אימא¹ כמשעה שנכנסו ישראל למצרים—I say; like from the time when the בנ"י entered מצרים

OVERVIEW The גמרא explains (according to those who maintain that איוב מעולי הגולה היה), that when the ברייתא states that the lifetime of איוב was from when the בנ"י entered מצרים until they left, it means (not that he lived during that period, but rather) he lived the same amount of years that the בנ"י were in מצרים (namely two hundred ten years).

תוספות asks: ואם תאמר ומאי קא משמע לן קרא כתיב² ויוסף ה' את כל אשר לאיוב למשנה – And if you will say; so what is the ברייתא teaching us (if its intent is merely to tell us how long איוב lived); the פסוק states ‘and Hashem gave to איוב double of everything which he had – ואיוב אחרי אותו מעשה חיה ק"מ שנה³ ואם כן היה בן שבעים⁴ קודם⁵ – **And איוב lived one hundred forty years after that occurrence (**of his misfortune), so therefore he was seventy years old before the misfortune. We know therefore from the פסוקים that the total amount of years איוב lived was two hundred ten. תוספות answers: ויש לומר דסלקא דעתין דלא כפל אלא בעושר⁶ ויופי של בנות⁷ אבל בשנים לא:⁸ And one can say; that we may have thought that Hashem only doubled his wealth and the beauty of his daughters, but not his years. He may have lived either more or less than seventy years; therefore the ברייתא teaches us that he lived exactly seventy years before, for a total of two hundred ten years.

SUMMARY We cannot assume from the פסוקים that Hashem doubled the life of איוב.

THINKING IT OVER תוספות asks that since איוב lived one hundred forty years afterwards (and Hashem gave him double of everything) that implies that previously he lived seventy years.⁹ Seemingly however one can argue; regarding the cattle if he previously had (for instance) five hundred cattle, and they all died, so now he is given double which is a thousand cattle (so now he has twice more than he had before). However concerning his age if we would assume that איוב previously lived seventy years then if his life would be doubled he would live (only) another seventy years. That would be considered doubling one’s life; he has the previous seventy and the current seventy (it is different than the cattle, where he does not have the previous cattle; only the current). What therefore is תוספות question?!

footnotes: ¹ This תוספות should precede the previous תוס' ד"ה בלעם. ² איוב מב,י. ³ See איוב מג, טז, which states ויחי איוב אחר זאת מאה וארבעים שנה. ⁴ One forty is twice seventy. ⁵ The ברייתא would be understood if its intent was (as we initially assumed) to tell us during which period איוב lived (during גלות מצרים), for this we do not know from the פסוקים. However if its intent is to merely tell us how long איוב lived that is (seemingly) superfluous for we know this from the פסוקים. See ‘Thinking it over’. ⁶ The פסוק there (יב) specifies that his flock and cattle were exactly doubled. ⁷ The amount of children that איוב had initially (seven sons and three daughters) remained the same afterwards; however the beauty of his daughters doubled. See the גמרא later טז,ב. ⁸ The פסוק states ויוסף ה' את כל אשר לאיוב למשנה; the term כל אשר לאיוב seemingly refers to the items belonging to איוב (his cattle, etc.), but not to the age of איוב, they do not necessarily belong to איוב. However according to the conclusion that his years were doubled this indicates that איוב owned his years. See זוהר ח"א (ח"ש) קכב,ב that (regarding שרה) we say דילה הוו חיין. See ד"ה ויהיו ש"ח תרע"ט לכ"ק אדמו"ר נ"ע וד"ה הנ"ל תשמ"ה לכ"ק אדמו"ר זי"ע. ⁹ See footnote # 5.

בלעם ואביו—בלעם and his father

OVERVIEW The גמרא mentions בלעם and his father (בעור) as two of the seven נביאים from the אומות העולם. Our תוספות explains how we know that בעור was a נביא.

