they are uprooted from their place; for these rivers, formed from rainwater, ice, and snow, disappear in the summer season.

"When they wax warm" — in the days of summer, when they grow hot, they are cut off from their place and are no more, for the streams dry up. "When it is hot" — at the time when they grow hot, they shrink away from their place; the matter is repeated in other words.

They wax warm (yezorvu) — Like yitzarvu; for the letters zayin, samekh, shin, resh, and tzadi interchange with one another; and it is an expression of heat, as in 'the scar (tzarevet) of the boil' (Leviticus 13:23). They vanish (nitzmetu) — An expression of cutting off, as in 'morning by morning I will destroy (atzmit)' (Psalms 101:8). Consumed (nid'achu) — An expression of leaping and springing [as a dying flame flickers], as in 'they are quenched like a fire of thorns' (Psalms 118:12).

When they wax warm, they vanish, When it is hot, they are consumed out of their place – when they grow scorched from the sun blazing in summer, they shrink away all the more, and the bond by which they were bound and frozen together melts; and ‘when it is hot’ — when the heat in the world grows strong and the brook warms — then the waters are driven from their place, and then —

are held Heb. ילפתו. They hold the paths of their way, as in (Jud. 16:29), “And Samson grasped (וילפת),” and similarly (Ruth 3:8), “and the man quaked and was taken around (וילפת),” for the woman embraced him.

'Wind' — they become twisted, like 'the man was startled, and turned' (Ruth 3:8), and 'and Samson took hold' (Judges 16:29). The sense concerns the streams rising up as vapor: water's nature is to flow downward, but when it turns to vapor, it rises into formlessness and is lost. Some commentators explain this verse as referring to travelers through the deserts, but that is not correct.

"Wind" — those waters hold to the paths of their own course, meaning that no one knows where they have gone; only they themselves know the paths of their way. Some of them dried up in the heat, some were absorbed into the ground, and all the water rose up into the waste, a place where there are no people to benefit from it — and so they are lost to mankind.

Wind (yilaftu) — An expression of grasping, taking hold, as in 'and Samson took hold of [the pillars]' (Judges 16:29). Into the waste (batohu) — In a place of desolation.

The paths of their way wind, They go up into the waste, and are lost – they wind, and by their means seize everything found in the paths of their course, for through them they sweep away everything found in their way; this is the one treachery. And the second treachery is that afterward they go up into waste and are lost — that afterward the waters dry up, and vapors form from them that rise into the air and are lost from the world.

They look at the paths of Tema The land of Ishmael, which is low, and the water flows there. they make a line Heb. קוו, an expression of an extended line. Another explanation: it is an expression of (Gen. 1:9) “Let the waters...gather (יקוו).”

'The caravans of Tema looked' — they are the Arabs, most of whose dwelling is in the great desert, which has no sea in it.

'The caravans of Tema' — these are the caravans traveling to Tema; and likewise 'the companies of Sheba' are the caravans of merchants traveling to Sheba. Scripture mentions these caravans, I think, because their journeys were to distant places, so that when they set out from the land where Job lived, midway along their route lay deserts where no one dwelt.

"Looked" — those waters looked toward the paths of Tema, to go there, and the road that leads to Sheba they made into a straight line for themselves to travel; and this is a figure of speech, meaning that it is not known where they are, as if they had traveled a very distant road to Tema and to Sheba.

Waited (kivu) — A form of the words kav ('line') and chevel ('cord').

The caravans of Tema looked, The companies of Sheba waited for them— – that is, the paths and caravans traveling to Tema, and likewise the travelers of Sheba — those going to Sheba — looked and hoped for them, for the aforementioned brooks, thinking that they would find water in them to drink along the way. But —

They are ashamed because they had hoped; they came to it Those who drink it are ashamed because everyone had hoped to drink thereof.

'They were ashamed because they had hoped' — the trust was their heart's; the sense is: because they had trusted. 'They came there' — that is, to the place; for the word can also be found construed as feminine, as in 'neither shall his place behold him any more' (Job 20:9). The meaning of 'the wadis' — the caravans are disappointed when they reach a place where they expected to find water, and they are thirsty; so too, 'my brothers have betrayed me' (Job 6:15).

"They were ashamed because they had hoped" — behold, everyone who trusted to drink from the waters of those streams was ashamed when they came to the place of the stream and found no water. "They came" — when they came to it, they were disgraced and humiliated, for there was no water; the matter is repeated in other words.

