Job · Chapter 9

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

Introduction to the Fifth Speech — Job's Response Like a pillar of iron (Jeremiah 1:18), this broken man holds fast to his position: that individual governance — which ‘pours contempt on nobles’ (cf. Psalms 107:40) and mocks the plight of the innocent (cf. Job 9:23) — Hashem's eyes are not upon it; His throne is clear of such conduct (cf. 2 Samuel 14:9), for injustice does not proceed from Him. Rather, it is the agents of the celestial order, into whose hands the governance of the earth was given, whose hand is behind this wrongdoing. This response of his is divided into three parts: In the first part, he responds to the proof Bildad had laid down at the start of his speech to prove Hashem's providence from the standpoint of universal law — that it would be an injustice, or a deficiency of power, in the One who is omnipotent and righteous, were He to hand governance over to wicked agents; injustice must be precluded from God, and absolute power must be attributed to Him — as he said, ‘Does God pervert judgment?’ (Job 8:3). To this, Job gave a philosophical answer, one already anticipated by the Guide for the Perplexed (Part Three, ch. 12), on a related matter: in arguing against those who claim that there is more evil than good in the world, Maimonides answered that this results from examining reality only in relation to a single individual. Every fool imagines that the whole of existence exists for his sake alone, as though there were no reality besides him — and when his affairs turn out contrary to what he wished, he concludes that all existence is evil. But had he examined existence, formed a picture of it, and recognized how small a part of it he is, the truth would have become clear to him: that this great derangement by which people become deranged over the world's many evils is never said of the angels, nor of the spheres and stars, nor of the elements and what is compounded from them — plants and animals — but only of certain individual human beings. A person must not mistakenly think that existence exists for his sake alone; rather, it exists by the will of the Creator, relative to whom mankind is the smallest part of the higher order of existence, etc. There Maimonides further explained that the evil that befalls man by reason of the nature of coming-into-being and passing-away — that is, because he possesses matter — is why great deformities and the like befall human beings, whether inborn or arising from changes in the elements: from corrupted air, from violent lightning, or from the collapse of places. Divine wisdom has already made it necessary that there be no coming-into-being except through passing-away, and were it not for this individual passing-away, the coming-into-being of the species could not continue. Whoever wishes to have flesh and bones without being subject to any of the effects of matter wishes to combine two opposites — for if matter does not undergo decay, nothing comes into being from it, and what results from it would be an individual without a species. True is what Galen said: “Do not delude yourself into hoping that a living being formed from menstrual blood and semen could ever be one that does not die, does not suffer pain, moves without ceasing, or shines like the sun.” And the general rule is this: whatever can come into being from a given matter comes into being in the most perfect form that matter can attain, and each individual of the species suffers deficiency in proportion to the deficiency of that individual's own matter. The most perfect thing that can come into being from blood and semen is the human species, and it is impossible for it to exist without some evil — yet these evils are few relative to the whole, and to the species as a whole. Now, Job applied this same premise in a broader sense, to existence as a whole. For recent researchers have already established that the stars, too, fall under the category of coming-into-being and passing-away, and are not made of a fifth element as the ancients held, but are composed like the substance of our own earth — and so they, too, will eventually pass away. This is also clear from the words of the prophets: ‘For the heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a garment’ (Isaiah 51:6). It has also become clear that the sun, queen of the heavens, together with the multitude of stars orbiting it, is as nothing and as naught compared to the vast multitude of suns — thousands upon thousands — scattered across an immeasurable distance, which we perceive only as tiny sparks glittering along the Milky Way; and these are innumerable worlds, which are themselves also composite and likewise destined for extinction and passing-away. So we may say that even if a time were to come when the sun, the moon, and the whole multitude of stars perish along with all their inhabitants, this would be neither an injustice nor an absolute evil on the part of the Creator of universal existence. For since He chose, in His wisdom, to create a world of coming-into-being and passing-away, encompassing within it countless worlds beside which the sun with its hosts is like a drop from a bucket (Isaiah 40:15) — then if the sun and stars are overtaken by decay, this is simply a necessary consequence of the general nature of coming-into-being and passing-away belonging to the substance of the physical world as a whole, of which the world of the spheres is a part. This is no evil relative to existence as a whole, in which the sun is of no more consequence than a single individual set against the whole of its species. All the more so if the decay does not extend to so vast a portion of existence as the sun and its stars but only to a single globe — for instance, if extinction reached planet Earth alone, this would be no evil relative to existence as a whole, for the earth is like a drop from the sea beside it. And how much more so if, even within the globe of the earth, the destruction reaches only part of it — as when a great mountain collapses in an earthquake and tens of thousands of people die — this too is no evil relative to existence as a whole, for it is a necessary consequence of the nature of coming-into-being and passing-away. The earth could not have come into being as it did, composed of four elements, without occasionally being subject to landslides and earthquakes caused by trapped vapors, watery components, or winds within it — which are themselves necessary for its existence and continuance. The harm that sometimes results from this is as nothing compared to the overall good, since the very existence of the globe would be impossible without this property — unless it were not an earthly globe at all, but a spiritual one, or made of a fifth element. All the more so, then, that the evil which befalls a single human being — such as the evils that came upon Job — by reason of the nature of universal passing-away, should not be reckoned as evil at all. Accordingly, the philosopher would say that he has no complaint at all against primary law; for in his view, no injustice proceeds, under primary law, from the Maker of universal existence, since existence as a whole is good, and He willed it in His wisdom and goodness. We cannot attribute injustice to Him if harm and decay necessarily befall a single individual of a species, or even a whole species that is, relative to its genus, like a single individual — and all the more so relative to existence as a whole — since the evil is a necessary consequence of the order of universal existence, which could not have come into being otherwise. With this he answers Bildad's argument, ‘Does God pervert judgment?’ — for primary law as a whole is good and kind; there is no injustice in it. But if we say that individual justice follows from providence, our minds cannot rest easy with this, for then we must ask why He does not act providentially to prevent evil from befalling the innocent. From this it follows that He delegated individual providence to universal nature; and even so, there is no injustice before Him in the evil that unjustly befalls a single person, for Hashem attends only to existence as a whole, that it be in the best state possible — and the evil that reaches particular individuals is negligible against the overall good preserved in existence as a whole (9:2-12). Part Two: Here he argues against the position Bildad introduced, that afflictions come upon the righteous by way of exchange — that through the evil he now suffers he will attain good in the future. Since Bildad's words did not specify in what manner this exchange would occur, Job examined all its possible aspects, for this exchange can be conceived of in one of five ways. That is, for a person to attain future good in exchange for present evil, one of two conditions must hold: • A] That the relation of the future good to the present evil is an inherent relation, • B] That their relation to one another is merely incidental, And each of these can be conceived of in two ways. As for the inherent relation: • It may be conceived of as occurring by way of nature — that is, just as all living beings and all natural phenomena attain their perfection only through toil, labor, and pain, so too a perfect person attains the good only through suffering. This is the first mode; • Or this relation may occur by way of exchange — solely