הַ֭אֵל יְעַוֵּ֣ת מִשְׁפָּ֑ט וְאִם־שַׁ֝דַּ֗י יְעַוֵּֽת־צֶֽדֶק׃
하나님이 어찌 심판을 굽게 하시겠으며 전능하신 이가 어찌 공의를 굽게 하시겠는가
Malbim
Like Eliphaz, he too believes in Providence and freedom of choice, and like him he presents a stubborn shoulder (Zechariah 9:29) to the opinion of the astrologers. But since, in his reply to Eliphaz, Job had made no mention of these speculative matters, Bildad too ignores them and presents just a single reasoned argument against those who deny Providence, when he asks: Would God pervert judgment? Or would the Almighty pervert justice? (Job 8:3). What he meant by this is as follows: One of the necessary attributes of the Deity is that no perfection should be wanting in Him nor any shortcoming present in Him. Now, it would certainly be a shortcoming were any injustice or perversion of judgment (Habakkuk 1:4) to emanate from Him, and so such wrongs could not originate in Him.
Malbim
Part One: Job starts by responding to the proof Bildad had presented at the beginning of his speech, that which had purported to demonstrate God's Providence from considerations of universal law. Bildad had argued that it would be an injustice or a deficiency in the makeup of He who is Omnipotent and Righteous were He to delegate government to evil stewards. However, no injustice may be present in God and, likewise, He must possess absolute capability. And so Bildad had asked, Would God pervert judgment?1Both Job and Bildad agree that God must be perfect. However, each draws different conclusions from this. Basing himself on ethical judgments, Job argues that to attribute the observed disorder in the governance of individuals to God is to imply that He is imperfect; this cannot be and so He must have been delegated this governance to another. On the other hand, basing himself on constitutional considerations, Bildad argues that for God to have delegated this governance to another is tantamount to denying His Perfection and Omnipotence. Job now sets out to show that delegating Providence to the Cosmos—Nature—does not involve any breach of the Divine Constitution.
Rabbeinu Bahya
According to the discipline of vocalisations there are seven gradations in the vowels [not including semi-vowels which are not audible but which nonetheless are not part of the consonants]. The vowel kametz ranks as highest of these seven levels. It is followed in descending order by patach, tzeyre, segol, cholem shuruk, and chirik. The entire Torah is structured around these seven vowels which affect pronunciation of the words. They are also known as "seven syllables", or "seven sounds", concerning which David said in Psalm 29 [known as the hymn in honour of the giving of the Torah. קול ה', “the voice or the sound of G’d,” occurs seven times.] This is also the meaning of Shemot Rabbah 28,4 that the Torah was given with seven קולות, “sounds.” Concerning these seven sounds, Solomon said in Proverbs 9,1 חצבה עמודיה שבעה, “she has hewn her seven pillars.” These seven sounds are the foundation upon which the whole structure rests.
The difference between the vowel kametz and the vowel patach (otherwise found in the word “adonay”) is merely a single “dot,” and usually such a dot is perceived as an allusion to the original “dot” of matter which was the beginning of the creative process of this universe. [the “dot” is equated in kabbalistic jargon with the letter י, itself an allusion to the ten emanations.] This is the mystical reason why such a dot (in the way we write the vowels) serves seven different purposes. When you place such a dot on top of a consonant it produces the vowel cholam. When you place it in the middle of the consonant ו the result is the vowel shuruk. If you add the dot to the vowel patach, the result will be the vowel kametz. If you add a dot to the vowel chirik, you get the vowel tzeyre. If you add a dot to the vowel tzeyre the result is the vowel segol. If you add a dot to the semi-vowel sheva the result is the vowel kubutz. So you have seven different vowels merely by changing a single “dot.”
Now to the letters themselves. If you insert (fill in the missing blank) a dot inside the letter ה it turns it into a ח. If you add a dot to the left side top of the letter ו it becomes a ז. If you add a dot to make the base of the letter כ protrude, it turns into the letter ב. If you add a dot on the right top of the letter ר it turns into the letter ד. We can understand therefore what the sages mean when they say that an extra dot or a missing dot is liable to destroy the universe. (compare Sotah 20).