There (adeiha) — [Means] 'to it,' as in 'it touches (naga) you (adeicha)' (above, 4:5). Were confounded (vayechperu) — An expression of shame.

They were ashamed because they had hoped; They came there, and were confounded – they were ashamed, on account of the fact that each of them had relied upon this water and had not prepared water for himself to drink; and now they came to it — when they came to the object of their reliance — and they were confounded, for there was no water to drink. Both these treacheries are found in his friends: at first they sat with him on the ground seven days, and no one spoke a word, and they then seemed like a brook that has frozen and congealed, which does not budge from its place and appears fit to walk upon, as if on dry land — so Job supposed that he could say whatever he wished and they would remain silent. But after they grew heated at the start of the debate, they became like the surge of a brook that sweeps away everything in its path, righteous along with wicked, and so they condemned Job as guilty and did not distinguish between good and bad. Yet there was, at least, some hope that he would find in their argument cool, flowing, foreign waters from the springs of wisdom and knowledge, and that he would quench his thirst with their words. But this too did not happen, for they rose up into waste, into words of folly and speech that profit nothing. And he goes on to explain.

For now you are like it You are compared to that stream you fear ruin The fear of the plague, and you are afraid to say the truth, thereby flattering my opponent.

'For now you have become His' — that is, like the place [the wadi]: since you saw the terror He brought upon me, you were afraid.

"For now you have become" — you are like this stream; for just as the stream betrayed those who relied on it and disappeared at the time of heat, which is the time when water is most needed, so too you have betrayed me at the time of trouble, the time when the comfort of friends is most needed. "You see a terror" — when you saw the calamity that came upon me, you grew afraid to speak the truth before God, blessed be He, lest the like of what happened to me happen to you as well.

A terror (chatat) — Calamity, ruin, as in 'their bows are broken' (Jeremiah 51:56).

For now you have become His; You see a terror, and are afraid – meaning: to your friend [Job], to whom, until just recently, you had been in support and covenant — for until that day when the debate began, you were his friends and shared in his grief. So how is it that, the very moment you see terror and calamity, you take fright and betray him, condemning him as guilty although there is no violence in his hands?

or “Offer a bribe for me from your wealth” [Heb. מכחכם, lit. from your strength.] And from your wealth.

'Offer a present for me' — meaning: give a bribe on my behalf.

"Did I say" — Did I say, 'Give me something from your wealth'? "Or of your substance" — did I say, 'Give a bribe on my behalf from your wealth, earned by your toil and strength'? Had I said such a thing, there would have been room to think that, in order to save your money, you would condemn me though I am innocent of wrongdoing.

Give (havu) — [Means] give.

Did I say: ‘Give to me’? Or: ‘Offer a present for me of your substance’? – Now, sometimes a person will betray his covenant with a friend if he sees that he will need to fight on the friend’s behalf to save him from an enemy, or will need to ransom him with money from captivity — in such a case he breaks the covenant so as to be released from the obligation resting on a friend to act for his friend. But you — why did you break the covenant of brothers? Did I say, ‘Give me money’? Or, ‘out of your own strength, offer a bribe on my behalf, to fight for me with your power’? And the verse itself specifies this: ‘Did I say: out of your strength, offer a bribe on my behalf?’

"Or deliver me" — did I say, through a bribe, 'Rescue me from the hand of the adversary, and redeem me from the hand of the tyrants'? As if to say: surely there is no occasion here for a bribe, and my thoughts are not upon it — why then do you condemn me?

The adversary (tzar) — An enemy. The oppressors (aritzim) — The powerful, the mighty.

or: ‘Deliver me from the adversary’s hand’? Or: ‘Redeem me from the hand of the oppressors’? – meaning, deliver me from the hand of the enemy by force and by battle; or, did I say, ‘Give me money,’ so that you might redeem me from the hand of tyrants? Is it not that I ask nothing of you at all? Rather —

"Teach me" — teach me what my transgression is, and I will be silent to hear your words; and make me understand what it is that I have erred in, that you should say the suffering came to purge away sin.

Teach me (horuni) — [Means] instruct me, as in 'whom shall he teach (yoreh) knowledge' (Isaiah 28:9).