through Hashem's will, whereby in place of the pain He weighs out for him, on the scales of His righteousness (cf. Job 31:6), an equivalent measure of good and pleasure. This is the second mode. Likewise, the incidental relation may take two forms: • One, that the good comes to him because of the evil by way of prayer and mercy — that through his sufferings he entreats Hashem, and He is appeased and ‘restores to man his righteousness’ (Job 33:26). This is the third mode, • Or it may be by way of a test — that by withstanding the trial and not complaining of the sufferings, he is rewarded with good and kindness. This is the fourth mode. And it can also be conceived: • That this exchange is only a preventive measure — that when Hashem foresees a righteous person is by nature disposed to sin in the future, He brings suffering upon him beforehand, so that through it his heart is humbled (cf. Leviticus 26:41) and his steps do not slip (cf. Psalms 37:31), and then Hashem will again rejoice over him for good (cf. Deuteronomy 30:9). This is the fifth mode. And so this philosopher sets out to refute every one of these possibilities: • As to the first mode, that the exchange occurs by way of nature, he replies that there is no natural connection between these sufferings and the good that is supposed to result from them. When an animal labors to obtain its prey, it attains the prey or the pleasure in exchange for its labor, as cause and effect, for by its labor it brings its food. But how can future good be attained through suffering, when there is no natural connection whatsoever between them? (9:25-26) • As to the second mode, that it occurs by way of exchange, whereby Hashem weighs out good for him in proportion to the pain he suffered — here he finds a contradiction in Bildad's own words. For if so, how could he urge him to strengthen his heart and accept his sufferings joyfully? This contradicts the claim that the pain and the pleasure that follows it are weighed together, equally, on the scales. For if he strengthens himself and eases his heart of its pain and toil, the days of his affliction will simply lengthen, until he has suffered the fixed measure of pain and sorrow decreed for him; it would be better for him to increase his suffering now, since this would shorten the duration of his affliction (9:27-28). • As to the third mode, that good comes to him in exchange for evil through prayer and mercy, he argues at length: how can it be accepted that a person struck without justification — who could justify himself against his afflicter on the grounds of law and justice, since he committed no violence — should be told not to seek justice but only to plead and beg for mercy, that he should not argue his innocence on the merit of his deeds but plead as though he were wicked, begging forgiveness? And if the Judge does not turn to his righteousness, how would He turn to his prayer and supplications? Moreover, the philosopher is unwilling to accept that Hashem would answer his prayer, for that would mean a change in God's own resolve, that He would shift from unwilling to willing — but ‘He is not a man, that He should repent’ (1 Samuel 15:29). This is what he means when he says, ‘Though I called, and He answered me, I would not believe that He listened to my voice’ (Job 9:16) (9:13-22). • Against the fourth mode, that this exchange occurs by way of a test, he argues that sometimes the one being tested dies in the midst of his suffering — so where, then, is his reward, his redemption, and the recompense due him for his suffering and for having stood the test? (9:23) • Against the fifth mode, that the sufferings are meant to safeguard him from sinning in the future, he argues: how could it be consistent with divine justice to afflict him before he has sinned, merely because he might sin in the future, when he has not yet sinned at all? Why should he be struck before the sin? If he sins, let him then receive his punishment — not before! (9:29-32) Part Three: Here he wages a new campaign against the position held by his two companions, who maintained that Hashem knows all particular matters, including those involving human free choice, and yet man remains free in his actions — that this prior knowledge does not compel man's actions. He raises against this the problem of knowledge and free will, arguing that these are contradictory: since ignorance cannot be attributed to Hashem, may He be blessed, He must, of necessity, know all future events. If so, man is not free in his actions, for his deeds are determined by the celestial order, whether for good or for evil, and Hashem knows in advance, with prior knowledge, everything he is bound to do. On this basis he renews his complaint: why does He bring suffering upon him for his deeds, seeing that he is compelled in his actions and can do no evil or good except as his steps and doings were fixed from the very beginning of time? He further adds the question the philosophers raised against the position of those who say that Hashem knows all changing particular matters: • That particulars can only be apprehended by a material faculty, such as sense and imagination, and Hashem has no material faculty — so how, then, could He know particular things? • And second, that particulars are temporal — that is, their existence is bound to time — and Hashem cannot apprehend temporal things, since He can be described neither as in motion nor at rest, as he says: ‘Do You have eyes of flesh? Or do You see as a man sees? Are Your days as the days of a mortal, or Your years as the days of a man?’ (Job 10:4-5). Included in this are all the remaining questions the philosophers raised: that if so, the more exalted Being would necessarily be completed by the lesser, since knowledge is a perfection of the knower; and that Hashem could not be a true unity, since the knower becomes one with the known — and how could the One become one with many diverse concepts? • And likewise, that particulars have no end, while knowledge is by nature something that encompasses and comprehends its object — but all of this is already implicit in the first two, primary questions. From all of this he concludes that man is compelled in his actions, and accordingly all these questions fall away: • For Hashem, may He be blessed, knows all these particulars by virtue of their universal aspect, having already known from the very beginning of time that all these acts and particulars are necessitated and determined by a universal governance, • And He does not apprehend these things by a material faculty, for He knows the rational order these things possess, inasmuch as they are ordered and fixed from the very beginning of time, • And likewise, He does not know them by virtue of their coming into being in time, for insofar as they are ordered, they were already necessitated thus from the very beginning of time, • And likewise, it cannot be said that He is completed by His knowledge of these things; on the contrary, it is His knowledge of them that necessitates their existence, • And likewise, no difficulty arises from the fact that this knowledge multiplies without limit, for by virtue of the rational order that determines it, it does have a limit and is unified into a single knowledge. All of this requires that there be, in existence, no contingent matters dependent on human choice — for otherwise all the above questions would return to their place. Rather, all of man's deeds are fixed and apportioned from the very beginning of time, and Hashem, may He be blessed, knows everything by a single eternal, all-encompassing knowledge, which does not change, vary, multiply, or renew itself — neither by reason of the multiplicity of existing things, nor by reason of the events that, according to our imagination, depend on time or on choice. For He knows everything through the apprehension of His own essence, on which the entire chain of causes and their effects, down to the very end of the succession, depends. This is the substance of his argument and his reply throughout chapter 10. On this basis he finds grounds for complaint: since possibility and choice are not in man's hands, and whether a person is righteous or wicked cannot be attributed to him but only to the higher, eternal causes on which his deeds and actions depend — how, then, can He rebuke a man in reproof for an iniquity (cf. Psalms 39:12) he was compelled to commit?! And if we say that the sufferings did not come upon him as punishment but as extermination, to remove evil from the world — just as a fiery serpent and a scorpion (Deuteronomy 8:15) are killed and destroyed, even though they do no harm by choice but only by their nature — he asks: did not Hashem already know, at the time this man was born, that he would in the future sin and act wickedly? Why, then, did He create him and deal with him in life and kindness (cf. Job 10:12)? Would it not have been better had he never been created? And if, despite knowing full well that he would sin, He nonetheless granted him existence before he had earned it, while he was still nothing — all the more so should he deserve to be sustained and kept alive now that he has already attained existence, since nothing new has been added to him now for which he should be destroyed that Hashem did not already know beforehand. This is the gist of his question, and the answer to it will be found in Zophar's response:

