This holy book, as is clear from its composition, is a formal debate about the apparently unfair workings of Divine Governance.² For there are righteous people who suffer the deserts of the wicked (Ecclesiastes 8:14), while there are wicked ones whose paths prosper…they grow and even produce fruit (Jeremiah 12:1-2). Yea, they vex God, yet escape capture (Malachi 3:15).

footnotes: ² The Hebrew term is הנהגה – Governance, i.e., how God governs the world. The alternative term השגחה used is translated as 'Providence'; it is generally taken to indicate individual Providence.

This then is the question: 'Why do the righteous suffer and why do the wicked prosper?' The Talmudic Sages noted that even Moses, master of the prophets, had been baffled by this problem and had pleaded with God, 'Show me Thy Glory.'³33:18. Malbim misquotes. The verse that actually appears in the Talmud (Berachot 7a) is 'Inform me of Your ways' (Exodus 33:13). For it is by reason of this question that apostates have broken away (TB Megillah 25b; TB Sanhedrin 38b) and denied Providence, asserting that the world is ownerless; that there is neither reward nor punishment, neither justice nor Judge, and thus God's honor is besmirched. As Maimonides wrote in his Guide for the Perplexed (Part 3, Chapter 16): What induced philosophers to refute Providence and to deny its existence is that at first thought we notice an absence of system in human affairs. Some pious men live a miserable and painful life, whilst some wicked people enjoy a happy and pleasant life.

footnotes: ³ Exodus

According to the Talmudic Sages, Moses was the author of the Book of Job (TB Baba Batra 14b). The Midrash explains that he wrote the book in order to comfort the Children of Israel during their suffering in Egypt.⁴ 5.18) that the Israelite slaves in Egypt possessed scrolls which they would read for relaxation during the day of rest - the Sabbath - that Moses had persuaded Pharaoh to grant them by arguing that it would increase the productivity of their labor. Other than the general promise that God would redeem them, the exact contents of these scrolls and what happened to them is not recorded by the Midrash. However, in his glosses on the passage in the Talmud that ascribes the composition of Job to Moses (TB Baba Batra 14b), Rashi notes that Moses also composed Psalms 90 to 101. One of these compositions, Psalm 92, is headed 'A Psalm for the Sabbath Day'. However, the Psalm makes no mention of the Sabbath. It does, however, relate to the same topic asJob, namely, the prosperity of the wicked and the suffering of the righteous. Moses was the first to research and elucidate this problem. Employing the techniques of analysis and philosophical contemplation, he examined and investigated this subject before the Word of God was revealed to him. He recorded the results of his intellectual efforts and meditations in this book, in the form of a debate, wherein he mustered all the opinions and theories that can be rationally surmised in this matter.

footnotes: ⁴ The specific Midrashic source for this assertion has eluded detection. Perhaps Malbim is referring to the Midrash (Shemot Rabbah

And so this story about the greatest man in all the East (Job 1:3), of whom God Himself testifies that there is no-one like him on earth, as sincere and genuine in his fear of God and avoidance of evil (Job 1:3 1:8). This saintly man is handed over to Satan, to be tormented. His wealth and property is destroyed and his children all die. Finally, he himself is struck down with the most dreadful bodily afflictions.

Convinced of his own innocence and that has neither sinned nor transgressed, he deems these visitations to be both unjustified and unwarranted. Notwithstanding, he continues, and with integrity, (Job 2:9) to believe in true faith (Isaiah 25:1), that no injustice, lack of knowledge, power or will can be attributed to God, Blessed be He, whose Perfection is absolute. He is thus driven to conclude that this evil could not have ensued from God's Providence; that He does not oversee the deeds of individual persons, nor does He mete out their reward or punishment, their benefaction or their hurt. For He has delegated this task to the universal governance ordained during the six days of Creation—the governance of the Cosmos.⁵ Thus, God remains just and true (Deuteronomy 32:4) and no guilt is to be found in Him (Psalms 92:16; Ezekiel 28:15). For since a person's deeds, whether righteous or evil, are all determined and apportioned by the governance of the Cosmos, he has no freedom of action and deserves neither reward nor punishment for his acts of volition, just as mill-stones, turned by flowing water, are neither rewarded if they grind the corn nor punished if they crush the head of someone who comes too close. And so, Job sets forth to campaign, and stringing his arrows, he lets fly (Psalms 11:2), and employing powerful philosophical arguments, founded on pillars of inquiry and study, he attacks belief in Providence, in Divine reward and punishment, physical or spiritual, and in the existence of free-will.

footnotes: ⁵ הנהגת המערכת - governance of the Cosmos. As Malbim uses the term, it encompasses both Natural Astrology, which determines the movement of celestial bodies, and Judicial Astrology which determines how these movements affect sublunar (terrestrial) life.

He is challenged in combat by three champions, archers (1 Chronicles 12:2), on the side of Faith, resolved to demonstrate and prove that there is a God who judges the earth (Psalms 58:12); whose eyes watch over the ways of men, rewarding each according to his path, as his deeds warrant (Jeremiah 32:19); that man is master of his own deeds and has freedom of choice; and that God, through His personal Providence, is the sole Ruler of all the world's affairs, there being no other. And so they too, with wisdom and knowledge, pinned their colors to the mast (Psalms 74:4) in a spirit of investigative and philosophical contemplation. However, the heretic's arguments and proofs triumphed over their answers and so these skilled bowmen turned and fled in the hour of battle (Psalms 78:9), for the enemy prevailed.⁶ 1:16. There is here is a play on the name Job in Hebrew – איוב, and the Hebrew word for enemy – אויב: the 'enemy' is Job! In seeking a possible explanation for why God had allowed such terrible afflictions to befall Job, some of the Talmudic Sages (TB Baba Batra 16a) speculated on the possibility that He had confused איוב (Job) with אויב (enemy). However, these musings are all refuted by their colleagues.

footnotes: ⁶ Lamentations

At this point, an accomplished and erudite young warrior presents himself and audaciously (Psalms 20:9) joins the campaign, full of spirit. His tongue speaks mighty things (Psalms 12:4). The great were astonished by him, silenced and unable to reply (Job 32:15); tongue tied (Job 29:10).

And following him, the voice of the Lord thunders forth, revealed out of the Tempest (Job 38:1), *hewing out flames of fire (Psalms 19:7),*The heavens proclaiming His righteousness: "For God, He is the Judge – Selah" (Psalms 50:6).

