Комментарий к Ийова 32:23

Overwhelmed by the power of his arguments, Job’s three companions were left wordless at the end of his oration.¹It had not occurred to any of them that Job was undergoing a trial. Each had tried to justify God at the expense of Job's innocence or integrity. Eliphaz had accused him of sinning openly; Zophar, of having sinned secretly; Bildad, of not being all he seemed. But Job had remained steadfast under all their attacks. They had now exhausted all their arguments. However, at this point a brave warrior (1Samuel 16:18) joins the campaign (1Samuel 17:20); who speaks with understanding...God being with him. Addressing the debaters present, Elihu turns back the tide of war (Isaiah 28:6), and displaying his strength (1Samuel 14:48) he reveals the truth concerning these questions. He formulates and scrutinizes them (Job 28:27), with the spirit of God that is upon him (Judges 3:10 et alia); and with the secret of the holy ones (Psalms 89:8) and of the perfect Forms (Job 37:16) in his mind. Until at the conclusion of his speech he discloses God’s secret (Jeremiah 23:18); what had happened when the Sons of God assembled before the Lord and Satan too had joined them (Job 1:6), as was related at the beginning of the book. Thus, the conclusion of the debate is to be found in the book’s Prologue. And all of this was known to Elihu from the secret God reveals to those that fear Him.²Psalms 25:14. Malbim offers no explanation why, if he was present throughout the debate, Elihu is mentioned neither in the Prologue nor in the Epilogue. This is one of the reasons that modern exegetes have regarded Elihu's speech as a later interpolation and not part of the original text of the Book.

The book’s author starts by informing us that Elihu had been angered by both sides during the debate:

• He had been infuriated by Job for justifying himself rather than God (Job 32:2). Notwithstanding his conviction that he was a righteous person and that he could find no reason for his suffering, he should not have appraised the truth or otherwise of that which challenges the truth of the entity in question. For the notion that no lack of wisdom, ability or will can be attributed to God, Blessed be He, is of itself a truth, just as it is a truth that God exists. This follows from the philosophical proofs that teach us of the existence of a single impalpable entity who, by its infinite wisdom, ability and will, brought all that exists into being. These proofs also teach that this entity is absolutely perfect, that no shortcoming can be attributed to it and that it governs and exercises its authority with sublime wisdom, will and ability.³In Elihu's opinion, as Malbim sees it, Job should never have started the debate. Despite his suffering and his conviction that it was unwarranted, he should not have put the perfection of God or Providence into doubt. A unique God must be perfect. And so, the perfection or otherwise of a unique God is not a subject for debate, despite the apparent contradictions. All the proofs in the world, however convincing they might be, cannot deny His perfection. For He is by definition perfect, and so is His Governance. Despite the fact that experiment and experience (such as Job’s own unwarranted suffering) may prove the opposite, namely, that there is indifference or injustice in His Governance, philosophical proofs transcend the evidence of sense-perception and conjecture.⁴Echoes of the dictum of the Pythagorean philosopher Parmenides 'that the evidence of our senses is less reliable than the evidence of logical reasoning.' Or perhaps Malbim was aware of the new philosophy of positivism and was voicing his reservations concerning it. For judgments based on sense-perception can sometimes miss the mark, as was shown by the geometer astronomer who demonstrated, by scholarly proofs, that the sun is 170 times larger than the Earth.⁵Basing himself on Ptolmey's estimate of the diameter of the sun, viz. five and a half times that of the earth's, Pappus of Alexandria calculated that 'the solid magnitude of the sun is very nearly 170 times greater than that of the earth' (Heath p.414). In Maimonides Introduction to the Mishna, the more accurate figure of 1663/8 (51/2 cubed) is given. Just as he refuted the sense evidence that perceives the sun as a single small disc and attempted to explain that sense-perception can err and the reason for its error, so Job should have rejected the apparent truth derived from of his own experience in favor of the universal truth verified by general philosophy.⁶Once again the influence of Kant on Malbim is apparent. Hume had postulated that all knowledge derives from experience and that this restricted our knowledge of causes: we can only assert that event A habitually precedes event B but not that it causes event B. Kant attempted to rescue science from Hume's critique by arguing that there are universally valid features of knowledge that are not derived from experience. Forms such as space and time through which we our sensory perceptions must be filtered and which are responsible for the deep structure of our knowledge. Thus we possess no truths about the world but only about how we interact with it. (Layzer p.10)