'Of a truth I know that it is so' — see verse 4.

‘Of a truth,’ etc. — he comes to respond to Bildad’s words, and says: as for what you said, ‘Does God pervert justice,’ etc. — in truth, I too know that this is so; for this reason I have judged that everything comes by way of the celestial order. But my whole complaint is: what reward is there when a person deals righteously with God, walking in His ways? Is he not also abandoned to the governance of the celestial order, so that the righteous fares like the wicked, one and the same fate befalling them both?

Of a truth—replying to what Bildad argued, that God would pervert justice, Job answers, ‘I know that it is so’: meaning, I too know that this is so, that God does not pervert justice (for he too had built his own position on this very premise, that Hashem does not act wrongly)—‘and how can man be just with God?’ For a person can be vindicated against his opponent in a dispute in one of four ways: 1. By way of argument—if he defeats him in debate. But this cannot be pictured with respect to Hashem, for...

Job’s Reply to contend with Him To debate with Him.

‘If one should desire’ — if the righteous man wishes to contend with the Omnipresent over the withholding of his reward, surely He will not answer him even one answer out of his thousand questions.

If one desires to contend with Him, He would not answer him at all—so how could he be justified by way of argument, if He does not answer him at all? 2. By having greater wisdom—prevailing over his opponent through his wisdom. But this too cannot be pictured with respect to Hashem, for He is...

He is wise in heart to contend. and mighty in strength to requite. who hardened his heart and went away whole? Pharaoh hardened [his heart] and was destroyed, and so it is with all who hardened [their hearts].

Continuing from 'Of a truth I know that it is so' (9:2) — 'Who has hardened himself against Him' — that is, his heart. 'And prospered' — that is, was whole, successful.

'Prospered' — meaning: remained at peace with Him.

‘He is wise in heart’ — moreover, is He not wise of heart and mighty in strength, in the utmost perfection? And who is there who has spoken harshly against Him and remained unharmed? For surely He prevails over him, whether in wisdom or in strength; and therefore, who would not tremble to contend with Him? (Even though he had doubts about providence, here he speaks for the most part [as though granting it]; but he knew that it was in His power to overturn the celestial order whenever He wished.)

wise in heart, 3. By having greater might—overpowering him by force. But Hashem is mightier in strength than all, 4. By being more stubborn—not moving from his place until he wears out his opponent. But who has hardened himself against Hashem and remained whole?

He Who moved mountains He moved them away when He overturned Sodom. and they knew not until He turned them over.

'Who removes the mountains' — meaning: uproots the mountains from their place; and Hashem, may He be blessed, brings this about by means of the wind confined within the earth, as has been explained in the Book of Meteorology (Sefer HaOtot). 'And they know it not' — the verse is elliptical; its sense is that people do not know who it is that overturns them in His anger — meaning that the cause of their being uprooted from their place is hidden from the masses.

‘Who removes’ — is it not He who removes the mountains from their place, while the multitude of people do not know who it is that overturned them in His anger? For the causes of their overturning are hidden from all.

The Remover of Mountains—this responds to Bildad’s claim that God would pervert justice. That is to say: once it is established that God does not do wrong, one might object that it is impossible for a righteous man to be abandoned to chance, so that suffering befalls him without sin—for that would be an injustice and a perversion, far from what befits God. To this Job replies that he too agrees with this premise, as he said, ‘Of a truth I know that it is so.’ But what seems to us an injustice—that evil befalls a particular individual for no reason—comes about because we judge the sufferer as though he alone existed in reality. But in truth, if we look at existence as a whole, in which the suffering individual righteous person is as nothing in relative worth, this is not an injustice or a wrong at all. For since the nature of generation and destruction as a whole requires that there be no generation except through destruction, and were it not for the nature of privation embedded in matter there would be no generation at all, it follows from the nature of privation and destruction—which is necessary for the generation of the species—that illnesses and afflictions sometimes befall particular individuals. Now this evil that befalls a particular individual because of the nature of matter is actually good relative to existence as a whole, for had matter not been endowed with this nature, the world of generation and destruction could not exist. With this view the philosopher broadened his words, saying that it is not only when evil befalls a single individual—who is like a drop in the bucket relative to the whole of existence—but even when [God] removes mountains, at a time of earthquake, when mountains and hills are shifted from their place and thousands of people die in the quake, even so, ‘they know it not, when He overturns them in His anger’: meaning, they cannot know this, or decide with certainty that this upheaval came about because of His wrath, as a punishment; or, referring back to the earlier verse, ‘who has hardened himself against Him and prospered?’—for at the time when [God] removes mountains, they cannot object and say that He ‘overturns them in His anger,’ because this earthquake may come about from the general nature of generation and destruction, which affects the earth’s globe and its elements as well. The matter of the globe, and the elements of which it is composed, require that at times there be an earthquake through the element of fire pent up within the earth, or through the element of water, which sometimes causes a quake, and at times through the element of wind and vapors trapped within the earth—as is known to natural scientists regarding the causes of earthquakes, which necessarily follow from the nature of matter itself; for had this nature not been embedded in the earth’s globe, it would necessarily have been formed of a different element, a fifth substance, and the earth and everything on it would not exist as it now does. And since the mountains and their inhabitants who perished in the quake are as nothing compared to the whole globe and its inhabitants, this evil is accounted as nothing relative to the general good—namely, the existence of the earth and its fullness, the world and those who dwell in it.

