Kommentar zu Ijow 11:1

The first two companions [Eliphaz and Bildad] had both accepted Job's assertion that if God watches over human affairs no righteous person would ever perish. They had only challenged, each in his own way, his assertion that a truly righteous person had actually perished. However, now comes Zophar and he totally rejects the major premise of the syllogism, arguing that in his opinion, it is conceivable that even though God governs, a righteous person may nevertheless suffer, for no injustice is necessarily implied even if a righteous man perishes in his righteousness (Ecclesiastes 7:15). This approach is based on what has been demonstrated by philosophical research, namely, that the perception of things has two aspects (Zechariah 13:8):

1. The perception of things as they are in themselves;

2. The recognition of things as they are sensed.¹Malbim is undoubtedly referring to Immanuel Kant's ideas. In the eclectic tradition of Jewish theologians, Malbim seized upon Kant's revolutionary ideas about the subjectivity of space and time, viz., that they are the transcendental framework of our consciousness, and his distinction between phenomena, the external properties of an object which are accessible and can be comprehended by the mind, and noumena, the object's essential and eternal properties which are beyond human comprehension. He adopted this new epistemology, wherever it was useful, in support of his theological opinions and beliefs. Malbim was not the only orthodox Jewish writer who found Kant an aid to his theology (Rosenbloom, p.192-197).

And regarding ourselves, it is evident that there is no way we can perceive things as they are in themselves, but only as they affect our senses.
Now, since all human knowledge and learning is acquired through the senses, this being how the intellect derives its learning, inferring what was prior from that which is subsequent;²This theory of learning is Aristotelian:
Aristotle, in opposition to Plato, not only affirmed the existence of a world external to humanity but also maintained that our ideas about the world are obtained by abstracting from it ideas common to various classes of material objects we perceive such as triangles, spheres, foliage and mountains...Thus true knowledge is obtained from sense experience, by intuition and by abstraction. These abstractions have no existence independent of human minds...In his words, we must 'start with things which are knowable and observable to us and proceed toward those things which are clearer and more knowable by nature'. (Kline p.5) and since the modalities of sense perception are not the inherent modalities of the entities, we cannot judge things as they really are in themselves, but only as their external surfaces relate to our senses and to the modalities by which the senses experience their sensations in time and in place, and subject to the other circumstances of the senses. Hence, we cannot assert that these are really the inherent modalities of the entities and so we can have no certain knowledge of anything. For we can only judge that this is how we have perceived the exterior of the thing, as it affected our senses; not that this is how the thing is, inherently. But intellect that is naked of matter perceives the essence of things in direct knowledge, not through the medium of the senses. It will perceive things differently from the way we see them using our 'viewing instruments', i.e., our senses.

Accordingly, though in terms of external sense perception it is an offense if we see a righteous person perish, it may not be such an injustice to the abstract intellect, which perceives the essence of the things as they are in themselves. And this applies equally to the subject of the premise³The major premise of the syllogism being considered, namely, if God governs no righteous person would perish. – 'a righteous man', as to its predicate – 'perish':

• We judge who is righteous through the impressions gained by our senses. If we see someone doing good and avoiding evil we judge him to be a righteous person. Yet it is possible that though our senses perceive him to be righteous, he is inherently wicked. For we cannot perceive the person as he is in himself, only as he appears to us in his external body. The outer coat that envelopes the essence of man, the soul that is concealed within the body. We cannot comprehend matters of the soul or what constitutes righteousness and evil in its terms, for the senses have no perception of the soul that is man's essence. Consequently, though he may be righteous according to his somatic behavior, he may nevertheless be wicked in terms of the perfection required for his inner soul.⁴As Maimonides wrote in his Commentary on the Mishna: Sanhedrin 10:
Know that just as a blind man can form no idea of colors, nor a deaf man of sounds, nor a eunuch of the desire for sexual intercourse, so the body cannot comprehend the delights of the soul…For we live in a material world and the only pleasure we can comprehend is physical pleasure. But the delights of the spirit are everlasting and continuous, and there is no resemblance between spiritual and bodily enjoyments.