It is well-known that in a book written in the style of a symposium (a philosophical dialogue⁷ is that of a philosophical dialogue and so he expects to find in it all the features of this form.) in which several persons participate and contend with one another, each basing his arguments on a particular philosophy, the number of different opinions being expressed corresponds to the number of speakers,. Were just two points of view being examined, the author would not have specified more than two participants, one posing the questions and the other replying to them. Accordingly, each of the three protagonists that the author [of the Book of Job] arrays against Job must represent a different method of inquiry, distinct from that of his companions. And, furthermore, the approach adopted by the fourth and last protagonist must be a wholly different one.

footnotes: ⁷ According to Malbim, the literary form of the debate in Job

Recognizing this to be so, Maimonides in his Guide to the Perplexed, and likewise all the upright in heart (Psalms 94:15), sought to identify each debater with a particular philosophical standpoint. However, when they tried to explain and interpret the book's actual text accordingly, none of these worthies succeeded (Psalms 76:6). For at first sight, there appears to be a great confusion which destroys (Exodus 8:20) any systematic pattern the book may have, from its beginning to end. Not only is order not maintained, as it should be in a scholarly debate, but neither are questions asked or answered to the. The topics should follow on from one another by way of ordered and systematic statements, in a logical and rational progression. Answers should relate to the questions previously asked and subsequent questions should be a rebuttal of the replies previously given. But everything is confused and disconnected.

Furthermore, each of the protagonists appears to repeat statements that have been previously made, two or even three times. Each encroaches on the territory of the others, stealing each others words (Jeremiah 23:30) and ideas, and even contradicting what they themselves have said elsewhere. For example, in his final speech Bildad states: What right has a man to require of God, and what privilege has he who is born of woman, that He should stop the moon from shining; the stars too, because he has found them wanting? Yea, for mortal man is but a grub and the son of man is maggot-feed (Job 25:4-6). However, this passage is a repetition of remarks already made by Eliphaz on two previous occasions (Ch. 4:17-19 and 15:14-16). And besides, Job had already responded to this, twice, and had made such nonsense of his words (Job 24:25) that Eliphaz had not repeated it again in his third speech. So why does Bildad end his final exposition with these very same words, which in any case are so far removed from his way of thinking?

Moreover, how can Job reply to him: it is the lot of the wicked man - it is from God; ...that if he has many sons - it is for the sword; ...though he heap up money like dirt; ...he may prepare, but the just shall wear it? (Job 27:13-17) For these are the very words of his opponents and their reply regarding the punishment of the wicked. He had been in full cry after them (Jeremiah 12:6) throughout the debate; his bow had remained resolute (Genesis 49:24). So why does he himself now break the bow's flashing shafts (Psalms 76:4) and speak as had his opponents, contradicting everything he himself had said previously?

Many other strange and amazing things can be seen throughout the book. Consequently, in their attempts to elucidate the text, commentators have been forced to assume difficult and strange interpretations: Darkness confounds them (Psalms 18:12) and fog envelopes them (Job 38:9). Neither lamp nor sun (Psalms 74:16) to light up the night (Psalms 105:39); and to show how brightly it shines in the sky above (Job 37:21) under God's heaven (Lamentations 3:66).

The pathway I have cleared in explaining this book leads the reader directly to a city of habitation (Psalms 107:7), bringing him to a place of rest and inheritance (Deuteronomy 12:9), where he will discover hidden treasures (Isaiah 45:3); for a wise word is a precious jewel (Proverbs 20:15).

Reader, behold this book, now open before you, written by a genius of unrivaled wisdom, in which, through the medium of a debate, he conducted extensive and profound researches; elucidating each issue rationally and with extraordinary philosophical insight.

The protagonists stroll far and wide through the Garden of Thought, pressing oil between the rows (Job 24:11); revealing all its precious gems (Job 28:10). Everything that thought can either deduce or infer from such investigations they poured forth, like water from a deep well; seeded in an abundance of moisture (Numbers 24:7).

Each adopts a specific philosophical system upon which he takes up his position; as in a fortress; (Psalms 61:4) counter attacking with great courage (Isaiah 28:6) with all available ammunition (Job 36:19).

Each stands on his own ground. *The one does not jostle the other (Joel 2:8)*nor remove his neighbor's boundary mark (Deuteronomy 19:14).

As I will show, none of the participants repeats anything twice, nor is anything mentioned before it should be or out of place. The ideas and the topics discussed intertwine like the boughs of a tree curling up out of its roots; spreading branches, stretching out sprigs and bursting forth shoots (Ezekiel 17:6).

And so there is no superfluous talk, (Proverbs 17:7) nor anything that is extraneous, remote or forced in the book. Its order and composition, its style and insights, are the mark and proof that it embodies God's wisdom and was written with inspiration from on High by that person [Moses] like whom there has been no other in Israel. (Deuteronomy 34:10.)

Not only does each protagonist adopt and expound a philosophy different from that of the others, but each also draws on a distinctive source, so that the river flowing from the Eden of their wisdom divides into four separate founts (Genesis 2:10).

Eliphaz garners the waters of his wisdom from those exalted fluids suspended by the Sovereign's Fiat;⁸ 1:6-8). Eliphaz claims to have prophetic knowledge; to have heard 'the whisper of a sound' through a revelation from on high and a prophetic vision, just the whisper of a sound (Job 4:16).

footnotes: ⁸ The elevated waters are those above the firmament, i.e., the heavens - השמים (Genesis

Bildad is the exponent of tradition*.⁹ He pours forth his sources (Proverbs 5:16)*, from the well dug by the princes; unearthed by the wise men of antiquity, by the scepter and their maces (Numbers 21:18).

footnotes: ⁹ Bildad's knowledge is traditional knowledge, the accumulated wisdom and experience of previous generations.

Zophar taps strange, cold, flowing waters (Jeremiah 18:14) from the founts of understanding and philosophy, and on the basis of abstract perception, by examination and drawing from what is subsequent that which was prior,¹⁰(Aristotle's Physics 1, Ch. 1). as is the method of the Peripatetic philosophers,¹¹ he assembledhis loft in heaven, its construction founded on earth (Amos 9:6).

footnotes: ¹⁰ i What is subsequent - the observed physical phenomena; what was prior - the underlying principles, universals or general qualities:We do not think that we know a thing until we are acquainted with its primary conditions or first principles and have carried our analysis as far as its simplest elements. Plainly therefore in the science of Nature, as in other branches of study, our first task will be to try to determine what relates to its principles. The natural way of doing this is to start from the things which are more knowable and obvious to us and proceed towards those which are clearer and more knowable by nature. So in the present inquiry we must follow this method and advance from what is more obscure by nature, but clearer to us, towards what is more clear and more knowable by nature. ¹¹ Here, Zophar is identified as a follower of Aristotle, but Malbim interprets his speech in the first cycle in terms drawn eclectically from Kantian philosophy.