Teach me, and I will hold my peace; And cause me to understand where I have erred – teach me something with which to answer my argument, and I will be silent and complain no more. But not in the way that you respond to my complaint, seeking to prove from the sufferings that have come upon me that I have sinned — for is this not the very crux of the debate, that I am crying out that sufferings have come upon me for nothing? How can you bring proof from the very matter that we are debating and arguing about? You must necessarily establish, from some other angle, that I have sinned. This is what I am asking, and I say: ‘cause me to understand where I have erred’ — let me know what my error was.

How clear Heb. נמרצו, like (I Kings 2:8), “a clear curse (נמרצת),” an expression of (Prov. 25:11) “a word spoken with proper basis.” and similarly (Ps. 119:103), “How clear (נמלצו) are Your words to my palate.” All of them are expressions of clarification (מליצה), and the “lammed” is converted to a “resh.” words of uprightness If you were saying words of uprightness, they would be accepted, but now, what does your proof prove? Every expression of תוֹכָחָה in Job means the clarification and verification of matters.

'How forcible' — that is, strong, like 'a grievous curse' (1 Kings 2:8).

"How forcible are" — how very forceful are words of uprightness! But what good is the argument that comes from you, if it is not spoken with honesty?

Forcible (nimretzu) — [Means] they are made forceful, as in 'and a forceful (nimratz) ruin' (Micah 2:10). But what (umah) — The vav here stands in place of 'aval' ('but'). Argue (yochiach) — An expression of establishing a matter with proof, as in 'and shall prove it with the words' (II Kings 19:4).

‘How forcible are words of uprightness!’ — a matter is shown to be true when its truth is established by the very nature of the concept itself, not when someone merely wishes to establish it because that is how it appears to him and how it seems in his own eyes; for a thing is not proven true merely because he imagines it to be so. This is the meaning of ‘how forcible and how clear are words of uprightness’ — that is, when uprightness itself speaks its own words. In other words: when the one arguing establishes and states the matter on the basis of uprightness itself, setting uprightness as his measuring line and truth as his plumb line, and draws his proofs from these, then the proof is explicit and clear. But what do your arguments prove and establish? The proof and clarification that comes from you proceeds only from the nature of the one perceiving it — you argue that something is so simply because it seems so to you, and from what merely seems so to you, you fashion a proof and bring evidence. But this proves and establishes nothing at all, for who is to say that the truth lies with your own imagination?

Do you think to clarify words Heb. הלהוכח, Do you think to clarify words? They are like wind They are likened [to wind]. words of futility which have no substance, like (Jer. 2:25), “but you said. I despair (נואש).” I am not concerned with the words of the prophets.

'Do you hold words to be an argument' — actual words, with which you think you can prove your case; the sense is that you have no real proof. 'To be wind' — and further: that you regard the words of one in despair as wind. The sense is that you think your own words are sound, while the words of a person in distress are mere breath.

'The speeches of one who is desperate' — he calls himself 'desperate,' since he has despaired of good, in light of his ruin.

"Do you hold ... to be an argument" — meaning, do you think that mere words alone suffice for an argument? It is not so; rather, the words of one in despair are like wind, and there is no benefit in them.

One who is desperate (no'ash) — An expression for something insubstantial, not to be taken seriously; so too, 'but you said, It is hopeless' (Jeremiah 2:25).

‘Do you hold words to be an argument’ — that is, do you regard mere words and idle talk as proof? Do you think that they amount to a proof, a clarification, and a conclusive demonstration? Or even more than that — do you take the speeches of one who is desperate to be a spirit of prophecy? ‘The speeches of one who is desperate’ — mere trifling words, that is, things of no consequence that arise from the imagination in visions of the night. Did you think, Eliphaz, that this was a spirit of prophecy, as you yourself said, ‘Now a word was secretly brought to me’... (Job 4:12)?

You cast with your judgment, you cast wrath upon a poor man like me, with the line of judgment; and you dig a pit for your friend into which to cast him.

'Indeed, you would cast lots upon the fatherless' — this shows that you have no compassion: even if you would topple a wall or the like upon an orphan, you would not care, but would join together and rejoice at your friend's misfortune. 'And dig' — from 'and he prepared a great feast for them' (2 Kings 6:23). But it is also possible that 'dig' is from 'if a man digs a pit' (Exodus 21:33) — which fits better, paired with 'cast.'