• This conforms with the opinion expressed by those Talmudic Sages who posited that Job lived before the giving of the Torah [at Mt. Sinai] and that his righteousness was just civilized probity in matters concerning human relations.⁵Bereshit Raba 57.4 However, there are religious ordinances and perfections needed for the perfection of the soul that cannot be ascertained by means of the intellect. Nor can it be perfected through civilized behavior which designates what is good and bad only by reference to the governance of physical bodies. Thus, in terms of its constitution, which is unknown to man, he [Job] had not perfected his soul and it is possible that it is by virtue of this that he was considered wicked.

This also conforms with Gersonides' statement⁶In Gersonides glosses on Job 11:20. that a person's righteousness or wickedness depends on what he was capable of doing relative to his individual make-up. For man was created to do what he can according to his disposition. Consequently, we may consider some people to be good because of the good deeds we see them doing, when in fact by reference to their make-up, they are doing much less than they should be. Because of this, they deserve severe punishment, for relative to them, minor sins should be considered major ones by virtue of the superior level of their make-up. On the basis of this supposition, we cannot argue that the evils which befall the righteous are unfair, for we cannot specify or measure the predilections bestowed on each individual member of mankind. Hence, who is righteous and who is evil is hidden from us. Nor do we have the necessary information about how much good or evil each person deserves for his disobedience or his righteousness. And so we cannot say that if he does not receive a particular amount [of good or evil], then God does not govern in an orderly and honest manner. For the amount of good or bad warranted by the goodness or worthlessness of their deeds should be adjusted for the differences in the make-up of each individual, by inverse proportion. That is to say, the reward for a particular deed should vary according to the ranking of the performer; the higher his intrinsic level the smaller should be the reward and the greater should be his punishment for an evil deed. All of this is implied in his [Zophar's] statement: That He would tell you of wisdom's mysteries; how reality is folded double. So you might know, God has exacted less from you than your iniquity warranted (Job 11:6).

• As regards the predicate [of the syllogism], viz. 'perish', we consider 'perishing' to be the annihilation of the physical body. For since we can only perceive what is palpable and not the essentials of things, as was explained above, we cannot perceive the intrinsic man. But in truth, though a person's exterior may perish, his essence, which is his internal soul, may thereby achieve bliss and perfection; excelling in pride and excelling in might (Genesis 49:3).
The external pain that the senses feel is not proof of an internal pain, that of the soul itself. As has already been explained by the wise:
True reward and punishment are not to be found in these perceptible misfortunes; that is, it is fitting that reward and punishment befalling man as a human being be through human goods and human misfortunes, not through benefits and misfortunes which are not human. Since this is the case, and [since] human goods consist of acquiring well-being of the soul - for this belongs to man by virtue of his humanity - not in acquiring sweet foods and [pleasant] sensory objects, for nutrition and sensation do not belong to man by virtue of his humanity, and also since human misfortune consists of the absence of well-being of the soul - I mean that its development be inadequate - it is clear that reward and punishment which befalls man by virtue of his humanity lies in the well-being of the soul and in the lack of such well-being...Since acquisition of well-being of the soul itself depends upon good and just actions...the good and evil which befall man by virtue of his humanity, proceed...in accordance with order and justice.⁷Gersonides' The Wars of the Lord, Part 4 Chapter 6, translated by J. David Bleich.
And so, even though the body may perish, the soul lives on; continuing to exist, eternal and receiving its reward after death. Regarding this, Zophar says; The real you will yet forget the misery, remembering it like flood waters long gone. For the timeless Hereafter will rise at midday, like daybreak breaking from the shadows, You can be sure of it, for there is hope, When buried in the ground, you will lie in safety, At rest, none shall make you afraid, Yea many will come to seek your intercession (Job 11:16-19).