Elihu raises deep water from great depths (Genesis 7:11); from the concepts (Forms or Ideas) implanted in the soul from its Original Source. In his opinion, it is they that are the foundations of comprehension and, like Plato, it is in them that he finds the origin of truths.¹² It is upon them that he lays his foundation (Job 38:6), setting his mind as the mind of God (Ezekiel 28:2). And with the Divine force thus in his soul, – his Beloved is for him as a bunch of myrrh – (Song of Songs 1:13) to stand in for Him,¹³ to answer and to debate, and to establish the sanctuary of His wisdom, as it is on High. (Psalms 78:69).

footnotes: ¹² According to Malbim, Elihu, like Plato, finds sure knowledge in his soul. However, the theological truths that Elihu finds there are very different from the philosophical truths, the Ideas or Forms, postulated by Plato. ¹³ This is a play on the Hebrew name Elihu - אליהוא - whose literal meaning is 'He is my God'.

As I will be presenting separate introductions for each of the 19 orations, which, when taken together, constitute a comprehensive prolegomenon, all I will do here is just sketch an outline (Ezekiel 9:4) of the book, one that briefly describes its general structure, its principles and postulates, its roots and branches. Climb to the top of this hill, lift up your eyes and view the land; its length and breadth (Deuteronomy 3:27). You will cross this Jordan river on a dry path, and inherit that land. And it shall be your possession, for I have given it to you. (Deuteronomy 32:49).

Inasmuch as Job maintains his belief that no wrong or shortcoming can be attributed to God, and to assert that God governs but evil can nevertheless befall a righteous person or good betide a wicked person would be to imply an unfairness, lack of power or absence of knowledge on His part, he is driven to conclude that such decrees do not emanate from the decisions of the Most High (Lamentations 3:38), but from the blindfolded governance of the Cosmos (and therefore there is no injustice attributable to Him). He formulates this, his fundamental thesis, in the form of a compound hypothetical syllogism,¹⁴ of the following form:

footnotes: ¹⁴ The fact that the syllogism is not of Israelite origin, and was popular amongst Greek philosophers and medieval Christian scholastics up until the Renaissance, apparently did not worry Malbim. He also did not see it necessary to explain why the sages of Israel, after Job, did not continue to use this system of logic (Rosenbloom, p.199).

Major Premise: If God governs, no righteous person would perish or suffer, nor would any wicked person prosper.

Minor Premise: However, we have seen righteous persons who perish or suffer, and wicked persons who prosper.

Conclusion: Therefore God does not govern.

The premises involve two circumstances, one that refers to a righteous person who perishes and the other to a wicked person who prospers. Therefore, two separate hypothetical syllogisms are involved:

1. If God governs, no righteous person would perish or suffer. However, we have seen righteous persons perish or suffer. Ergo, God does not govern.

2. If God governs, no wicked person would prosper. However, we have seen wicked persons prosper. Ergo, God does not govern.

Accordingly, the debate with the three companions is divided into three cycles:

In the first cycle of speeches (Ch. 4–14), the first syllogism concerning the existence of a righteous person who suffers or perishes is discussed.

In the second cycle of speeches (Ch. 15–21), the second syllogism concerning the existence of a wicked person who prospers is discussed.

In the third cycle of speeches (Ch. 22–31), both syllogisms are discussed in an attempt to find a single answer to the two questions.

The compound hypothetical syllogism is formulated negatively, for it is by the negation of what should be its outcome [i.e. that no righteous person perish or suffer], that the existence of the presupposed cause [God's Governance] is belied. Such a syllogism can only be refuted by disproving one or other of its two premises. If however both of them hold, then its conclusion is undeniable. Therefore, this syllogism can only be disproved in one of the following three ways:

(i) By refuting the major premise, i.e., if it can be shown that even though God does govern it is nevertheless conceivable that a righteous person could perish or suffer.

(ii) By refuting the subject of the minor premise, viz. the existence of righteous persons: if it can be shown that they are not really righteous.

(iii) By refuting the predicate of the minor premise, viz., that righteous persons perish or suffer: if it can be shown that they do not really perish and/or do not really suffer.

The debaters differ by reference to the option each addresses:

Eliphaz and Bildad refute the minor premise - options (ii) and (iii) respectively; In refuting the subject of the minor premise, Eliphaz argues that though a person may not be so wicked that he deserves to perish completely, he may also not be so very righteous that he does not deserve some suffering. He must have committed some sin for which he justly deserves to suffer. In refuting the subject of the minor premise, Eliphaz argues that though a person may not be so wicked that he deserves to perish completely, he may also not be so very righteous that he does not deserve some suffering. He must have committed some sin for which he justly deserves to suffer. Refuting the predicate of the minor premise, Bildad argues that the righteous person is not really suffering, for by way of 'an exchange' the afflictions are really for his ultimate good and prosperity. Just as a man would willingly accept some minor adversity, were he to be compensated for it with great wealth.¹⁵

footnotes: ¹⁵ Malbim's interpretation of the speeches made by Eliphaz and Bildad in the First Act accords with that given by Maimonides. However, each has them representing different philosophical systems. According to Malbim, Eliphaz represents prophecy and Bildad is the spokesman of traditional theology, whereas Maimonides has Eliphaz representing Torah and Bildad representing Mu'tazilite philosophy. This rationalist Islamic philosophy postulated a law of exchange or reciprocity, according to which in return for the undeserved suffering a righteous person endures on earth, he is assured of compensation in the next world. God permits this suffering because, in His Wisdom, He knows that it will ultimately be good for the person's soul, as it will be recompensed for it in the Hereafter.

Zophar refutes the major premise - option (i): Repudiating the major premise, Zophar contends that even under God's government a righteous person could appear to suffer and perish. In the formulation of this premise, it was assumed that 'just' or 'unjust' are what our senses and experience consider them to be; and, likewise, that, our intuition can tell what 'perishing' or 'prosperity' are. However our senses perceive only the superficies of things; how they stimulate our sense organs and not the truth of what they are in themselves. We do not know what is inherently just or unjust, nor whether what we call perdition, suffering or prosperity is their true essential quality. For we perceive only the incidentals; we can only say that this is how we perceive the essence of the quality to be, through our senses. We cannot claim that our perception of the essence of an object is its true essence. This notion was known to the ancient philosophers.¹⁶) who maintained that appearances never give us the reality of objects or to the Ash'arites with whom Maimonides had identified Zophar. Their mistrust of sense-perceptions, led the Ash'arites to deny the existence of causality or of any natural laws whatsoever. Hence, they asserted that everything happens through Providence, though man can decide whether or not to 'catch a ride' on it. And so, though he is not the cause of his acts, man chooses to perform them willingly or unwillingly. Ash'arism is the dominant theology in Sunni Islam. Alternatively, the reference could be to Joseph Albo, who states in the opening to his Sefer Ha-Ikkarim: …human reason is not capable of comprehending things as they really are...There must be something higher than human intellect by which praiseworthy acts can be delineated and real opinions comprehended, in a manner that leaves no room for doubt. Modern thinkers too,¹⁷ in their critique of the nature of human understanding, have found some discernment in it (Jeremiah 23:20). (The introductions to the second, fourth and sixth orations).

footnotes: ¹⁶ The reference may be to the ancient Greek skeptics (Xenophon et alia ¹⁷ The reference is undoubtedly to Immanuel Kant. 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, and adopted this new epistemology, wherever it was useful, in support of his theological opinions and beliefs. Malbim was not the only Jewish orthodox writer who found Kant an aid to his theology (Rosenbloom, p.192-197).