He Who causes the earth to quake when He looks at it, and it trembles.

'Who shakes' — meaning: stirs and moves. 'Tremble' — meaning: sway and shake.

‘Who shakes’ — He is the One who makes the earth quake, so that it sways from its place, and its pillars tremble; for when the wind is trapped within the belly of the earth, its pillars — the depths of the earth — tremble, and even the surface of the ground above shakes as well.

"Tremble" — [Meaning] quake, as in "and horror has overwhelmed me" (Psalms 55).

The Shaker of the Earth adds, saying: even if one were to imagine that at some time He shakes the earth from its place until the whole earthly globe returns to chaos and void, still, who could harden himself against Him and answer back, saying to Him, ‘You have overturned them in Your anger’? For if it necessarily follows from the nature of generation and destruction as a whole that the entire earthly globe must perish, this is no injustice on His part when viewed in light of existence as a whole—in which the earthly globe, on the scale of the balance, is counted as but one among the vast multitude of globes, all of which are worlds unto themselves according to the latest researchers, and all of which are subject, by the same reasoning, to the nature of generation and destruction just as the earth’s globe is—so that the entire earth, relative to them, is like a single individual relative to the whole species.

He Who spoke to the sun Heb. לחרס, to the sun, “Stand still.” and it kept the command of the King and did not shine. and He settled up the stars He closed off the stars with a partition and they did not shine.

'The sun' — that is, the sun, as in 'before the sun went down' (Judges 14:18). 'And seals up' — that is, hides.

'The sun' — the Hebrew word here, cheres, means the sun. 'Seals up' — meaning: closes off, so that those stars cannot be seen. This may be because some of them stand one behind another, in which case it would refer only to the wandering stars [the planets]; or because they are hidden by the light of the sun, in which case it would refer to all the stars; or the intent of the phrase 'and seals up the stars' may be that the sun's light grows so faint at the time of an eclipse that the stars then become visible.

‘Who commands’ — He is the One who decrees that the sun shall not rise, and it does not rise; and He shuts off the stars so that they do not shine upon the world. This refers to the days of the Flood, when the constellations did not function.

"The sun" — [Meaning] the sun, as in "from the Ascent of Heres" (Judges 8). "Seals up" — [Meaning] shuts up, as in "for it is sealed" (Isaiah 29).

The Sayer [to the sun] adds, saying: even if it should occur to the mind that Hashem says to the sun that it shall not rise again, and seals off the stars that circle the sun, so that the sun and its whole host of stars disappear—even so, who has hardened himself against Him and requited Him with the charge that He overturned them in His anger? For it is already known to astronomers (through wondrous optical instruments) that even the sun, with its whole host of stars, is as a drop in the bucket, counted as nothing, against the myriad suns standing in the Milky Way (Milchstrasse), which appears like a terrible band of ice around our heads. And who knows whether even the multitude of suns in the Milky Way are not themselves as nothing against myriad other Milky Ways besides it? So that accordingly, if Hashem were to remove the mechanism of the system around us, and say to the sun, ‘Be still,’ and the moon and stars together were to come to an end because of the nature of their matter, which is likewise disposed toward destruction—this would not be an evil relative to existence as a whole; nor could we say that this came about through wrath and anger, but rather that it is simply required by the nature of the existence of the physical world. And [Scripture] explains the reason: ‘He makes the Bear, Orion, and the Pleiades’—this is a description and naming of the vast and awesome multitude of suns found from our sun to the great star Uranus, and beyond, as far as the eye of the researcher can reach. One can also explain the sense of the verses this way: that by shaking the earth from its place, and by saying to the sun that it shall not rise, He thereby ‘makes the Bear, Orion, and the Pleiades’—for the nature of generation and destruction as a whole, by which the countless worlds of the physical universe were made, requires that these bodies must, from time to time, come to an end and perish, and from their destruction other bodies come into being—for there is no generation except through destruction.

He Who clone stretched out the heavens and the angels were created on the second day, lest you say that Michael stretched it out in the north and Gabriel in the south. on the high places of the sea On the heights of the sea. This was stated regarding the Creation, that the lower waters raised themselves up on high, and He trod them.

'And treads upon the waves of the sea' — the sense is that He stretches out the [celestial] body that treads upon the waves of the sea — namely, the heavens and their stars, which travel along the belt of the zodiac, or which incline from it slightly to the north and to the south.

‘Who stretches out the heavens’ — although it encompasses the whole world, He alone spread it out. ‘And treads’ — He tramples upon the heights of the sea, so that it does not spill over to cover the earth; for the waters of the ocean stand higher than the earth — so our Sages, of blessed memory, said.

Who alone stretches out the heavens – Hashem alone stretched out the heavens. And treads – he pictures Him as standing with His feet upon the waves of the sea and treading upon them, while with His hands He then stretched out the heavens, as it is written, ‘Yes, My own hand has laid the foundation of the earth, and My right hand has spread out the heavens’ (Isaiah 48:13). He created the whole of existence as a single, all-encompassing body, in which every individual part exists for the sake of the body as a whole; and He —

Orion, and the Pleiades they are constellations. and the chambers of the south into which to bring the tempest, as he states (below 37:9): “From the chamber shall come the tempest.”

'The Bear' — it is [made up of] seven stars. As for Kesil [Orion] and Kimah [the Pleiades]: two are great stars — one at the edge on the left of the tilted sphere, the ecliptic, and the other in the southern region; and the Bear is in the northern region of the great sphere. 'And the chambers of the south' — these are the stars that are in the southern region of the great sphere; and because the inhabited world lies to the north, and those stars cannot be seen from there, they are therefore called 'chambers,' as though they were hidden away.

'The Bear, Orion, and the Pleiades' — these are constellations among the fixed stars. 'The chambers of the south' — these are the southern constellations.

‘The Bear, Orion, and the Pleiades’ — these are names of constellations. ‘And the chambers of the south’ — in the southern region there are chambers in which the storm wind is stored, as it says, ‘Out of the chamber comes the storm wind’ (Job 37:9).

‘Past finding out’ — to the point that it is impossible to search them out and understand them. ‘Without number’ — because of their great multitude.

Who does great things past finding out – throughout existence as a whole, in which the individual parts — even the sun and its hosts — are as nothing by comparison; so much so that the loss of a single individual thing from existence, even the sun and its hosts, is not a loss or an evil relative to the whole of existence, which comprises worlds without number.

Behold, He goes by me I know that all He wishes, He does. He goes by me Before me, but I do not see Him.

