Commentary for Job 6:31

Returning to the fray, Job reemphasizes his conviction that, as he had postulated, the Earth has been placed in the hands of the Cosmos and that no account or reckoning is kept of a person's deeds, whether they be good or bad. For everything a person does is prescribed and he cannot change what has been predetermined by his luck and horoscope. Hence, there is no difference between the righteous and the wicked. The proof of this is that we observe righteous men perishing in their righteousness (Ecclesiastes 7:15), as was shown by the example of he himself and what had happened to him. For he had become like a shattered vessel (Psalms 31:13) even though he had been both righteous and virtuous.

Eliphaz had countered this by asserting that the evil which befalls a righteous person is only temporary and no righteous person ever perishes completely. A righteous person suffers only by reason of some small sin he has committed; in order that he be purged of this minor transgression with mild passing afflictions and be thereby saved from eternal perdition. According to Eliphaz, Job's suffering was of this type. Against this, Job argues that what had happened to him clearly shows that a righteous person can totally perish, for there is no possible way that he could ever revert to his previous state and recover from his illness. He had been struck such a blow of death and extinction that he would not survive his illness, as he brings evidence to show (Ch. 6:4-13). This being so, of what comfort is it to him that, through this suffering, his minor sins will be purged and he will be saved from everlasting adversity or from death and perdition. And that he will yet be restored and live, broken as he is (2Samuel 1:10 ), seeing that the only hope he has left is to crave that his death be brought forward so that he might be released from his great agony (ibid and Ch. 7:11-17).

And if it be argued that he had in fact committed sins of such enormity that he had been justly sentenced to death, then he demands to know what these were (Ch. 6:28-30).

And as regards the argument that he had confirmed his own guilt by his inability to stand the test and by his hasty complaint, as Eliphaz had said: For as soon as anything happened to you, you broke;you were barely touched and you panicked (Job 4:5). He [Job] replies that the measure of his complaint was negligible compared to the scale of his suffering and the great wrong done to him (Ch. 6:2-5).

Aside from this, he employs philosophy to refute the whole of Eliphaz's thesis, in particular his assertion that a righteous person may suffer in order to purge his iniquity and to save him from death by reason of his sins. Against this reasoning, he puts forward a cogent alternative postulate, one based upon the recognition that every animal and object must have been created for some purpose. But, look here, some existing entities exhibit neither action nor work, so it must be that it is their very existence, for as long as it lasts, that is in itself their purpose. However, in most instances, we observe that entities strive, act and are acted upon—each one from his work that they were doing —as though they thereby pursue the purpose for which they were created. Since man is one of the components of creation—the choicest amongst them—he too must seek some perfection to which he can aspire for as long as he remains standing. But what are the instrumental means that bring him to his perfection? There are a number of opinions concerning this.

• There are those who say that what matters is the actual deed; that it [the deed] is the means to his perfection. That if he completes this deed he will have achieved his perfection.

• Others say that it is not the deed itself that matters but the person. That the person must strive all his life and that his perfection depends upon that, irrespective of whether he manages to complete the deed or not.

This controversy is found in the words of the Talmudic Sages (TB Sanhedrin 111a):
[Commenting on the verse in Isaiah 5:14] 'Therefore Sheol has enlarged her appetite and has opened her jaws for he who is without statute', Resh Lakish says: [The meaning of the phrase 'for he who is without statute' is] for he who has left even a single statute unperformed. [Disputing this interpretation] Rabbi Yochanan says: It does not befit their Master for you to say this to them, [for it would mean that He has condemned almost all of Israel to Sheol]. Instead, [take it to mean] for he who has not learned even a single statute; [had he done so he would have been saved from Sheol].
According to Resh Lakish, perfection requires the observance of all the precepts of the Torah without exception. However, according to Rabbi Yochanan, the observance of even one precept is enough, for a person's perfection depends on his doing as much as he can during his life.

For the purposes of our investigation we can say that some take the view that a man should busy himself throughout his life with the Torah and its Commandments and that he thereby achieves his perfection. That whether his life is long and he has the opportunity of keeping all 613 Commandments, or whether he dies young or for some other reason could keep only a few of them, he will still have achieved his perfection. For his perfection does not depend on the quantity of his worship but only on its regularity throughout the days of his life, whether they be many or few. Others hold the alternative view, namely, that he must fulfill his obligation to observe all of the Commandments, for it is thereby that he achieves his perfection. And if, even for reasons beyond his control, he fails to keep them all, he will not have perfected himself.

Others hold the alternative view, namely, that he must fulfill his obligation to observe all of the Commandments, for it is thereby that he achieves his perfection. And if, even for reasons beyond his control, he fails to keep them all, he will not have perfected himself.¹This is the interpretation given to the passage in the TB Sanhedrin 111a by Joseph Albo in Sefer Ha-Ikarim.