• Elihu was also angered by the three companions to the debate. For even though sophistry can prove the opposite, a philosopher should not dismiss the evidence of the senses off-hand. He should seek a middle path by which reasoning can be reconciled with the senses, and by which the truth latent in the nature of intellect corresponds with the truth revealed to the eyes. And, furthermore, they should not have condemned Job who was righteous in all his ways (Psalms 145:17) there being no fault in him. (Psalms 92:16).

Elihu’s speech comprises four separate responses.

In the first response, Elihu explains his previous silence. He had thought that the foundations of knowledge were sense-perception and experience and so he had hidden amongst the baggage (1Samuel 10:22), away from the elderly debaters. They had been studying the subject for years, becoming familiar with wisdom and knowledge (Ecclesiastes 1:16) with the passage of time.⁷If the source of true knowledge is sense-perception and experience, then its acquisition is just a matter of making sufficient observations over a long enough period of time. Accordingly, the older you are the more true knowledge you should have acquired.

By virtue of the truths inscribed by God onto his mind, truths that are unattainable by empirical investigation or great age, being an inherent faculty of man (Job 32:8), Elihu considers himself to be God’s attorney;¹⁰The literal translation of the Hebrew name Elihu - אליהוא - is 'he is my God'. The name occurs elsewhere referring to other persons: 1Samuel 1:1; 1Chron.12:7. for his wisdom is a subset of God’s wisdom and his soul is a part of the Supreme Being on high (Job 31:2). And so he informs Job that he will stand in for God and debate on His behalf and that since the divineness in his soul is clothed in flesh (Job 7:5), just as he [Job] is, its awe and dread should not frighten him and he [Elihu] will be able to present all his arguments without instilling fear or apprehension.

Elihu asserts that God does not make great demands of man. For example, He does not require that man’s worship of God be commensurate with the magnitude of the One being worshipped, for that would be beyond man’s strength. On the contrary, God makes Himself appear the coequal of man, as though He was no larger or greater than him. For by sharing some of His wisdom and His true knowledge with man, He has raised him up towards God’s own level, so that faith should be certain in his soul like one of the Sons of God. And, similarly, by not wanting to be worshipped or heeded beyond the limits of man’s temporal strength, He has stooped from His Godliness towards man, asking no more than this from him. Furthermore and contrary to Job’s opinion, He does not look for opportunities to catch him out, (Job 33:10) making accusations and punishing him for things that are beyond man’s control or choice.

He also shows how unwarranted was his [Job's] complaint that God hides things from mankind, not informing them of their sins; where they had gone astray (Jeremiah 3:21) and for which He punishes their disobedience with a rod (Psalms 89:33). For He had revealed heavenly information to him previously in dreams and visions. For it is by means of true dreams that He opens men’s ear (Job 33:16) informing them of their iniquity and what the future holds for them. He also makes this known to them through sickness and affliction, for these are all messages that God sends to man in order to return him from his wicked path, that he might live (Jeremiah 26:3 et alia).

None of the debaters had realized the truth about Job’s suffering, namely, that it was a trial. Accordingly, the only way they could account for his suffering was by attributing some sin or shortcoming to Job himself. But their arguments had not convinced Job, for he was sure that he was without fault and had not sinned, either in public or in private. His three companions had failed to dislodge him from this conviction.¹⁴Malbim adds: 'And, as the Philosopher [Aristotle] indicated, it is impossible to debate with a person who denies the premises upon which it is based.'