'He passes on' — that is, He proceeds; and likewise: 'is passed away, is gone' (Song of Songs 2:11).

'He passes on' — meaning: and passes by.

‘Lo, He goes by me’ — even though He passes by me at every moment, for the whole earth is full of His glory, still I do not see Him. ‘He passes on’ — although He passes before me, I cannot perceive His form.

"He passes on" — An expression of passing by, as in "is past and gone" (Song of Songs 2).

(11–12) Lo — that is, from this you can reason a fortiori: if He passes by and goes on past me, and I do not see Him and cannot understand Him, and He snatches me away and destroys me — who can turn Him back for this, and who can say to Him, ‘What are You doing?’ For what am I, relative to existence as a whole, that I could argue or answer back against this act of seizure — by which the general destruction embedded in all of existence snatched me away, in merely passing over me, since this was not aimed at me in particular, but came about through the nature of matter and the destructiveness embedded within it.

Behold, He strikes suddenly Heb. יחתף, He strikes suddenly, like (Prov. 23:28), “She, too, will suddenly (כחתף) lurk,” an expression of suddenness.

'Behold, He snatches away' — that is, He destroys, as in 'she lies in wait as a robber' (Proverbs 23:28).

'Behold, He snatches away' — the verse is elliptical; its sense is: behold, He snatches a person away if He wishes, and none can be found to turn Him back from His deeds.

‘Behold, He snatches away’ — He snatches a person away with power and swiftness, and who can turn Him back from His deeds? Who will say to Him, ‘Why do You do this?’

"He snatches away" — Like "yachtof," with a tet; its meaning is swiftness in seizing; similarly, "she lies in wait as if for prey" (Proverbs 23).

will not hold back His wrath because of fear (other editions: righteousness) of a man. [all the helpers of Rahab] stoop under Him The celestial host that came to aid the Egyptians. Egypt is called Rahab, as it is said (Isa. 30:7): “Therefore, I called this, ‘They are haughty (רהב) idlers,’” by dint of their haughtiness, for they said, “Who is the Lord? etc.” (Exod. 5:2).

'The helpers of Rahab' — that is, men of power.

'Did stoop' — meaning: were brought low. 'The helpers of Rahab' — these are those who assist through pride and force.

‘God will not withdraw His anger’ — meaning, there is no one to stand against Him and protest, on whose account He would withdraw His anger from one He is angry at; for under His feet all who exert themselves with strength and pride have bowed their stature, and cannot stand against Him to protest.

"Did stoop" — They bowed down, as in "man is bowed down" (Isaiah 2). "Rahab" — An expression of pride and self-assertion, as in "yet is their pride but travail" (Psalms 90).

(13–14) God — Job now begins to answer Bildad's approach, that his suffering came about by way of exchange: Bildad had told him that if he would pray to Hashem, his end would grow great and he would receive good in return for his suffering, as he had said, ‘If you will seek God diligently… for then He will rouse Himself for you,’ etc. (cf. Job 8:5–6). Job answers: how can this be conceived? If a tyrannical judge orders an innocent man punished for nothing, and that man proves that he is free of guilt, yet the judge does not withdraw his hand from him — can we tell the one being struck not to seek a path of law and justice, but only to plead with the judge, so that he will thereby stop striking him? And the sense of the verse is: God will not turn back His anger, even though I would answer Him — (and the words ‘the helpers of Rahab did stoop under Him’ are a parenthetical remark, describing His anger as a tyrannical ruler who acts arrogantly and haughtily, surrounded by servants and officers called ‘the helpers of Rahab,’ who assist him in tearing and destroying, and who go about stooping beneath him to carry out all that he commands them, to devour and destroy) — he means: since God does not wish to turn back His anger, whose destroying helpers stoop beneath it to destroy at its command, even though I would answer Him — even though I could answer Him according to the law and establish my innocence in judgment — and even though I would choose my words with Him, that is, put forward select and just arguments on the strength of the law, that I have not sinned — even so, He would not turn back His anger. If so, how can this be conceived? For —

Surely Heb. אַף.

‘How much less shall I’ — how much more so a weak creature like myself: how could I frame words in answer to Him, how could I choose out arguments to contend with Him? (Even though he said many times that he wished to contend with Him, out of the pain of his heart his words keep turning about — one moment he says one thing, the next moment the opposite, as is the way of human beings.)

I will not reply I will fear to raise my voice before Him. my Judge Heb. למשפטי, like לשופטי.

'I would make supplication to Him who contends with me' — said as a rhetorical question; the sense is: how could I supplicate Hashem, may He be blessed? For even if I called and He answered me, I would not believe that He listens to my voice, since I am so lowly in relation to Him.

‘Whom, though I were righteous’ — even were I righteous, I would not know how to speak with Him, to frame words in answer to Him, for I am utterly slight before Him. ‘I would make supplication to Him who contends with me’ — and shall I plead with the One who judges me? Is it not the arrangement of the heavens that decreed these sufferings upon me? What good, then, would pleading do?

"To my contender" — [This spelling is] the same as "to my judge."

Whom, though I were righteous, yet would I not answer – for I would be unable to answer Him and prove to Him that I am righteous according to law and justice, since this argument would not avail to turn back His predatory anger. If so, how could I ‘make supplication to Him who contends with me’ — how could I be vindicated through supplication? If I cannot be vindicated because the law is on my side, how could I be vindicated through supplication and grace? On the contrary, I say that even —

I will not believe I will be unable to believe out of my fear for Him, for how do I not see Him?

‘If I had called’ — even if, when I call to Hashem, He were to answer me, I still would not believe of myself that He hearkens to my voice. This is a manner of hyperbole, meaning: the thing is so inconceivable to me that I would even deny it of my own self.

(16–17) If I had called, and He had answered me – even if He truly were to answer me, yet would I not believe that He would hearken to my voice; I could not believe that He would hearken to my voice so as to fulfill my request. This same cruel Being, who for no cause batters me in a storm and multiplies my wounds — I would not believe that this cruel Being, who struck me with cruel blows for no reason, would hearken to my voice to deal kindly with me; rather, on the contrary, I would believe that —

He Who would crush me with a tempest My form was changed (other editions: my status) before Him. would crush me Heb. ישופני, would crush me. “I crushed it and ground it” (Deut. 9:21) is translated into Aramaic as: ושפית יתֵה. my wounds Heb. פצעי, a wound that oozes blood and pus.

'Would break me' — like 'it shall bruise your head' (Genesis 3:15).

'Would break me' — meaning: would crush me. 'Without cause' — meaning: without iniquity.