'And dig a pit' — meaning: you dig and delve deep into wrongdoing.

"Upon the fatherless" — from your words it appears that you are not compassionate; you would cast a stumbling block even upon the orphan, without concern for him, and you dig a pit for your friend to fall into, without pity.

And dig (vetichru) — [Means] and you would dig, as in 'he has dug (karah) a pit' (Psalms 7:16).

‘Indeed’ — that is, one may indeed sometimes find that a disputant makes use of weak proofs, when he has no genuine demonstrations at hand, simply in order to win his case against his fellow. But that holds true only in a dispute between one person and another, where no real harm comes to the other party. But is it fitting that you regard mere words as proof even at a time when you cast this very argument upon an orphan, condemning by it the orphan who has no one to help or support him? Or when, by means of this argument, you dig a pit for your friend, convicting him though there is no violence on his hands? Surely at such a time it is proper to speak only clear and true words, not the speeches of despair and empty talk.

agree Be willing to turn to me and to hear my words. Then you will see whether I lie to your face.

'To your face' — like 'in the presence of Aaron your father' (cf. Numbers 3:4). 'Return, I pray you, let there be no injustice' — if you turn back to me, you will see that I am right in what I say.

"Now therefore" — since there is no substance to your words, consent to turn to my words and listen to them, and see whether I speak falsehood before you, or anything without substance.

Be pleased (ho'ilu) — [Means] consent, be willing, as in 'and Moses was content' (Exodus 2:21). To your face (ve'al peneichem) — [Means] before you, as in 'no other gods before Me (al panai)' (Exodus 20:3).

‘Now therefore’ — since I myself am the very subject in question, whether I am righteous or wicked — for the whole dispute hinges on this, whether I have been chastised justly or unjustly — therefore, be so good as to begin and turn your attention to me, to search my deeds, to see whether any trace of wrongdoing is found in me or not. And then, even if it seems to you — ‘to your face,’ that is, according to what your own eyes have seen (since you have seen that the arrows of the Almighty have struck me) — that I am lying, meaning that my inside does not match my outside, and that my claim to righteousness is a lie, as you yourselves said, ‘Is not your fear of God your confidence...’ (Job 4:6) — even so, do not rely on that; only—

Return now to test, and you will determine that there shall be no more injustice; return to investigate, and behold, my righteousness will be found in it.

"Return, I pray you" — pause now to examine my words, and you will find that there is no injustice in them. "Indeed, return again" — pause longer still to examine thoroughly, and you will see that I am righteous in this matter, and that justice is on my side.

Return (shuvu) — [Here in the sense of] stay, reconsider, as in 'they shall not remain (yeshevu) in Hashem's land' (Hosea 9:3).

‘Return, I pray you’ — examine the matter once again, and inquire thoroughly, and do not rely on mere impressions; then, I trust, ‘there will be no injustice’ — for after due examination you will find no injustice in me. And afterward, ‘return again’ — go back once more to examine and investigate my deeds, and then you will see, ‘my cause is still righteous,’ as stated. Then you will see that what seemed to you at first — that in raising a complaint against Hashem's justice I was committing an injustice — is not only not an injustice, but will itself testify to my righteousness, that no sin is found in me, and that I have been made to suffer for nothing.

or will my palate not understand wickedness? Will it not understand when I speak words of wickedness?

"Is there [injustice on my tongue]" — is there truly injustice on my tongue? Meaning: have you ever heard from me, from of old, words of injustice? "Cannot my taste [discern]" — does my palate not understand what words of mischief are? As if to say: surely you have known me all along, that I do not speak injustice out of willful wickedness of heart, nor out of foolishness — so listen to my words.

Crafty devices (havot) — Words of wickedness and ruin.

‘Is there’ — that is, what you say, that I have sinned and that I am lying when I claim to be righteous, can only be understood in one of two ways. Either you mean that I myself know the truth, that I am not righteous, and that I am deliberately speaking falsehood out of injustice — against this he says, ‘Is there injustice on my tongue’ — would I speak error against Hashem through lying words? Or you mean that I am mistaken in this because I lack the understanding to recognize my own sin, and that I therefore consider myself righteous only through my own imagination and folly — against this he says, ‘Cannot my taste discern crafty devices’ — to know what constitutes wrongdoing, and the sin that I have committed?