Undaunted, Job rebuffs everything they have to say.

Heclearly proves (Deuteronomy 4:35) to Eliphaz that if a righteous person is made to suffer for some small sin, the very purpose for which man was created, viz. the attainment of perfection, is negated.¹⁸ Besides, his own case was one of a righteous man who had perished completely.¹⁹

footnotes: ¹⁸ This idea of perfection is related to the Aristotelian concept of entelechy. Malbim's source for this might well have been the following passage from Albo's Ikkarim III,2.There are two kinds of perfection, a first and last. The first is that perfection which a thing has as soon as it comes into being: the existence of existence. The other is the perfection which is only a potential in the thing, and which it attains only when its potentialities are actualized. Aristotle had distinguished between the first and second entelechy. Knowledge as opposed to ignorance is the first entelechy; the second entelechy is reached when one makes use of the knowledge. ¹⁹ Job asserts that his case is not just one of a righteous person suffering, but of a person being totally demolished by what had happened to him. The issue of exactly what is required for the attainment of perfection, whether it is the observance of the entire set of the Commandments - all 613 of them, or whether the keeping of each individual Commandment has an element of perfection in it, is discussed below, in the Introduction to the Third Oration, in the light of Albo's interpretation (Ikkarim Part 3, Chapter 29) of the dispute between R. Yochanan and Resh Lakish over the interpretation of Isaiah 5:14 (TB Sanhedrin 111a).

He demolishes Bildad's arcane theory in five different ways, each like surf breaking upon the water (Hosea 10:7),

and pours great scorn on Zophar's philosophy. He argues that man's mind was created with the ability to attain clear perceptions; his sense-perceptions are real perceptions and are the essential qualities of things. Man was not created to be made a fool of; a dreamer in an imaginary world. He is a citizen of the real world. It is inconceivable that his Creator made him for a joke and a prank;²⁰ for pointless burdens and hallucinations (Lamentations 2:14), emptiness and chasing the wind (Ecclesiastes 1:14).

footnotes: ²⁰ Below, in the Introduction to the Seventh Oration, Malbim reasons that the covariance of human observations—the fact that different independent observers of an event agree with one another, or can be reconciled with one another—is proof of their truth. When discussing whether or not objective reality is an illusion, Descartes had maintained that though it is only through our mind's interpretations of our sensory experiences that knowledge of a world external to us comes, they are not all that exists: 'God, being perfect, would not be a deceiver; He would not make us believe in the existence of a material universe if it were not real' (M. Kline, p.7).Spinoza too had asserted the absolute reality and adequacy of human knowledge: Mens humana adaequatum habet cognitionem aeternae et infinitae essentiae Dei. (Ethics, Prop.XLVII, Part 2). And so, according to Spinoza, all that exists, including God Himself, is immanent and accessible to our senses and intellect. In his Investigation of the Laws of Thought (p.40), Boole states:...if the laws in question are really deduced from observation, they have real existence as laws of the human mind, independently of any metaphysical theory which may seem to be involved in the mode of their statement. They contain an element of truth which no ulterior criticism upon the nature, or even upon the reality, of the mind's operations, can essentially affect.However as regards metaphysics he adds:…as respects both the determination of the laws of thought, and the practical use of them when discovered, we are, for all really scientific ends, unconcerned with the truth or falsehood of any metaphysical speculations whatever.

Apart from this, other subjects that arise out of the previous investigation are interwoven into their discourses:

For example, Bildad had argued that the absence of Divine Governance would be both unfair and a perversion of justice. To which Job counters, in the fifth oration, that it would not be so if one considers the reality of the overall 'becoming and demising'²¹ nature of the world.

footnotes: ²¹ The Hebrew term is עולם ההויה וההפסד הכללי. This concept is Aristotelian -  - translated variously as 'becoming and demising', 'creation and destruction' or 'generation and corruption' (Aristotle Categories 14,1). They are two of the categories of sublunar motion or change identified by the Aristotelian system, the others being growth, diminution, transformation and locomotion. The sublunar realm comprises the minerals, plants, animals and rational beings, all of which are composed of matter and form. The sublunar world (as distinguished from the celestial one) is constituted of the four elements, earth, water, air and fire and is subject to generation and corruption, i.e., to changes in the form of the objects found in it. The distinction between matter and form and their meaning is the subject of much philosophical debate. In simple terms, it can be said that an ingot of gold has its form changed when it is made into jewelry while its matter remains unchanged. According to Maimonides, the demise of physical objects is a circumstance of their matter and not of their form. Man's body is matter and his soul is form. The body dies; the soul is immortal.

In the same speech, Job elaborates all the arguments raised by philosophers against Governance that are cataloged in the Guide for the Perplexed (Part 3, Chapter 20), including the paradox of knowledge and free-will, along with everything else that is derived from this. Ranging deep and wide (Isaiah 30:33), he passed them under his staff (Leviticus 27:32; Ezekiel 20:37), and employing powerful arguments he shows that if we assume the existence of free-will, we must deny God's knowledge of contingent particulars, otherwise the philosophers will demolish us with proofs that smash with hatchet and hammer (Psalms 74:6). However, if we assume that everything depends on the governance of the Cosmos and man is constrained in his acts by reason of predetermination, then God's knowledge remains immutable.²²

footnotes: ²² This is one of the central issues of traditional theology. Governance requires that God has knowledge of all events. However, the knowledge associated with a free-willed event does not exist before the event is made to happen. If God is an absolute unchanging Unity, as He surely must be, how can we ascribe to Him knowledge of such events: new knowledge, which did not exist before the event? To do so is to imply that He is not unchanging, for a being is changed when it acquires knowledge. On the other hand, not to do so is to imply that He is ignorant of the event i.e. imperfect. Hence, the perfection and unchanging Unity of God require that there be no undesignated events, i.e., no new knowledge, and consequently no free-will.