‘He who would break me with a tempest’ — is it not He who crushed me with a storm-wind and multiplied my wounds needlessly, though there is no violence in my hands? Had I been of consequence in His eyes, He would have overturned the celestial order for my sake. (Even though he attributes his sufferings to the judgment of the celestial order, it is nevertheless considered as though the Omnipresent Himself crushed him, since it is He who gave dominion into the hand of the celestial order.)

"Besa'arah (with a shin)" — [This spelling is] the same as "beso'arah" [with a tempest], [ordinarily] spelled with a samech. "Would break me" — Would crush me, as in "he shall bruise your head" (Genesis 3:15). "My wounds" — This is a wound that draws blood.

He Who would not let me He does not let me bring back my breath to myself.

‘That would not suffer me’ — He does not allow me to catch my breath, for all day long He embitters my soul, until He has filled me to the full with bitterness.

"Would suffer me" — An expression of allowing, as in "but Sihon would not let [Israel pass]" (Numbers 21). "My breath" — This is said of one's breathing.

That would not suffer me to take my breath – not only would He fail to hearken to my voice to ease my suffering, but the very fact that He turns to answer me is only to increase my suffering further, so that He gives me no rest even long enough to catch my breath. That is, the breath that goes out at the moment I cry out, He will not let return into me for even a moment of rest — for at once He fills me with bitterness and doubles the suffering and the blows, until my breath itself grows short from the greatness of the pain.

If it is a trial of strength How can I contend with Him? If He comes with strength, behold He is mighty. and if of judgment who will be able to summon me before Him and confirm my verdict? Is it not so that...

'Who will appoint me a time' — like 'who is like Me, and who will appoint Me a time' (Jeremiah 49:19).

‘If it be a matter of strength’ — meaning: as for the evils He has brought upon me, if they come by way of the power and might He has, apart from any concern for justice — this I know, that He is mighty and can do all things, and nothing is beyond Him. But if they come by way of justice, as my companions claim, then who will set for me an appointed day, that we might come together to judgment and determine with whom the right lies?

"Will appoint me a time" — Its meaning is a set time; similarly, "who is like Me, and who will appoint Me a time?" (Jeremiah 49:19).

If it be a matter of strength – that is, what could be the reason He would reconsider and change from cruelty to mercy? If it is that I could turn Him back from harming me by force, by overpowering Him with my own strength — ‘lo, He is mighty!’ And if instead I would turn Him back from harming me by summoning Him to judgment before a judge — ‘who will appoint me a time,’ who will set a hearing and summon Him to judgment on my behalf? No judge can be found who would summon Him to judgment. And besides, in any case I would come out condemned against Him regardless. For —

If I am innocent, my mouth will condemn me because my words will be silenced out of fear, and my mouth will make me crooked.

‘Though I be righteous’ — is it conceivable that, although I am truly righteous in my deeds, my own mouth should condemn me? This is said in astonishment: shall I be counted wicked because of the words of my own mouth? Of myself I am innocent and upright, but He has made me perverse by bringing sufferings upon me though there is no violence in my hands, and through this I have become perverse, given to brooding and complaint.

Though I be righteous, my own mouth shall condemn me – if I were to prove before the judge that I am righteous in my case and that He struck me for nothing, this very fact would condemn me by my own mouth: the very statement that I am righteous against God is itself an act of wickedness. And he explains: my mouth, in saying ‘I am innocent,’ would itself ‘prove me perverse’ — for this very statement would be proof that I am perverse and wicked, since I would be attributing wickedness and injustice to Hashem, who is righteous.

I am blameless I know of myself that I am blameless; nonetheless, I do not know my rest, how I will find rest.

'I regard not myself' — spoken in astonishment; or, I do not perceive any evil in myself.

'I am innocent—I regard not myself' — meaning: I am reduced to nothing and so spent that I do not even recognize my own soul within myself — that is, its powers are no longer discernible in my limbs.

‘I am innocent’ — although I am innocent and upright, and no sin is to be found in me, nevertheless my own living soul no longer knows itself within me, for I am as one already dead; and therefore I despise my life, for death would be better for me.

I am innocent — that is, and if I say that in truth I am innocent, nevertheless ‘I regard not myself,’ meaning that even so I do not know myself; it may be that I am wicked and that He struck me justly, in which case I would be vindicating God, in line with Eliphaz's argument that mortal man cannot be more righteous than God (cf. Job 4:17). Because of this ‘I despise my life,’ for death is preferable to a life of such contempt — meaning that even though he knows he is innocent, he must say that he does not know himself, and that he may be wicked. (And he also means by this: I prove hereby that although I am innocent, nevertheless I do not know myself — for his innocence is not a matter of his own soul, will, and choice; rather, he is compelled to it by the very nature of his creation, since choice is not in his hands. If so, he deserves no reward for his righteousness, and therefore he despises his life, since it acts under compulsion and has no reward or punishment coming to it.)

It is all one in the world, concerning which I said that He destroys both the innocent and the wicked. Now, what is it?...

‘It is all one’ — with this he answers what Bildad had said, that the sufferings of the righteous are for their good, but not so the sufferings of the wicked. To this he replies: are they not of one kind, following one path? How then should they differ in their effect? Therefore I say: calamity destroys the innocent and the wicked alike, one no less than the other, for no good comes from evil.

It is all one — therefore he returns once again to conclude that there is no particular providence that judges a person according to his deeds, since man is compelled in his actions; there is only a single form of governance in the world — the general governance, fixed according to the celestial order and the needs of that general governance. And since this governance is necessitated by fixed, unchanging causes, it does not distinguish between good and evil; rather, ‘He destroys the innocent and the wicked’ alike, since the general destruction embedded in matter does not discriminate between the innocent and the wicked.

If the scourge of the Adversary’s tongue suddenly puts the righteous to death. at the calamity of the innocent that he put to death he will mock.

'He will mock at the calamity of the guiltless' — that is, He is the mocker; and the matter is a reversal: God gives the earth into the hand of the wicked so that the faces of its judges are covered — its meaning is like 'and Haman's face was covered' (Esther 7:8), meaning they cannot show their faces.

'If the scourge slay suddenly' — the sense is: if the rod slays the wicked man suddenly, as Bildad said, that wicked man mocks as he watches the innocent, whom Hashem, may He be blessed, tests — for he himself dies at once and does not linger in that evil, while the innocent continue on in it.