In the second response, Elihu raises two issues with Job:

The first, that he laid the corner-stone (Job 38:6) to prove from the suffering of the righteous that personal jurisdiction is not administered by the righteous Lord (Exodus 9:27), for He has handed Governance over to the Cosmos. He had based this conviction on the following argument:
, Since no injustice or deficiency can be attributed to God, and the undeserved suffering of a righteous person is either unjust or improper, it cannot originate from God but from the ruler He has appointed to govern the world: to rule by the laws of Nature which do not distinguish between righteous and wicked persons. And this does not constitute an injustice, since as a consequence of the natural governance of the becoming and demising world, individuals must perish. Even were the Earth to be wiped out, this would not be an evil on the scale of the existence of the Universe, relative to which the Earth is like a grain of sand, as we explained at length in the introduction to the Fifth Oration.

In refuting this argument, Elihu makes the following analogy. That this is like trying to exonerate a minister of state who has treated a nobleman, one of his people’s princes (Psalms 113:8), unfairly, by saying that he did not do it in order to harm this particular nobleman but that this is the way he behaves towards everyone, wronging them all indiscriminately. For they are all like grasshoppers in his eyes (Numbers 12:33); or like his slaves and possessions, to do with as he sees fit. Is God excused for the injustice done to an individual, to a particular person (to Job himself), by saying that such injustice is ubiquitous; that it is common to all of mankind and all creation, everywhere and at all times? For He made them all like the fish of the sea, like creepy-crawlies that have no ruler (Habbakuk 1:14); handing all of creation into the hands of a cruel angel; a blind ruler with clouded eyes (Numbers 24:3), who loathes justice (Job 34:17). Is He excused by asserting that He allowed evil to multiply? For the question still remains: why did He transfer governance to this cruel ruler and why does He not govern Himself, rendering to each according to his deeds? Could it be because He is incapable of doing so, or out of jealousy, greed or evil-heartedness?

The second issue he deals with is Job’s complaint and suit against God, viz. why does He not punish the wicked immediately and in public.

With regard to this, he declares that God has prepared judgments for the arrogant (Proverbs 19:29) and that He knows their deeds; there is no darkness in which they can hide from His retribution. But it is not for man to inquire why they are punished secretly and not by a revealed miracle, nor to teach God how and in what manner to punish them. For in His wisdom, He wants to punish them in secret in order that there be some doubt as to whether the punishment comes from Him, thus leaving room for choice. Furthermore, at times they [the wicked] are themselves the agents of His Providence, the rod of His anger, (Isaiah 10:5) afflicting mankind for its evil deeds. Hence, not only does He not wipe them out, He even endows them with the strength and authority to destroy and exterminate multitudes, until they have carried out His work: to afflict peoples (Psalms 94:10) and prove nations. Then will He smash the rod and the staff of evil will be cut down. And it should suffice us to know that the Holy One Blessed be He is slow to anger, but eventually He collects what is His. And whoever says that the Holy One Blessed be He is one who waives the rules...¹¹Bereshit Rabbah 67.4. The sentence concludes: 'let him waive a bout of diarrhea!'

In the third response Elihu discusses the great question Job had asked (in chapter 24), namely, that there are evil-doers who cause havoc to the world—murderers, pirates and bandits—and why does God not annihilate them from under His heaven (Lamentations 3:66), thus removing their evil and saving the human race from their ravages? Moreover, since they live like beasts of the forest (Psalms 50:10) away from civilized people, God could wipe them out in the darkness of their dwelling-places without prejudicing free-will. He goes on to consider the general question Job had raised concerning reward and punishment, on the basis of which he had concluded that everything is determined by the Cosmos, even the volitional acts of human beings; and that man’s deeds are predestined. And so, just as mill-stones, rotated by the rush of water, are neither paid wages for grinding the flour nor punished if they crush the skull of someone who gets too close to them, humans too deserve neither reward nor punishment.

Replying to this, Elihu asserts that Job and his companions had made the mistake of regarding reward or punishment as something distinct from the deed, implying that God behaves like a king who enacts laws for his servants, and instructs man and admonishes him concerning certain acts for His own benefit. For as regards a king’s servants, any work done by them is of benefit to him and any who disobey him cause him harm, and the manner in which he rewards or punishes them has no intrinsic connection to the actual deed.¹²The king's only concern is for the benefit or otherwise that accrues to him from his servants. There is no inherent link between the nature of the work done and the form of payment. The payment depends just on the value of the work and is made in whatever form is mutually acceptable. However, there is no reciprocity between man and God because there is nothing God needs from man. Where Providence is concerned, the reward or punishment for our deeds is inherent in the deeds themselves.