Zophar also addresses this issue in the framework of his thesis that our knowledge is not real knowledge. This being so, he argues that a fortiori it is impossible for us to know anything about God's Knowledge. His views accord with those expressed by Maimonides in his solution to this matter (Guide III. 20, 21), namely, that the word 'knowledge' when applied to God, may He be Blessed, and to us, is a homonym, and we can no more comprehend His Knowledge than we can His Essence.²³ (The introduction to the sixth oration)

footnotes: ²³ Maimonides wrote:The homonymity of the term 'knowledge' misled people;...the words are the same but the things designated by them are different; and therefore they came to the absurd conclusion that that which is required for our knowledge is also required for God's knowledge. (Guide to the Perplexed, III:20)The knowledge by which God governs is beyond human comprehension, God's knowledge being of His essence and not an attribute ascribed to Him. New human knowledge has no effect on God's knowledge - they are different entities. Just how they differ is not explained by Maimonides, but in his commentary to Isaiah 29:16 Malbim explains the difference between them in quasi-Kantian terms. Kant had postulated that time and space are an integral part of the mechanism of human consciousness, and that they have no independent existence. Man's knowledge exists in time and space. Malbim argued that God's knowledge is not a function of time and place and so it is inherently different from man's.

In his scornful dismissal of Zophar and his philosophical thesis, Job's view corresponds with that taken by Gersonides in The Wars of the Lord, where he argued that the term 'knowledge' applies equivalently to Him, may He be Blessed, and to us, priorly and posteriorly, and is not just a homonym. It being understood, at the same time, that it is impossible that His knowledge be designated as what, in us, is confusion or error.²⁴ Accordingly, Job remains steadfast in his opinion and does not abandon his position, (Isaiah 46:7) denying both Governance and the possibility of free-will. He brings as evidence that we often see people coerced to act in a certain way, even the sons of one man together, (Psalms 133:1) such as when an heretical sect²⁵ rises over them (Judges 18:9), leading them astray (Job 12:17 19), and their hands are helpless to save them (Job 5:12). (The introduction to the seventh oration).

footnotes: ²⁴ Gersonides wrote:It would seem that His knowledge, may He be Blessed, is equivocal with our knowledge by priority and posteriority...The term 'knowledge' is said of God, may He be blessed, priorly, and of any other being posteriorly...There is no difference between God's knowledge, may He be Blessed, and our knowledge except that God's knowledge, may He be Blessed, is more perfect than our knowledge...Therefore it is impossible that His knowledge should be designated as what with reference to us is opinion or error or confusion. (The Wars of the Lord, Part 3, Chapter 3. - Norbet M. Samuelson translation).Knowledge is divided into universals and particulars. God has absolute knowledge of universals which are eternal and are not subject to change, but He has prior knowledge only of those particulars which are derived from the universals; He does not have prior knowledge of those which arise from free-will and caprice. Some events therefore are pre-determined and some contingent. However, His subsequent knowledge of contingent events is perfect, so He remains perfect.A third solution suggested to this problem is the Neoplatonist postulate of a Logos, a transcendental intellect standing between God and man to whom knowledge and Providence is ascribed rather than to God himself. ²⁵ Possibly a reference to the Reform and Liberal Jewish movements with whom Malbim fought a running battle throughout his working life.

And with this the combatants return to camp after the first cycle of speeches.

The Second Act

The companions cannot refute the second syllogism—that which relates to the prosperity of the wicked—by disputing the subject of the minor premise as Eliphaz had done in the First Act. For though we may suppose that a righteous person may have sinned in secret, it cannot be suggested that a wicked man is really a saint. Nor, after Job had so scornfully dismissed the principles of his philosophy, is there any point in returning to the attack led by Zophar on the major premise; no purpose is served in trying to convince someone on the basis of assumptions and principles that he repudiates. Consequently, they all now turn their attention to the predicate of the minor premise, namely, that the prosperity of the wicked is not genuine, though each chooses a different tack. With regards to Job, they all now consider his case to be an example and a byword (Ezekiel 14:8) of that of a wicked man who had prospered. This had become clear to them from the great effort he had invested in his attempt to undermine the corner-stones of faith and the spirited rhetoric and carefully construed arguments he had employed. Evidently, he must have held these ideas for some time and so they now relate to him as being a wholly wicked person who rejects God (Psalms 10:13).

Opening this round of speeches, Eliphaz asserts that the prosperity of a wicked person is not real, for his heart is ever filled with fear and trepidation. Like Job, who had been in constant dread, a wicked person's conscience is never at peace, for he has raised his hand against God and mutinied against the Almighty. (Job 15:25).

Bildad asserts that a wicked person does not really prosper, for in the end, like Job, he is cut short from the land of the living, either in terms of his physical continuance, namely, his children and possessions, or in terms of his personal perpetuation: his good name, his reputation and his soul.

Zophar declares that he will be suddenly and irreparably broken (Proverbs 6:15), and die without warning and by a strange death. This too had happened to Job, for he had been brought low suddenly and without warning.²⁶

footnotes: ²⁶ A similar sentiment is found in Psalms 73:1-2:Fret not because of evil-doers, nor envy those that act unrighteously. For quick as the grass they wither, and like the greenery of plants fade away.

Seeing that all three are addressing the same point, viz. the predicate of the minor premise, Job puts off replying until they have all finished. He then demolishes all their arguments (1 Samuel 3:19) by pointing out that they are drawing conclusions about a general matter from the case of a single individual. However, his original question had addressed the general issue of why the wicked usually prosper and they had not directed their responses to this. For there are wicked people who are both at ease and self-assured (contrary to what Eliphaz had said); and amongst them there are those who are both well-established and successful (just the opposite of Bildad's assertion); and also those who are contented all the days of their mortal life and die without suffering (and not as Zophar predicted). And so all their arguments are irrelevant (Job 21:34) (The introduction to the thirteenth oration).

As to the reliance they had all put on punishment being reserved for the wicked in the world of the souls, Job retorts that since God had created man such that he cannot comprehend the essence of the soul or its meaning, a fortiori he has absolutely no understanding of its reward or punishment. Consequently, this must be a matter of faith. However, their debate was supposed to be based on reasoning and inquiry, not on faith, which in any case could never convince a skeptic or unbeliever.²⁷

footnotes: ²⁷ According to Spinoza, that part of the mind which consists of adequate ideas is a part of the infinite mind of God. Thus, the mind is eternal and knows it is, though the eternity thus predicated does not mean indefinite persistence in time, for eternity is not commensurable with time; it is a special kind of existence. Morality is not based on the mind's eternity.Virtue is its own reward, and needs no other. This doctrine, which appears, as it were, perfunctorily in so many systems of morals, is by Spinoza insisted on with almost passionate earnestness; few things seem to have moved him to more scornful denial than the popular creed, that supernatural rewards and punishments are necessary as incentives to virtue. (R.H.M.Elwes, p.XXX)

And with this the battle reached its peak (1 Kings 22:35) in the second cycle of speeches.