As the גמרא states in מסכת מגילה anyone whose name and father’s name appear in regards to נביאות, it is known that he is a נביא the son of a נביא.² Therefore since the תורה writes³ נאם בלעם בנו בער, this proves that בעור too was a נביא.****

SUMMARY If the father of a נביא is mentioned regarding the נבואה of his son, this indicates that he too is a נביא.

THINKING IT OVER Why do we not count ברכאל (the father of אליהוא [בן ברכאל]) as a נביא also,⁴ since his name is mentioned in regards to the נבואה of his son אליהוא?⁵

footnotes: ¹ The גמרא there is discussing how we know that נריה (the father of ברוך) was (also) a נביא like his son ברוך. ² See ‘Thinking it over’. ³ במדבר (בלק) כד,ג, טו. ⁴ See footnote # 2. ⁵ See מהרש"א (and in ח"א).

אליהוא לא מישראל הוה—Was not אליהוא from בני ישראל

OVERVIEW The גמרא cited a ברייתא which mentions איוב (and אליהוא בן ברכאל) among those that נתנבאו לאו"ה; seemingly indicating that איוב was a נכרי. The גמרא responded; ‘but was אליהוא בן ברכאל (who is also mentioned) not a ישראל’! We must therefore conclude that they may have been בנ"י but they were מתנבא for או"ה. Our תוספות discusses the ramifications of this response.

משמע דפשיטא¹ דאליהוא בן ברכאל מישראל הוה – It seems that it is obvious to our גמרא that אליהוא בן ברכאל was from בנ"י – לכך נראה דבפרק קמא דעבודה זרה (דף ג,א) דאמר² – Therefore it seems that regarding the גמרא in the first פרק of מסכת ע"ז, which states – יבא בלדד השוחי וצופר הנעמתי ויעידו בהן בישראל שקיימו כל התורה כולה – בלדד השוחי and צופר הנעמתי should come and testify regarding ישראל that they observed the whole Torah entirely; in that גמרא – לא גרסינן התם ואליהוא בן ברכאל³ – We are not גורס there, ‘and אליהוא בן ברכאל’; his name is omitted. תוספות comments on a related issue: ונראה דשמעתתא דהתם סברה כמאן דאמר איוב בימי יעקב הוה⁴ – And it seems that the גמרא there (in מס' ע"ז, which implies that בלדד וצופר were from או"ה) agrees with the one who states that איוב lived in the time of יעקב – דהא אמר לקמן⁵ דממשה ואילך לא שרתה שכינה על עובדי כוכבים:⁶ for the גמרא later states that from the time of משה and onwards the שכינה did not rest on עכו"ם.

SUMMARY בלדד וצופר were from או"ה and אליהוא was from ישראל. The גמ' in ע"ז maintains that איוב בימי יעקב היה (for there was no נביאי או"ה after משה).

THINKING IT OVER According to תוספות that איוב (and בלדד וצופר) lived בימי יעקב and so (presumably) did אליהוא;⁷ how is אליהוא from בנ"י; we do not find him mentioned anywhere in the תורה as a descendent of אברהם יצחק ויעקב.⁸

footnotes: ¹ The expression 'וליטעמיך אליהוא בן ברכאל לאו מישראל הוה'; indicates that it was obvious (to whoever made this statement) that (in his opinion) אליהוא was certainly a ישראל. ² The גמרא there states that הקב"ה said to the או"ה that some of you should come and testify that the בנ"י were מקיים the תורה. Among the people mentioned were בלדד השוחי and צופר הנעמתי (who were two of sאיוב' friends; the third being אליהו בן ברכאל). In some texts the name of אליהוא was also mentioned. Based on our גמרא here, תוספות rejects that גירסא. ³ According to our גמרא here אליהוא was מישראל; there הקב"ה was referring to או"ה. ⁴ See נח"מ who states that איוב may have been even בימי משה (for the בקשה of משה was that there be no new נביאים amongst או"ה, but the present ones continued [as evidenced by בלעם]); what תוספות rejects are those views that איוב could have been later than משה. See ‘Thinking it over’. ⁵ On this עמוד. ⁶ If איוב did not live בימי יעקב but rather like the other opinions (that איוב lived some time after משה), how is it possible that בלדד וצופר were גוים, since they are counted among the נביאי או"ה, and there were no נביאי או"ה after משה. Therefore we are forced to say that איוב was בימי יעקב, and בלדד וצופר lived then also and were נביאי או"ה. ⁷ See footnote # 4. ⁸ See (however) רש"י ד"ה אליהוא and יעב"ץ.