‘If the scourge’ — meaning: even by your own reasoning, that the scourge which strikes down the wicked kills him suddenly, once he has received sufficient recompense for the little good he did, while it does not likewise hasten to kill the righteous man — is not even this to be counted a further benefit to the wicked? For He mocks and derides the wasting away of the innocent through the long duration of their suffering, while in His eyes sudden death is deemed a boon.

"The scourge" — A rod or whip, as in "a whip for a horse" (Proverbs 26). "At the calamity" — From the language of dissolving and melting away.

'If the scourge slay suddenly' — Regarding what Bildad had proposed: that suffering comes upon the righteous man as a form of exchange, meant to increase his reward — which we explained to mean that it functions as a trial, so that if Hashem sees that he stands firm under the trial and does not harbor doubts about His ways, He will grant him good doubled over against the evil — Job now answers that this would hold true only if he did not die in the midst of the suffering. But if the scourge slays him suddenly, if he dies in the midst of the suffering, then it is clear that 'He will mock at the calamity of the guiltless': he stood firm in the trial and accepted the suffering for nothing, receiving no good in exchange for it once he is dead. And he meant this of himself, for in his own eyes he was as good as dead, since it is impossible to survive these blows, as he explained in chapter 6. If so, what benefit is there in standing firm through the trial?

into the hands of a wicked one Referring to the Adversary. he covers the faces of its judges from discerning and comprehending the truth of the matter. If not, then If this [interpretation] is not the truth of the matter, who is it that destroys the innocent?

'Who then is it' — let him refute me, if he can.

"The earth is given" — behold, so long as the wicked man is here, the whole earth is his, to do with it as he pleases — to rob and to oppress. And by his great strength, the judges of the land avert their eyes from him, as though he covered their faces so that they should not look upon his deeds. "If it be not He" — meaning, if you should say this is not so, then where is the man, and who is he, who can prove my words false?

'The earth is given...' — Therefore he returns to what he said (Job 9:22), 'it is all one; therefore I say: He destroys the innocent and the wicked alike,' meaning that everything depends on a single governance that does not distinguish between the innocent and the wicked. He then explains what this governance is that gives 'the earth...into the hand of the wicked': it is the governance of the cosmic order, which operates wickedly. He illustrates this with a parable: like a great and righteous king who hands over the governance of his kingdom to a wicked ruler, and that ruler then behaves with wickedness and cruelty; and since this ruler fears that word of it will reach the king and the judges of the land, he 'covers the faces of its judges' — devising stratagems so that the judges will not see and will not learn of his evil deeds. So too, the outcry of the people of the world and their grievance against the conduct of the cosmic order and its corrupt management does not reach the ears of the Supreme Judge. 'If it be not He, who then is it' — that is: if it is not this 'wicked one,' namely the cosmic order, whose hand is behind this wrongdoing, this perversion of justice done on earth, then who is doing it? For it is surely impossible to attribute injustice to Hashem Himself.

My days with the destruction of the other innocent people are swifter than a runner.

"Now my days" — but I, despite all my righteousness, my days have hurried along more swiftly than a running man; they have fled from me, as though they never saw any good, for it is all forgotten now that so much evil has come.

(25-26) 'Now my days are swifter than a runner' — (Third Argument) If Bildad's intent in saying that the suffering of the righteous is a form of exchange was that this follows from the very nature of things — that one cannot attain good except by means of hardship, just as an animal attains its prey only through exertion, and as in the parable he brought from plant life, which renews its youth only by being uprooted from its place and replanted elsewhere — Job answers: Can it really be said of days that 'are swifter than a runner' and 'flee away, seeing no good' that they 'are passed away as the swift ships' — as though their passing amid suffering were like one who sails a ship by his own will and desire, enduring the hardship of the sea so as to acquire great wealth and bring his bread from afar? Or that they resemble an eagle that swoops down upon its prey, attaining its food through exertion? For in that parable, the exertion and hardship endured is a voluntary, chosen matter, but suffering is compelled. In the animal's exertion to attain its prey there is an intrinsic connection between the exertion and the gain attained in exchange for it, like the relation of cause to effect. Not so in this case: what is the natural relation between the suffering and the reward one is to attain in exchange for it?

Ebeh The name of a rushing river. swoops Heb. יטוש, flies.

'The swift ships' — some say it is the name of a place, or the name of a swift-flowing river. And some say it means fruit, as in the Aramaic 'and its fruit was abundant' (Daniel 4:9) — but the first view is correct. 'That swoops' — it has no parallel elsewhere in Scripture; its meaning, from the context, is 'flies.'

'The swift ships' — the word [evah] relates to desire; these are the ships by which those who go to sea to plunder achieve their desire, since they must move swiftly to wherever they wish to go. 'Swoops' — meaning: flies.

"They have passed away" — they have passed like the ships that travel on the River Abeh, hurrying along their way; they have flown swiftly, like a vulture hurrying to swoop down upon its prey.

"Swoops" — [Meaning] hastens and flies, for it is like "a vulture that hastens to devour" (Habakkuk 1:8); its Targum renders it "flying to devour."

my speech The words of my pain. my anger Heb. פני, lit. my face. and [I will] restrain myself Heb. ואבליגה, I will strengthen myself, like (Amos 5:9), “Who strengthens (המבליג) the robbed upon the strong.”

'I will put off my sad countenance' — that is, my vexation, as in 'and her countenance was no more sad' (1 Samuel 1:18). 'And be of good cheer' — that is, and I will take strength, as in 'who brings sudden destruction' (Amos 5:9).

'My complaint' — meaning: my words of affliction. 'My sad countenance' — meaning: my vexation. 'And be of good cheer' — meaning: and I will strengthen myself; the verb may stand alone [intransitive], or it may take an object, in which case the sense would be: and I will strengthen my heart.

"If I say" — if I resolve to forget my wailing and the tale of my troubles, and to set aside my anger, and to strengthen myself to hold back from crying out and complaining—

"My complaint" — The recounting of my troubles. "My countenance" — My anger, as in "I will set My face" (Leviticus 20:3). "And be of good cheer" — [Meaning] I will strengthen myself, as in "who suddenly brings destruction" (Amos 5).

'If I say' — (Fourth Argument) If you say that this exchange operates as a form of recompense — that Hashem will repay him good in precise proportion to the suffering he endured, measured out exactly, the matter depending on Hashem's will to repay good for evil — Job answers that this would then contradict Bildad's own words — the very advice Bildad gave him, to forget his pain and steel himself against the suffering and not despair, since the suffering is for his good. For since the good he is destined to attain is calibrated exactly against the pain and sorrow he is to suffer, and the measure of that pain is fixed by Hashem without excess or deficiency, then if he overcomes his suffering and feels no pain, the days of suffering will necessarily be prolonged until his pain reaches the fixed measure. This is what he means: 'If I say' — if what I say and resolve in my mind, that 'I will forget my complaint,' were to calm my soul, so that thereby 'I will put off my sad countenance' and my anger, and I would bear up and strengthen myself and not feel the pain — then, by doing so...