The Third Act

The companions are all forced to recognize that Job's arguments are sound and unassailable, against which the rushing flood (Daniel 11:22) of their replies could not stand. Nevertheless, two of them²⁸ make one final effort to repair the shattered altar (1 Kings 18:30) of their theses. Both seek a single remedy for the two issues being discussed, viz. the suffering of the righteous and the prosperity of the wicked. Both now acknowledge that Job was right when he said that God ought to reward the righteous and punish the wicked immediately; neither should He make the righteous suffer because of some minor sin or in order to compensate him later; nor should He should let a wicked person appear to prosper even for a moment but should wipe him off the face of the earth at once. But each finds a reason why Providence cannot govern in such a manner.

footnotes: ²⁸ Only Eliphaz and Bildad; Zophar does not participate in the third cycle.

Eliphaz reasons that were this to happen, worship [of God] would be imperfect as there would be no place for free-will nor for reward and punishment. For the righteous would just worship [God] in order to be rewarded (Avot 1:3) and the wicked would only be restrained from doing wrong for fear of the immediate retribution that awaits them. Therefore, God has to conceal the matter and so the righteous sometimes suffer even for some minor sin and the wicked are rewarded for some slight merit. As a result people err, thinking there is neither Judge nor justice, and the righteous who worship [God] do so without any expectation of reward, whilst the wicked plot their evil untroubled. As it is written: It is because sentence for a wicked act is not carried out promptly that men do evil so boldly (Ecclesiastes 8:11).

Bildad's explanation is that a righteous person may sometimes be born under a malevolent astrological sign and a wicked person under a benevolent one. Thus, the luck of their birth determines whether they will be poor or prosperous and God cannot change the nature of the whole world because of just one individual.

Both assert that any shortfall in God's reward of the righteous or punishment of the wicked in this world (arising from either of the above two reasons), will be made good by God many times over in the Eternal World, where there is neither worship nor choice, neither luck nor the governance of the Cosmos. (The introductions to the fourteenth and sixteenth orations).

Job is not silenced, even by these words, upon which they wasted so much energy (Jeremiah 46:11). He has his replies ready.

To Eliphaz he avers that his worship of God never was, nor ever would have been, in expectation of the benefits it might bring him.²⁹ It had not been such when he had prospered, nor would it ever have been such had his prosperity continued. He had only ever worshipped Him out of love, with no ulterior motive. So why was he now being denied favor? Furthermore, are there not evil people, as savage as wolves at nightfall, (Zephaniah 3:3 and Habakkuk 1:8) destroyers of the world, who live far away from the rest of mankind, in deserts and on distant islands, where God could wipe them out, removing their evil from mankind, without affecting free-will? For their dwelling-places are in thick darkness (1 Kings 8:12.) and so their destruction would never become known to anyone.³⁰

footnotes: ²⁹ Job's motives for worshipping God are discussed in the Talmud (TB Sotah 27b), where conflicting opinions are expressed. One is that he worshipped God out of love, another that he worshipped Him out of fear. In a further comment (TB Sotah 31a), Job's worship is even likened to that of Abraham, who worshipped God out of love. ³⁰ Perhaps Malbim is hinting at the scourge of piracy which was only finally eliminated in 1830 by the joint action of the American and European navies.

Turning to Bildad, Job points out that his assertion that people's fate, i.e., their well-being or misfortune, is determined by the stars and that God will not interfere with this, not even in consideration of human acts of righteousness or evil, just reinforces his [Job's] own thesis. Furthermore, according to Bildad's own philosophy,³¹ there exist things that are independent of and beyond the governance of the Cosmos,³²So could not judgments be prepared for scorners (Proverbs 19:29) by means of these sublunar elemental agencies—fire, flood-waters, earthquake and tempestuous winds—leaving the Universe to carry on as usual?

footnotes: ³¹ That of the Peripatetics (Aristotelian). ³² Everything in the celestial sphere that is above and outside the sublunar world.

As for their conjecture, that any shortfall in material reward or punishment will be made up in the world of the souls, something that no eye has seen (Isaiah 64:3) and which cannot be ascertained through philosophical inquiry nor substantiated by knowledge, he laments this grievously. It would have been proper for this Divine wisdom concerning man's Governance to have been made readily accessible to his intellect, seeing that both his happiness and prosperity depend on it. But instead, it has been so hidden away that Abaddon and Death say: 'In our ears, we have heard it rumored' (Job 28:21-22), and he must be consoled by a world after death, and by faith, and fear of God. For the wisdom has vanished, no longer to be found in the land of the living. And the embrace of intellect is of no comfort to man; from his follies and disappointments on this God-cursed earth (Genesis 5:29). (The introductions to the fifteenth and seventeenth orations*.*)³³

footnotes: ³³ The debate has produced no solution to the question of why the righteous suffer or why the wicked prosper. Nor has any satisfactory explanation been found by the protagonists for the catastrophic series of events suffered by Job and his family. All the debaters agree on one point; that God is just. None of them suggests that the reason for Job's afflictions might be God wishing to prove a point. The truth, known to the reader all along, that it was a 'diabolical' trial of Job's integrity, sanctioned by God, ironically, because He Himself had flaunted Job's perfection to Satan - 'a guileless and upright man' - did not occur to the debaters. Who would believe such a story? At this stage, they would probably all endorse the conclusion drawn by R. Yannai when he said: 'It is beyond our power to understand why the wicked are at ease, or why the righteous suffer' (Avot 4:15).