As regards the long campaign Job had waged in Chapter 10 to prove that man has no freedom over his acts, for if he had, it would be impossible for the Blessed One to know the details of all possible future events [and that would mean that He is not Omniscient], Zophar replies as did Maimonides when he stated that inferences cannot be drawn between our knowledge and God's Knowledge, may He be Blessed. For just as the level of His Existence is higher than that of our existence, so the level of His Knowledge is higher than that of our knowledge. And so it must be, since His Knowledge is He Himself and just as we cannot appreciate His Essence so we cannot appreciate His Knowledge. Philosophers have already explained that the term 'knowledge' when applied to God, may He be Blessed, and to us is but a homonym. And clearly, when entities are homonyms, nothing can be proved about the one from the other. Accordingly, Maimonides explains that His Knowledge, may He be Blessed, is distinguishable from ours in five ways:

1. That His Unique Knowledge is both appropriate and commensurate with the many different types of things.

2. That His Knowledge applies to things not existing.

3. That His Knowledge encompasses that which has no purpose.

4. That God's Knowledge, may He be Blessed, of things that will happen in the future does not predetermine the known thing but leaves possible its nullification, so that concurrently with the Knowledge, the attributes of possibility and choice still remain.

5. That God's Knowledge, may He be Blessed, is not changed by innovations in those things of which He had knowledge before they came into existence, even though the thing to which the Knowledge applied has already changed, such that what was at first a potentiality has subsequently become a reality.⁸The Malbim changed the order in this paraphrase of the list from Guide to the Perplexed III,20.

None of these can be described by our intellect or wisdom, for 'knowledge' attributed to us is not the same as 'Knowledge' attributed to Him, may He be Blessed. Nor can we comprehend how and in what way He Knows, just as we cannot comprehend His Blessed Essence. The nature of this Knowledge requires that it be inscrutable and incomprehensible to us. This concept is implicit in Zophar's assertion that we can only appreciate things through the medium of our senses and cannot know the perception of an intellect that is totally divorced from matter: one which comprehends the essence of things from the prior to the subsequent, which is a different type of comprehension.⁹Different from sense perception which induces from what is posterior – the observed physical phenomena, what was prior – the underlying universals or general qualities. And above all, we can never comprehend God's Knowledge, may He be Blessed; He Who is Transcendental. And this is what Zophar meant when he inquired:
Can you fathom the depth of God? Can you determine the reach of the Almighty? T'is high as heaven; what can you make of it? Deeper than Sheol; what can you know of it? Its girth is greater than the earth and wider than the sea (Job 11:7-9).
Accordingly, he concludes that though the Lord, may He be Blessed, knows all future events, individuals still have choice and discretion over their deeds. Man cannot pose the question of 'knowledge and free-will'; he cannot claim that if the Lord, may He be Blessed, already knew that he would sin, he was compelled to sin and why then should he be punished, for this is something whose meaning we can never comprehend (Ch.11:10-11).

Furthermore, it cannot be denied that man does have free-will by virtue of the feeling every person has in his soul that whatever he wants or chooses to do, he has the possibility of doing, and no external force prevents him (Ch.11:13).¹⁰Once again, an idea reminiscent of Descartes:
Finally it is so evident that we are possessed of a free-will that can give or withhold its assent, that this may be counted as one of the first and most ordinary notions that are found innately in us. We had before a very clear proof of this, for at the same time as we tried to doubt all things and even supposed that He who created us employed His unlimited powers in deceiving us in every way, we perceived in ourselves a liberty such that we were able to abstain from believing what was not perfectly certain and indubitable. But that of which we could not doubt at such a time is as self-evident and clear as anything we can ever know. (Principles of Philosophy 39)

And finally, if a person asks why God created man in this way and not with the faculty to perceive things as they are in themselves; capable to learn from the prior to the subsequent without need of the senses and not to be bewildered by these doubts? He replies that this is like asking why God did not give intellect to donkeys and make them as clever as men. Had He done so, donkeys, as such, would not have existed. God wanted man to exist as 'intellect wedded to matter'. If man gained intelligence other than through the senses, he would have been 'intellect divorced from matter', and humanity as such would not have existed (Ch.11:12).