Although, at first glance, it appears that there is only a minute difference between spelling the word adonay or adonoy, (and in the sephardic pronunciation this difference is not even audible), there are profound differences in the meaning of the word as a result of misspelling it and consequently misunderstanding its meaning. Here are a few examples of where such minor misspellings have a profound effect. Joshua 3,6 speaks of the ארון הברית, ”the ark of the covenant.” When spelled (correctly) with the vowel patach, the word ארון, ark, is a possessive of the word הברית, “G’d’s covenant.” If spelled incorrectly with the vowel kametz, this would convert the ark into being the covenant. In Exodus 23,20 we have the verse הנה אנכי שולח מלאך “here I am going to send an angel.” The word מלאך is vocalised with the vowel kametz as it is not in the possessive clause. Whenever the word מלאך is in the possessive clause it must be vocalised with the vowel patach. At the end of a verse or at the cantillation etnachta, the vowel patach is always changed to kametz to indicate that the word is in its own right and is not a possessive clause which would be presumed otherwise. The patach always points to the word which follows it, making the word with that vowel at the end secondary to what follows. (Rabbi Chavell quotes Mateh Moshe on laws of prayers who quotes our author, and adds that when the word אדני is spelled with the vowel chirik at the end, it means “my ‘personal’ lord,” as opposed to acknowledging that “He is the ruler of the whole universe”). The reason that in our verse you do not find the word adonay vocalised with a patach is best understood by remembering that if Avraham had indeed addressed only Michael he would have had to say adonee, “my (personal) lord.” Neither the vowel patach nor the vowel kametz would have been appropriate. It would be incongruous to vocalise the word אדני when used as a reference to G’d with the vowel patach, as this would imply that G’d is in some kind of subordinate relationship to anyone as suggested by the possessive clause represented by that vowel. In short, if someone exchanges the kametz under this word for a patach he cannot escape being guilty of one or two things. 1) He is a heretic; 2) or he completely distorts the meaning of the verse in which this word appears.
Let us use Genesis 18,23 as an example. If someone were to place the vowel kametz instead of the vowel patach under the letter ה in האף תספה (which is perceived as turning what follows into a question), he would completely distort the meaning of the whole verse, turning it into a statement, i.e. an accusation against G’d. Let us look at another example. in Job 8,3. In הא-ל יעות משפט; the letter ה is vocalised with the vowel patach. As it stands the verse is a question and means: “is it possible that G’d will pervert justice?” If you were to place the vowel kametz under the letter ה in the word הא-ל in that verse it would turn the entire phrase into a statement denying G’d’s justice, i.e. into heresy. Another way of explaining what we have been saying is that the vowel kametz describes a true state of affairs, something objective, whereas the vowel patach describes something relative, a subjective truth. (Rabbi Chavell conjectures that the last statement may be based on David Kimchi, though he does not supply a source for this.) An example of the accuracy of this claim is Samuel II 1,10 (where the Amalekite lad relates to David that he had complied with Saul’s wish to give him the coup de grace so he would not fall into the hands of the Philistines as a prisoner) ואעמד עליו ואמתתהו כי ידעתי כי לא יחיה, “so I stood over him and killed him for I knew that he would not live.” In that verse the words ואעמד עליו, “I stood over him,” are an absolute truth; the words כי ידעתי כי לא יחיה, “for I knew he would not live” are a relative truth. The word ואעמד begins with the vowel kametz under the letter ו, whereas the corresponding letter ו in the word ואמתתהו, has the vowel patach to signify that this statement was only a relative truth. We had read in Samuel I 31,4 that Saul had actually committed suicide when his arms-bearer refused to finish him off. So the statement of the Amalekite lad who claimed to have killed him was not an objective truth. All of the foregoing is part of the wisdom contained in the Holy Torah and the Holy Tongue. This is the reason that the relationship of consonants and vowels to one another has been compared to the relationship between body and soul as pointed out in the Sefer HaBahir by Rabbi Nechunyah ben HaKana. The vowels, i.e. the absence of correct vocalization invalidates the text just as the absence of a soul paralyses the body. The body is compared to an animal without a rider. The soul supplies the animal with its rider. In a similar manner the vowels are what complete the consonants. We find a statement in Megillah 3 that the words ושום שכל in Nechemiah 8,8 are a reference to what is spelled out in the Holy Scriptures, especially the vocalization.
The difference between the vowel kametz and the vowel patach (otherwise found in the word “adonay”) is merely a single “dot,” and usually such a dot is perceived as an allusion to the original “dot” of matter which was the beginning of the creative process of this universe. [the “dot” is equated in kabbalistic jargon with the letter י, itself an allusion to the ten emanations.] This is the mystical reason why such a dot (in the way we write the vowels) serves seven different purposes. When you place such a dot on top of a consonant it produces the vowel cholam. When you place it in the middle of the consonant ו the result is the vowel shuruk. If you add the dot to the vowel patach, the result will be the vowel kametz. If you add a dot to the vowel chirik, you get the vowel tzeyre. If you add a dot to the vowel tzeyre the result is the vowel segol. If you add a dot to the semi-vowel sheva the result is the vowel kubutz. So you have seven different vowels merely by changing a single “dot.”
Now to the letters themselves. If you insert (fill in the missing blank) a dot inside the letter ה it turns it into a ח. If you add a dot to the left side top of the letter ו it becomes a ז. If you add a dot to make the base of the letter כ protrude, it turns into the letter ב. If you add a dot on the right top of the letter ר it turns into the letter ד. We can understand therefore what the sages mean when they say that an extra dot or a missing dot is liable to destroy the universe. (compare Sotah 20).