The Final Act

The last debater [Elihu] is the one who reveals the truth about Job's suffering—the matter related at the opening of the story concerning the sons of God and Satan—namely, that it was a trial. Moreover, that Job had indeed worshipped God out of love and had passed the test of prosperity, serving the Lord without any expectation of riches. Towards the end of his speech, at the close of his argument, Elihu, the last of the protagonists, reveals to Job the true reason for his suffering: that it had been a trial. How, as was related in the Prologue, Satan had presented himself before God; that Job had indeed served God out of love, worshipping Him without any ulterior motive; that he had passed the trial of prosperity and that God had now wanted to try him with poverty, in order to see whether his step would veer from the path (Job 31:7) when so many disasters and calamities befell him.³⁴ For he would then have been tested in both ways, and would have been like the sons of God who transcend the flesh. But on the basis of the evidence he had in fact failed this trial, for he had spoken wickedly against the Lord.³⁵

footnotes: ³⁴ Deuteronomy 31:21. 'The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Job: 'Which do you want: poverty or suffering?' Job replied: 'I would rather any affliction in the world but not poverty. When I go to the market and I haven't even a prutah [a small coin] with which to buy anything, what will I eat?' When he began to suffer and to cry out, Elihu said to him: 'Why are you crying out? Didn't you accept any suffering so long as it wasn't poverty?'' (Exodus Rabbah 31:12) ³⁵ Isaiah 32:6. 'Had he controlled his anger and not complained against Providential justice...then just as we now say in our prayers 'God of Abraham, God of Isaac and God of Jacob' we would also say 'God of Job'' (Pesikta Rabbati 49, 20). However, Job is a man, and no man is an angel: 'There is no man in the world so righteous that he always does good and never does bad.' (Ecclesiastes 7:20)

Apart from this, Elihu rebukes Job for his assertion that no breach of the Creator's Statute would be involved were God to delegate general governance to the Cosmos, this being a requisite of the 'becoming and demising' world. He demonstrates the error and contradiction in this notion. He also points out his crass stupidity in calling God to order, seeking to teach Him how to punish the wicked; he berates him at length over this. He then goes on to explain that God created man with a built-in instinct for reward and punishment. Hence, if a righteous person suffers and a wicked one prospers, it is because man's own contrariness has led him astray (Proverbs 19:3); he has not kept that natural law with which he was endowed. For man was created for this: to bring evil-doers to justice and to destroy them; and to raise the prestige of the righteous (Psalms 75:11). But since this law is not enforced in human society, why does his heart fret against God (Proverbs 19:3)? They [the peoples of the earth] have so sinned in their souls that evil has triumphed over good, overturning the purpose of creation. For they were brought into being to uphold natural justice, to do judgment for the oppressed (Psalms 146:7) and to banish all evil-doers (Deuteronomy 13:6).

As regards Job's complaint that God has hidden wisdom from mankind and has not endowed the human race with the ability to ascertain what is beyond nature,³⁶ that which the senses cannot attain, he [Elihu] replies that in this matter too, God has not forsaken man. For He has planted these concepts in man's soul by means of the innate ideas set in the human soul from the moment of its formation. These are the truths to be found in every soul, bestowed upon it by God. For every man has stamped on his soul that there is a Creator who is absolutely perfect, a faithful God, devoid of injustice (Deuteronomy 32:4), who rewards and punishes; that he has freedom of choice; and [thirdly] that his soul lives on after separating from the body. These ideas are fundamentals, stamped on each soul; they are its inheritance from God.³⁷ Just as man builds his understanding of Nature upon his senses and experience, so he builds his understanding of the metaphysical upon the Ideas implanted in his soul.³⁸

footnotes: ³⁶ שאחר הטבע - beyond nature: metaphysical. ³⁷ These theological truths, no matter how widely they are held, are not what Plato intended by his concept of Ideas or Forms. A different example of Malbim's understanding of this philosophical concept is found in his commentary on Isaiah 40:14, where he states that the 'principle of contradiction', viz., the principle that it is impossible that a quality should both belong and not belong to a given class of things, which Aristotle described as the fundamental axiom of all philosophy, is one of the 'primary intelligences planted by God in man's nature'. ³⁸ Kant denied the possibility of a metaphysics and consequently of the validity of any of the traditional proofs—ontological, cosmological or teleological—of the existence of God. The existence of God is not denied, indeed He is a necessary condition in Kant's system, but He is not an object of demonstrative knowledge.Using the science of formal symbolic logic that he had invented, Boole showed that without the assertion that 'whatsoever is absolutely necessary at all is absolutely necessary in every part of space, and in every point of duration', no ontological proof of the existence of God is possible. Boole wrote:Probably this principle will be found to lie at the basis of every attempt to demonstrate, a priori, the existence of an Infinite Being...It is not possible, I think, to rise from a perusal of the arguments of Clarke and Spinoza without a deep conviction of the futility of all endeavors to establish, entirely a priori, the existence of an Infinite Being, His attributes, and His relation to the universe. The fundamental principle of all such speculations, viz., that whatever we can clearly conceive, must exist, fails to accomplish its end, even when its truth is admitted. For how shall the finite comprehend the infinite? Yet must the possibility of such conception be granted, and in something more than the sense of a mere withdrawal of the limits of phenomenal existence, before any solid ground can be established for the knowledge, a priori, of things infinite and eternal (Boole, p.217).

Elihu concludes his address by arguing that man's intellect is also incapable of attaining a complete understanding of the natural sciences. This being so, how can he presume to climb God's mountain (Numbers 14:44) and obtain a correct and full understanding of that which is beyond Nature.³⁹ He should be satisfied that these priceless perceptions of the integrity of God's judgments, of reward and punishment and of the immortality of the soul, are to be found in his soul, impressed upon it from its incipience. And apart from this, Divine messages are at times communicated to him in a vision or dream. For God has not abandoned him in the valley of darkness (Psalms 23:4), without a Divine lamp to enlighten his soul and to illuminate the night (1 Samuel 3:3).

footnotes: ³⁹ Traditional theology presumed that metaphysics is more important than physics. The implication here is that metaphysics is also more difficult to understand than physics, and so if man cannot understand the latter, a fortiori, he cannot comprehend the former. In traditional theology, the design revealed by science is viewed as evidence of the existence of an Intelligent Creator. This teleological argument is found in numerous medieval sources:Just as the garment testifies to [the existence of] the weaver...so does the universe testify to [the existence of] the Holy One, blessed be He, who created it' (Midrash Temurah, 3). But if the design is evidence of His existence, then the clearer this design becomes the more redundant and irrelevant that Intelligent Creator is made. As Gillespie has written:...the empirical proof that God was also an active force as a moral agent in the universe was derived from the supposed necessity of assuming that divine interventions accounted for the physical phenomena which were inexplicable on purely scientific grounds. The proof of the existence of God, therefore, was based on what science had accomplished, and the proof of His continued activity on what it had not...as more and more events in physical history were explained naturally, there were fewer episodes to be explained supernaturally and fewer empirical illustrations of God's immediate control over the material world' (Genesis and Geology, p. 220).Governance and supernatural explanations may indeed have little or no place in modern western man's understanding of his physical environment, but, however improbable they may seem, they are still the only non-medicinal therapy there is for his fears and uncertainties. Belief in an improbable and untestable notion is the one alternative an individual has to the stimulating or tranquilizing drugs he otherwise needs, in order to see himself through 'the valley of the shadow of death' that he must daily traverse.

