ציטירנדיקער פּירוש אויף איוב 1:6

THEN JOSEPH COULD NOT ‘L’HITHAPEIK’ (REFRAIN HIMSELF) BEFORE ALL THEM THAT STOOD BY HIM. He could not bear that the Egyptians should stand by him witnessing how his brothers would be put to shame when he makes himself known to them. This is the language of Rashi. But Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said that l’hithapeik means “to bear.” The expression Before all them that stood by him, means until all that stood by him would go out, and so it was necessary that he call out that they be removed. Onkelos, however, translated l’hithapeik as meaning “to strengthen himself.” Similarly: ‘Va’ethapak” (And I forced myself) and offered the burnt-offering.³³I Samuel 13:12. Every other form of hithapkuth in every place is likewise an expression of strengthening.
The correct interpretation in my opinion is that there were present many people of Pharaoh’s house and other Egyptians, pleading with Joseph to pardon Benjamin, for their compassions were deeply stirred by Judah’s pleas, and Joseph could not overcome them all. He then called forth to his servants, “Let every strange man go out from me, because I will speak to them.” And when they had gone out, he wept aloud; and the Egyptians heard, and the people of the house of Pharaoh,³⁴Verse 2 here. who had been expelled from his presence, for they were still in the outer court.
It is possible that the expression, ‘hanitzavim’ (them that stood) by him, means his servants who stood before him, just as: The servant ‘hanitzav’ (that was set) over the reapers;³⁵Ruth 2:6. ‘sarei hanitzavim’ (chief officers);³⁶I Kings 5:30. ‘L’hithyatzeiv’ (To present themselves) before the Eternal.³⁷Job 1:6. And the meaning of Vayikra (and he called) is that he raised his voice with anger and said to his servants, “Cause every man to go out from before me, except these men.” And the reason for the removal is that he expelled them from there so that they should not hear when he mentions the matter of the sale to his brothers because it would be a source of distress to them and also to himself, for the servants of Pharaoh and the Egyptians will say of them: “These are treacheous people who must not live in our land, nor tread in our palaces. They have acted treacherously against their brother, and also dealt treacherously with their father. What will they do to the king and his people?” They would also no longer believe in Joseph.

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.

There are several possible answers to this: A. The description of serpents being called 'seraphim,' which is also applied to angels, does not necessitate that they have the same names. Rather, all those described with a certain characteristic may be called by different names, as we have explained... 'Beit Arukh' (long house), 'Ish Arukh' (tall man), and as we have said, 'Darham Emitti' (true pearl) and 'Kikar Lehem Emitti' (true loaf of bread), 'Mamar Shalem' (complete statement), 'Yom Shalem' (complete day), and the like. This is a matter that reason excludes. If we say, for example, 'holy and pure Nazirite' and 'holy priest,' it is the same with regard to 'Eil Gadol' (Great God), 'Gibbor' (mighty), 'Nora' (awesome), and similar names. Besides, this matter would require us to attribute jealousy, moments of anger, desire, and a will to deceive to angels when they are sent as messengers to the prophets (which is impossible), as I am about to explain regarding the Satan in the book of Job when I challenge the opinion of those who consider the Satan there to be an angel. Moreover, if we are required to interpret the punishment of the serpent allegorically, then according to this principle, the punishments of Adam and Eve would also be allegorical, and even the tree and the garden would be mere allegories. Thus, the matter would not cease to trouble us until we are compelled to interpret all the events of Genesis figuratively, saying that they are only allegories. This is similar to those who claimed that the Tree of Knowledge is not a literal tree but rather a symbol for forbidden desires or some other concept. And know, may God grant you success, that the reason these individuals divided into these differing opinions is because they did not want to believe that the well-known serpent would speak, let alone receive reward and punishment. For this reward and punishment only applies to those who are commanded and warned. And if that is the case, it would logically follow that even animals should be commanded, warned, and receive reward and punishment, for according to rational reasoning, there is no difference between a serpent, a camel, and a frog in this matter. And if they have commandments, warnings, and reward and punishment, then it is necessary that one of two possibilities exists: either they have intellect or they do not have intellect [and if they do not have intellect, it is impossible for them to have commandments and warnings]. And if they have intellect, then humans have no advantage over them. And this distinction is what led them to be confused in these matters. And this is what we have discerned... And in it, it states: Indeed, it is impossible for the familiar snake to be commanded regarding "do" and "do not," neither from the perspective of reason nor from any other perspective, as I have explained based on what is obligated by reason and as explicitly stated in the scripture that the commandments and recompense are not only for humans, as it is said: "To make known to the sons of men..." and "And to man He said, 'Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom...'" and "The terrors of death confronted him" and "The sons of men take refuge in the shadow of Your wings." He unified them in knowledge, commandments, reward, and punishment. But this statement implies something that exempts us from all other arguments to be made: God, may He be exalted, created many snakes, just as He created many humans from all other species of animals. And when He wanted to test Adam, He changed the nature of one of the snakes and gave it the form of a human. He imposed upon him commandments of what to do and what not to do, as well as rewards and punishments. The allowance in this case was that if he would rebel, he would be restored to his original state, as it is written to Adam: "For you are dust, and to dust you shall return." Accordingly, I said in the translation of "היה ערום" (Genesis 2:25), "צאר חכימא – he was wise." And the serpent did not become wise, but rather in order for Adam to be tested by him. The action was indeed in accordance with the instruction of creation, as it is written: "Lest the land from which you were taken say, 'It is a wasteland.'" Zion was a desert, as you were a curse and you shall be a blessing. And just as we have "היה" (was) in the sense of continuation, as it is written: "And it remained there until this day." And as it is written: "It is not good for man to be alone," as I have previously explained in the statement. And the word "arum" (naked) has a profound meaning of wisdom, particularly in the Book of Proverbs: "The wisdom of the prudent is to discern his way; the prudence of the discerning is to understand his path. The prudent sees evil and hides himself." And similar to these examples. This is the answer to the first question.

ואת פרכת המסך means THE CURTAIN OF (that serves for) PARTITIONING — Everything that screens an object, whether it hangs above or in front of it is called מָסָךְ or סְכַךְ. Of similar meaning are: (Job 1:10) “[Hast Thou not] put a partition in front of him?” (שכת = סכת); (Hosea 2:8) “Behold I will partition off (סך = שך) thy way [with thorns]”.