But this is all wrong, for God is neither impressed by man’s deeds nor has He any need for his work; nor does his rebelliousness bring about any change in Him. He is like a doctor who prescribes treatment for a patient. Whether the patient listens to what the doctor says or refuses to do so, the reward or punishment is inherent in the very act upon which his health and life, or his sickness and death, depend.¹³This was the solution put forward by Hasdai Crescas, the 14th century philosopher, theologian and statesman. Hasdai was a severe critic of Maimonides, and his major work Or Adonai is a critique of the Guide of the Perplexed. Hasdai's resolution saves God's omniscience by limiting human freedom and the justice of reward and punishment by asserting that it is inherent in the way things are. Just as death follows from the swallowing of poison, so suffering ensues from wrongdoing. Whether Malbim was familiar with Hasdai's writings at first hand is uncertain. This is the way in which the reward and punishment for human acts is linked with the acts themselves. A man who controls his appetites and instincts will enjoy good health (Psalms 73:4), whereas he who pursues the pleasures of the flesh will become sick and be sorely chastised (Job 33:19).
Similarly, a commonwealth which endeavors to act properly and humanely, to do justice to the oppressed and to remove evil-doers from the land, will enjoy quiet and security free of any evil threat (1Kings 5:18) or destroyer. But when right and justice are usurped in the state (Ecclesiastes 5:7) murderers and gangsters multiply.

Providence has provided every living being with a defense against its enemies: either the means to fight them or stratagems to protect against them. For example, some of the birds that God has placed in nature are frail and sing at night to keep each other awake, on guard against their enemies and they that seek their souls (Jeremiah 19:9). God has likewise ordained the nature of man, that governments and the human race should work together to maintain law and justice in the land (Jeremiah 23:5; 33:15), ever vigilant in eradicating the terrorists, murderers and others who would ravage society. And in this way, the human race continues to exist. For there are always more good people than bad in society and their strength, when they join together to protect the common weal, is greater than that of the minority who, like beasts of the forest, devour and destroy, steal and murder.

Wherefore, He has entrusted the prosecution and conviction of the wicked destroyers of civilization to mankind, that they should by their nature eradicate them and remove the evil from amongst them (Deuteronomy 17:7). But when evil overcomes good and there is no law and justice (Job 36:17) in the land and the human race becomes fish-like, it is they themselves who have brought this evil upon them. Why should they be angry with God if it was their own stupidity that led them astray?

And in this he hints that Job himself was to blame for everything that had happened to him as a result of the rustlers’ plundering of his possessions, for he had not tried hard enough to do justice and to deal with them when it was in his power (Genesis 31:29). Whereupon, he continues to berate him (Deuteronomy 25:3), both for his stupidity for not thinking of returning from his evil ways, adding iniquity to sin (Job 34:37), and for complaining against God, something which is itself a crime. And thus did he prepare death traps for himself (Psalms 18:6).

The fourth response comprises two statements:

• In the first of these, Elihu reveals the true cause of Job’s suffering: that it was a trial. He explains the whole matter fully and shows how God’s ways were justified by it (Hosea 14:10). Elihu finally reveals everything, even what was written in the Prologue concerning Satan’s challenge. And with this the argument is settled.

• In the second statement he reproves Job for having the nerve (Lamentations 3:41) to inquire into matters greater and more wondrous than he can imagine such as the immortality of the soul, the substance of knowledge, free-will and so on. Man does not even comprehend God’s wisdom in those natural things he sees in front of his eyes. And since He has closed the door in front of him (2Kings 4:4), preventing him from entering the inner sanctuary (Leviticus 10:18) to look at God (Exodus 3:6) and to investigate metaphysical matters, he should have hidden his face (Micah 3:4) and not climbed God’s mountain or even touched its edge (Exodus 19:12).