The debate is closed by God Himself, when He appears⁴⁰ out of the Tempest (Job 38:1). He [Job] then sees through prophetic vision, which transcends the perception of the senses, that God oversees humankind and its deeds, and that his soul is a Divine emanation⁴¹ and continues living after separation from the body, cleaving to its God. For during a vision, the soul possesses the same nature it has after its separation [from the body], at that moment when it returns to the treasury of life (1 Samuel 25:29) with the Lord its God, when it no longer has need of either the discernment of intelligence or the confirmation of comprehension, not even of faith. For what is seen with the prophetic faculty is unequivocal knowledge, unerring, beyond consciousness and intellect⁴². It is in this way that those truths which are beyond the reach of our senses are made known by God; through revelation and prophecy. This is God's grace to mankind, for in this way were the truths and foundations of belief revealed in sure knowledge through the Master of the Prophets, with whom God spoke face to face (Exodus 33:11), and to whom He showed His Glory (Exodus 33:18.).

footnotes: ⁴⁰ The appearance of God Himself seems to confirm Elihu's final point that man has not been abandoned by God, at least so far as Job is concerned. ⁴¹ בת אלהים - literally 'daughter of God'. This concept appears in the Zohar (II,96b):The Lord discerns each holy soul, and taking each in turn to Himself, embraces and fondles her 'dealing with her after the manner of daughters' (Exodus 21:9), even as a father acts towards his beloved daughter, embracing and fondling her and presenting her with gifts.In his glosses on Genesis 2:9, Malbim discusses the relationship between the soul and the body. He concludes that before Adam had eaten the forbidden fruit, when he was still an immortal being, his body and soul were distinct entities, linked symbiotically. His soul had lost none of its independence and was just clothed in his body, a clothing that it could put on or take off at will. The merging of man's body and soul into a single entity only happened after Adam sinned: Before he sinned, Adam's soul had not been integrated with his body, but just resided in it. And so his prophecy was like that of Moses.The Talmudic Sages (TB Yevamot 49b) asserted that whereas Moses beheld the Divine as through a clear mirror, the other prophets did so through 'a mirror which does not shine'. Malbim explains that the souls of all the prophets were to some degree fettered to their bodies. However, whilst still living, Moses had managed to release himself from all bodily needs, thereby liberating his soul (Rosenbloom p.379-383). ⁴² 'The essence of prophecy is an attachment to, or communication with, God, which is experiential in nature' (D. Bleich, p. 273). Spinoza wrote: 'Prophecy, or revelation, is sure knowledge revealed by God to man' (Theologico-Political Treatise, R.H.M.Elwes translation, p. 13). Prophecy is God revealing 'His secret to His servants the prophets' (Amos 3,7). But becoming a prophet does not mean a loss of human personality; the prophet remains an individual.The Talmud (TB Megillah 14a) states that the number of persons who will have prophetic experiences during the course of Jewish history will be twice the number that left Egypt at the Exodus, i.e. 2 600,000 = 1,200,000 men above the age of twenty and in addition a similar number of women and children. The vast majority will not bear specific divine messages and not all those that do will bear messages of eternal import. This is not to imply that their prophetic experience is of a lower quality than that of the prophets whose messages constitute the prophetic books of the Bible. 'A maidservant saw at the [crossing of the Red] Sea what Ezekiel and all the other prophets never saw' (Mekhilta, Shira, 3).There is no consensus amongst the Talmudic Sages and the medieval Jewish philosophers as to the qualities which make a man suitable to be a prophet, nor whether prophecy is restricted to the Land of Israel. However, it is generally agreed that prophecy ceased shortly after the destruction of the First Temple and the Exile of the Jews from the Land of Israel.In his glosses on Jeremiah 1:5 Malbim writes that in order to achieve the status of a prophet a person must satisfy two requirements: (i) he must be predisposed by the excellence of his nature, intelligence and temperament for prophecy; (ii) he must prepare himself to receive the prophecy by the goodness of his deeds and the holiness of his life-style. However, when no suitable prophets are available but God needs one to deal with an emergency, as for example in the case of Gideon, He chooses the best available candidate and endows him with the necessary qualities to fulfill his mission.

The book concludes by telling us that Job had in fact never stopped believing all of this. He had never really doubted either Providence, reward and punishment or free-will. Everything he said was an act - that of a researcher looking for a way to establish these articles of faith through the exercise of intellect and inquiry.⁴³ This being so, he found favor in God's eyes and He returned all that he had lost, even doubling it (Job 42:10-11).

footnotes: ⁴³ 'The intention of Job is not to present us with a full answer to the question; why are there righteous people who suffer and wicked ones who prosper? In principle, Job teaches us that a person who fears God does not waiver from his path, despite it becoming clear to him that a person's fate does not always accord with his deeds, but is determined by God according to other factors unknown to him.' (Haham, p. 12).Dreadful occurrences, such as the torture and death of the ten rabbinical martyrs and the desecration of R. Akiva's body (TB Menachot 29b) are explained by the Talmud as being Divine decrees, beyond questioning and human comprehension. The Sages are drawn to conclude that 'there is death without sin and suffering without iniquity' (TB Shabbat 55b).In his comments on Job 42:7, Malbim explains that Job's three companions, Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar, had also been acting; when they put forward the various orthodox theological arguments used to defend Providence; they had not really believed them. Job had in fact already pointed this out to them (see The Introduction to Seventh Oration and Ch. 13:9-11). Furthermore, whilst Job had not really believed what he said, they in their hearts had in fact agreed with the heresies he expressed. Consequently, they are rebuked by God: 'You did not speak correctly about me, as did my servant Job' (Job 42:7).The reader might prefer the more straightforward interpretation that 'the honest complaint of Job is preferable to the hypocritical certainties of his friends.' (Moshe Halbertal, The New Republic, April 1994)

And now that I have made all this known to you; and after giving thanks to God for the mercy He has bestowed upon me (Psalms 117:2) by enlightening me and imparting it all to me; and after praying thatHe may guide me in the paths of righteousness (Psalms 23:3) and teach me His ways for His Name's sake. (Isaiah 2:3) I will now set off ahead of you and make the crooked places straight (Isaiah 45:2), I will bring you treasures from the darkness, and the hidden riches of secret places (Isaiah 45:3). May the Lord accomplish His purpose for me, forsaking not the work of my hands (Psalms 138:8). Open my eyes, that I might perceive the wonders of Your Torah. (Psalms 119:18).

Signed on Rosh Chodesh Tammuz 5627

Meir Leibush Malbim