Although, at first glance, it appears that there is only a minute difference between spelling the word adonay or adonoy, (and in the sephardic pronunciation this difference is not even audible), there are profound differences in the meaning of the word as a result of misspelling it and consequently misunderstanding its meaning. Here are a few examples of where such minor misspellings have a profound effect. Joshua 3,6 speaks of the ארון הברית, ”the ark of the covenant.” When spelled (correctly) with the vowel patach, the word ארון, ark, is a possessive of the word הברית, “G’d’s covenant.” If spelled incorrectly with the vowel kametz, this would convert the ark into being the covenant. In Exodus 23,20 we have the verse הנה אנכי שולח מלאך “here I am going to send an angel.” The word מלאך is vocalised with the vowel kametz as it is not in the possessive clause. Whenever the word מלאך is in the possessive clause it must be vocalised with the vowel patach. At the end of a verse or at the cantillation etnachta, the vowel patach is always changed to kametz to indicate that the word is in its own right and is not a possessive clause which would be presumed otherwise. The patach always points to the word which follows it, making the word with that vowel at the end secondary to what follows. (Rabbi Chavell quotes Mateh Moshe on laws of prayers who quotes our author, and adds that when the word אדני is spelled with the vowel chirik at the end, it means “my ‘personal’ lord,” as opposed to acknowledging that “He is the ruler of the whole universe”). The reason that in our verse you do not find the word adonay vocalised with a patach is best understood by remembering that if Avraham had indeed addressed only Michael he would have had to say adonee, “my (personal) lord.” Neither the vowel patach nor the vowel kametz would have been appropriate. It would be incongruous to vocalise the word אדני when used as a reference to G’d with the vowel patach, as this would imply that G’d is in some kind of subordinate relationship to anyone as suggested by the possessive clause represented by that vowel. In short, if someone exchanges the kametz under this word for a patach he cannot escape being guilty of one or two things. 1) He is a heretic; 2) or he completely distorts the meaning of the verse in which this word appears.
Let us use Genesis 18,23 as an example. If someone were to place the vowel kametz instead of the vowel patach under the letter ה in האף תספה (which is perceived as turning what follows into a question), he would completely distort the meaning of the whole verse, turning it into a statement, i.e. an accusation against G’d. Let us look at another example. in Job 8,3. In הא-ל יעות משפט; the letter ה is vocalised with the vowel patach. As it stands the verse is a question and means: “is it possible that G’d will pervert justice?” If you were to place the vowel kametz under the letter ה in the word הא-ל in that verse it would turn the entire phrase into a statement denying G’d’s justice, i.e. into heresy. Another way of explaining what we have been saying is that the vowel kametz describes a true state of affairs, something objective, whereas the vowel patach describes something relative, a subjective truth. (Rabbi Chavell conjectures that the last statement may be based on David Kimchi, though he does not supply a source for this.) An example of the accuracy of this claim is Samuel II 1,10 (where the Amalekite lad relates to David that he had complied with Saul’s wish to give him the coup de grace so he would not fall into the hands of the Philistines as a prisoner) ואעמד עליו ואמתתהו כי ידעתי כי לא יחיה, “so I stood over him and killed him for I knew that he would not live.” In that verse the words ואעמד עליו, “I stood over him,” are an absolute truth; the words כי ידעתי כי לא יחיה, “for I knew he would not live” are a relative truth. The word ואעמד begins with the vowel kametz under the letter ו, whereas the corresponding letter ו in the word ואמתתהו, has the vowel patach to signify that this statement was only a relative truth. We had read in Samuel I 31,4 that Saul had actually committed suicide when his arms-bearer refused to finish him off. So the statement of the Amalekite lad who claimed to have killed him was not an objective truth. All of the foregoing is part of the wisdom contained in the Holy Torah and the Holy Tongue. This is the reason that the relationship of consonants and vowels to one another has been compared to the relationship between body and soul as pointed out in the Sefer HaBahir by Rabbi Nechunyah ben HaKana. The vowels, i.e. the absence of correct vocalization invalidates the text just as the absence of a soul paralyses the body. The body is compared to an animal without a rider. The soul supplies the animal with its rider. In a similar manner the vowels are what complete the consonants. We find a statement in Megillah 3 that the words ושום שכל in Nechemiah 8,8 are a reference to what is spelled out in the Holy Scriptures, especially the vocalization.
Rashi
from shaking His flesh was agitated from the shaking, that it was shaken [by the suffering of] his illness. This word [רֻטֲפַש] has no similarity in Scripture, and according to the context, we found it necessary to explain according to the meaning of the topic. But the one who interprets it as an expression of mire (רפש) and claims that the “teth” is added to it, as in (Gen. 44:16), “How can we clear ourselves (נצטדק)?” is in great error, because the “teth” is added to a word only in the reflexive voice, and to a word in which there is a radical “zaddi,” but nor in other words. for example, צדק and נצטדק, and like (Lev. 13:44) צרוּע, stricken with “zaraath,” and נצטרע, was stricken with “zaraath.” (Prov. 25: 13), “an emissary (ציר) faithful,” and (Josh. 9:4), “and they went and disguised as ambassadors (ויצטירו)”; (Gen. 45:21) “צֵדָה, provision,” and (Josh. 9:12) “הִצְטַיַדְנוּ, we took... for our provision.”