Whichever view is taken, Eliphaz's argument that God makes a righteous person suffer in order to purge him of some minor sin he has committed, such as not perfecting his worship of God to a degree befitting the greatness of He who is being worshipped, God Himself, Blessed be He, is untenable. For such suffering prevents him from worshipping God at all: the cure is worse than the disease! Like the servant or employee of a king who was somewhat slipshod about his work and whom the king sent to prison, for his own good, to atone for his offense. But as a result, during the whole time he spends in prison he is stopped from working altogether. So what was supposed to be for his good, turns out to be very bad. Likewise, how would God be doing good to a righteous person who had not exerted himself in his worship to a degree befitting He who was being worshipped, seeing that by afflicting him He just forces him to be even more idle and to worship Him even less? (Ch. 7:1-11).

As regards Eliphaz's statement that by reason of the suffering he is presently enduring he will be saved from a premature death and everlasting perdition, Job replies that he is already as good as dead. For by reason of these afflictions he is prevented from carrying out his work, the holy work for which he was created. Thus, as long as he is sick and suffering, it is as though he were not alive. Moreover, what difference does it make to him if he dies at the end of his days or if he is effectively dead for some period during those days? For the period of time not spent in the pursuit of his perfection is for ever gone, as though it had never been. In terms of the time irretrievably lost, this too is perdition. (The Talmudic Sages observed concerning this: 'What are loving afflictions? Those which do not prevent the learning of Torah...and prayer.'²TB Berachot 5a. Explaining the meaning of the term 'loving afflictions' Rashi writes: The Holy One Blessed be He afflicts him in this world [though he is] without any iniquity, in order to increase his reward in the Hereafter more than his merit warrants.
In the Guide for the Perplexed (III,17) Maimonides notes that the doctrine of afflictions of love, in the sense of a person being afflicted without having previously committed any sin in order that his future reward be increased, is not supported by any Scriptural text. It is a teaching of the Mu'tazilites. It is not what the trials described in the Bible, such as those of Abraham, are about. For when one is prevented by the afflictions from worshiping, they are a terrible evil for him and he is considered as though he were dead.) It is preferable for him to die at the end of his days and not in the middle of them (Ch. 7:6-8).

And as regards his [Eliphaz's] hint of a world of resurrection, as he said, so as to prevent them perishing for ever (Job 4:20), Job rejects this. For just as he denies Providence and free-will and attributes everything to the governance of nature and astrology, so he denies resurrection and future reward. As the Talmudic Sages said (Baba Batra 16b): 'Job denied the resurrection of the dead' (Ch. 7:8-9).

Regarding Eliphaz's assertion that this response was revealed to him by prophecy in a night vision, Job replies that if, as he says, God's word concerning this matter was really revealed to him, it would have been more befitting had the utterance and the vision come directly to him, to reveal these truths to him and to calm his raging spirit. And in what way did the spirit of the Lord pass from him to Eliphaz, who is no more worthy of God's word than he is? (Ch. 6:13-14).

Apart from this, he brings the following argument against Providence. How can it be supposed that God, Blessed be He, supreme above all, could have intended that His personal Providence apply to man, who is so very base. And of all things, that this Providence should be so particular and so meticulous that even the number of afflictions, when they begin and when they end, should emanate from God. And how can we say that a person's sin is the cause of this singular care, which must ensure that he does not die from his illness but only suffer at a specified rate and remain alive, as though He had some need for the person's existence? But what loss is there in his sins or gain in his perfection or correction, for all this is meaningless to a philosopher? (Ch. 7:17-21).

This is the substance of Job's reply, apart from the bitterness he voices towards his companions in the course of his words for having betrayed him, and the portrayal of his great suffering, as is the manner of a distressed person who is infested, smitten by God and tortured (Isaiah 53:4).

and my calamity my ruin.

Job defends himself against the accusation that he had broken down too easily under the pressure of his trials and that this, together with his complaint against God, proved his insincerity. He argues that his afflictions greatly outweigh his resentment and are so wounding that he is now beyond recovery; he is so ill that even the thought of food sickens him. By their very severity, these afflictions belie Eliphaz's thesis that though a righteous man might be made to suffer, he would never be made to perish completely.

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

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.

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

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.

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.”

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).

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).”

Then should I yet have comfort And this shall yet be to me for comfort.

Job finds no comfort in the prophetic message related by Eliphaz that his suffering is temporary and that since it will save him from perdition it is ultimately for his own good. In his present condition the only pity he wants is to be allowed to die, for he is beyond healing.

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.

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).”

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.

Because of the aggressive and unsympathetic manner in which Eliphaz had addressed him, despite his obvious suffering, Job considers him to have been unworthy of receiving any Divine Message and so he rejects the purported revelation. He goes on to accuse his friends of treachery, comparing their betrayal to the capriciousness of the watercourses in arid lands

or is counsel lost The counsel of counselors is lost from me, because you have risen against me to provoke and to reject.

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).”

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?

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.

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.

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.

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).”

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

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.

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

Job insists that the debate be based on objective statements and not on unverified suppositions. His companions cannot infer from his suffering that he must have been wicked; independent proof must be brought. Accordingly, they must either accept that he was a truly righteous person—a claim supported by his reputation—or they must show that he had knowingly lied or could not recognize wrong

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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