And with this the debate is concluded, in its entirety.

Elihu’s Address
of the family of Ram Abraham, as it is stated (Josh. 14:15): “the greatest man among the Anakim.” This is Abraham.

than God More than the Omnipresent.

and condemned Job This is one of the verses wherein the Scribes rectified the language of the Scripture. “And they condemned,” as directed against the Omnipresent, by remaining silent, should have been written, but Scripture euphemized. Similarly (Num. 11:15), “and do not let me see my misfortune.” It should have been written: “and do not let me see their misfortune,” but Scripture euphemized, and so many [other] instances, in Sifrei (ad loc.) and in the Great Masorah.

"...and angry with the three companions for not finding the answer and for condemning Job instead".¹⁵The two mediaeval commentators, Rashi and Ibn Ezra, note that this is one of the eighteen places in the Hebrew text of the Bible that were amended by the scribes (תיקוני סופרים) in order to avoid an apparent irreverence. According to this, the original reading was 'condemning God'. Malbim, makes no reference to this but the 14th century halachist and exegete R. Simeon ben Zemah Duran notes that by their silence, the companions had appeared to accept that Job's heresy, viz. that he was more right than God.

because they were older than he in days [i.e.,] the others [were older than he]. Therefore, he refrained until they were still.

Elihu explains that, hitherto, he had believed that the fundamentals of wisdom were sense-perception and empirical investigation, both of which require time and experience. Hence, he had assumed that old people are wiser than the young since they have lived longer and have had more experiences. However, he now realized that the fundamentals of wisdom,¹⁷Malbim understands the term 'חכמה - wisdom' as encompassing 'all the ways of Providence that involve good and bad; it cannot be acquired through human intellect, only by grace from God'. Elsewhere (glosses on Proverbs 1:2) he defines the term as: 'to know all aspects of all those things...that involve opposites, such as cruelty and mercy, pride and humility, arrogance and shame, eating and fasting, holiness and uncleanliness...and everything that is designated good or bad...and it is a general rule that the ways of wisdom cannot be understood by man from himself...they are received from God alone...' like the Forms of Plato’s philosophy, are embedded in man’s soul, an inheritance from its Divine Source. They are present in the young as well as in the old and so wisdom is not, as he had previously thought, the exclusive possession of the elderly.

Indeed, it is a spirit in man Wisdom [is a spirit in man] and [comes] not through days or old age, but it is the spirit of the Omnipresent.

Yea, I attended to you I attended to you, and I saw that there is no one to convince Job.

Lest you say You shall not say We have found wisdom by remaining silent in order not to provoke him anymore. for God will crush him and not a man You should not have belittled the honor of the Omnipresent thereby.

Having listened to the arguments presented by Job’s three companions, Elihu concludes that they had failed to convince because they all reduced to the same empty truth: that God is not a man and that His ways are not our ways and so we cannot understand Him. Is this wisdom? Would such arguments convince anyone?

He did not set up words against me This is a plaint: Woe that he did not set up words against me.

Elihu’s thesis is totally different from those of Eliphaz, Bidad and Zophar, and so the points raised by Job in his rebuttal of the latter are immaterial with regard to it

I would not reply to him with your sayings I would not reply to him with those sayings with which you replied to him.

have removed themselves Words have turned away from them.

One was confounded and dropped out of the debate; Zophar, who had dropped out of the third round, another was lost for words. Bildad, who had so little to say in the third round.

Behold my belly is full of wind, words to answer eagerly.

like wine that is not opened Like new wine that is not opened, and which blows up, and even [if it is] within new wineskins, it bursts them.

like...wineskins Wineskins made as tall as a man’s height.

neither will I euphemize I will not change my words to replace them [with milder expressions] in deference to his [Job’s] honor, as I said above, “And they condemned Job.” This is a euphemism, which changes the expression because of His honor. I will not even do this, but I will reprove him explicitly.

or else...would carry me away He would take me away from the world. Others interpret יִשָׂאֵנִי like (Nahum 1:5), “and the land raised up (ותשא) from before me [a pillar of smoke].”