I will gather in all my sadness that it not let me cry out. I know that You will not declare me innocent of my iniquity, so as not to requite me.

'My pains' — from 'in toil' (Genesis 3:17).

'All my pains' — meaning: all the vexations that I have.

"I am afraid" — I gather in all the sorrow that is mine, to store it up within my heart without crying out anymore. Yet even so, I know that You will not clear me of my sufferings, and so I will gain nothing at all.

"I am afraid of" — [Meaning] I gather up [i.e., am overwhelmed by], as in "gathers in summer" (Proverbs 10).

'I am afraid of all my pains' — Behold, I fear that I am necessarily bound to feel all the sorrow and pain imposed on me to suffer, for I know that 'You will not hold me guiltless,' and will not remove Your hand from me until I have drunk the whole cup of sorrow, according to the full measure decreed upon me without anything lacking. If so, then by my strengthening myself and not feeling the pain, the suffering would only be prolonged or increased until I feel the entire fixed measure of pain and sorrow. So what would I gain by forsaking my complaint and bearing up under the suffering, since I am in any case compelled to endure it, with all its pain and sorrow, according to the exact measure allotted to me?

why should I toil in vain to come to judgment?

"I shall be condemned" — meaning, even granting that I have sinned, why should I labor in vain, pleading before Him? What good would it do — I am so utterly crushed and afflicted that I cannot return to how I was before.

"Do I labor" — An expression of "yegiah" [toil].

(29-30-31) 'I shall be condemned' — (Fifth Argument) If you interpret Bildad's notion of exchange to mean that Hashem brings suffering upon the righteous man in order to subdue his heart so that he will not sin in the future, so that he will fear Hashem and remain steadfast in his righteousness and not become wicked — Job answers: if you say that suffering has come upon me out of concern that I might become wicked in the future, and that Hashem brings suffering upon me so that I will not become wicked, then why do I labor in vain, seeing that I have washed myself with snow water? Why bring the suffering in advance, before I have sinned, while I have not yet transgressed? He should rather have waited until I sinned and transgressed, and then 'You would plunge me in the ditch,' since I would then be defiled with iniquities, and then 'my own clothes would abhor me,' for then the punishment would be fitting on account of the sin. But it is not right to punish him while he has not sinned, while he is still washed of stain and pure of any trace of guilt.

with purity Heb. בבור, with cleanliness.

"If I wash myself" — even if I wash myself in snow water and cleanse my hands with cleansing soap — meaning, if I return to Hashem and remove from myself the filth of sin—

"And make clean" — An expression of purity and clarity. "With lye" — The name of a cleansing plant, called "borith"; it is also called "ohel" in the words of our Sages (Shabbat 90).

You will plunge me into the ditch to be sullied and contaminated; i.e., You will find great iniquity in me.

'And my own clothes shall abhor me' — many explained this as referring to the bruises and the boils. But the correct view, in my opinion, is that it is a figure of speech: that my own clothes would abhor me and pronounce me guilty — and this stands opposed to the earlier claim, 'if I washed myself with snow water' (Job 9:30).

'Yet will You plunge me in the ditch' — meaning: You will immerse my body in the pit.

"Yet will You plunge me in the ditch" — meaning, repentance would avail nothing except to bring death upon me, to plunge me and bring me down into the pit of the grave; and my own garments would abhor me, for they would be stripped from me as I am brought down to the grave. As if to say: that much good I might receive, but I cannot hope to return to how I was before.

"In the ditch" — [Meaning] in a pit. "You plunge me" — An expression of immersion; meaning, You bring me down. "My own clothes" — My garments.

in debate Heb. במשפט, in words of debate. [The word] משפט is used in three expressions: 1) its beginning, viz. the clarification of the matters, 2) its middle, viz. the verdict, and 3) its end, viz. the meting out of the tortures and the collection of the debt. Sometimes Scripture writes it as referring to the beginning, sometimes to the middle, and sometimes to the end.

'For He is not a man, as I am' — the sense is: Hashem, may He be blessed, is not a man like me, to be spoken with.

"For He is not a man, as I am" — God, blessed be He, is not a man like me, that I could answer Him and we could come together in judgment to settle the case, [to see] with whom [the fault lies]. For if it were possible to argue the matter with Him, then, once I emerged vindicated, He would surely be compelled to work wonders to restore me to my former state — unlike through repentance, where the good of death alone would suffice.

'For' — Indeed, since God is not a man as I am, whom I could answer — even if it were conceivable that I could compel Him and summon Him to judgment so that we would come together in court — my arguments would be silenced by fear and dread of Him. This is a second point: 'for'...

arbiter discerner in Old French. He shows each one his guilt and his innocence. who will place his hand The ruling of his fear and his power. on both of us so that the stronger does not overpower the weaker.

"There is no [arbiter]" — there is no one between us to settle the matter, who could lay the hand of his authority upon the two of us, so that we should both be subject to him.

"The arbiter" — Clarifies matters, as in "the woman whom Hashem has appointed" (Genesis 24).

'There is no arbiter between us' — meaning, no judge can be found to arbitrate between us and determine who is in the right, and to lay his hand upon us both so that each would be compelled to accept the verdict. If so, it is impossible for me to be vindicated against Him through judges and arbiters. Therefore I ask only this: that at least...

"Let Him take away" — if He would remove from me His rod that strikes me — that is, my sufferings — and let not the dread of Him terrify me—

"His terror" — An expression of dread and fear.

'Let Him take His rod away from me' — that is, the suffering — 'and let not His terror' and greatness 'make me afraid,' so that I would not be afraid to say all that I wish, neither from fear of punishment nor from awe of His grandeur — until...

for I am not so with myself Because I fear [God], I am certain with myself that I will not be found guilty in the trial.

'For I am not so with myself' — I am not at peace within myself, as you have assumed.

"Then would I speak" — then I would speak out, arguing why He brought this evil upon me though there is no violence in my hands, and I would not fear Him, for no wrongdoing would be found in me. For I am not, in my own eyes, as I am in yours — you who consider me a great sinner, which is not so.

'Then would I speak, and not fear Him' — that I would speak without dread or fear, saying to Him: Know that I am not so with myself — that I am righteous in my own eyes, and You have afflicted me with suffering for no reason.