ויש אומרים איוב בימי יעקב הוה—And some say איוב was in the days of יעקב

OVERVIEW The גמרא cites various opinions as to when איוב lived. Amongst them, ר' נתן maintains that he was בימי מלכות שבא (which coincided with מלכות שלמה) and the יש אומרים say that he lived בימי יעקב. Our תוספות qualifies who is this ויש אומרים.

The view of these ויש אומרים is not the view of ר"נ, for he argues with this view and maintains that איוב בימי מלכות שבא היה.²****

SUMMARY The ויש אומרים here (as opposed to elsewhere) is not the view of ר' נתן.

THINKING IT OVER It is understood why תוספות comments elsewhere³ that even though it says ויש אומרים, nevertheless it does not refer to ר' נתן, because in those גמרות the ויש אומרים could have been ר' נתן. However, in our גמרא it is obvious that the ויש אומרים is not ר' נתן (as תוספות states), so why does תוספות need to mention it, if it is self-understood?!

footnotes: ¹ The גמרא in הוריות (יג,ב) states that the חכמים punished רבי מאיר and רבי נתן that we should not repeat their rulings in their name but rather attribute the rulings of ר"מ to אחרים אומרים and the rulings of ר"נ to יש אומרים. [See the גמרא there for the reason; they attempted to slight the honor of רשב"ג who was the נשיא.] It should follow that the ויש אומרים איוב בימי יעקב היה is the view of ר' נתן. However תוספות states that here it cannot be so. See also תוספות צג,ב ד"ה מאן where תוספות cites additional places that ויש אומרים does not refer to ר' נתן. See ‘Thinking it over’. ² There was much more than two hundred ten years (the life span of איוב) from the time of יעקב until מלכות שבא (which was at the beginning of בית ראשון [the בית ראשון was built more than four hundred years after יציאת מצרים, which was almost two hundred years after פטירת יעקב]). ³ See end of footnote # 1.

בפירוש רבינו חננאל גרס כולהו תנאי ואמוראי מודו דאיוב ישראל היה—In the explanation of ר"ח the גירסא is, all תנאים ואמוראים agree that איוב was a ישראל

OVERVIEW Our גמרא states וכולהו תנאי סבירא להו דאיוב מישראל הוה לבד מיש אומרים. However, the ר"ח is גורס that כולהו תנאי ואמוראי וכו'; that all the אמוראים agree that איוב מישראל הוה. Our תוספות takes issue with this גירסא of the ר"ח.

ולרבינו יצחק נראה דלא גרסינן ואמוראי – And the view of the ר"י is that we are not גורס the word ואמוראי (and the אמוראים) – דרבא על כרחך סבר לעיל דלאו מישראל הוה – For perforce רבא previously maintained that איוב was not מישראל – דקאמר לעיל¹ הכי אמר להן משה למרגלים² ישנו לאותו אדם ששנותיו כעץ כולי: Since רבא previously said; ‘this is what משה said to the מרגלים, ‘does that person still exist whose years are many like those of a tree, etc.’’. It is evident according to רבא (an אמורא) that איוב lived in ארץ כנען, and was not מישראל.³ Obviously therefore not all the אמוראים agree that איוב מישראל היה.

SUMMARY רבא cannot maintain that איוב מישראל הוה.

THINKING IT OVER Why does תוספות assume that according to רבא we cannot say איוב מישראל הוה, since he (obviously) lived in ארץ כנען when the בנ"י were במדבר?⁴ Perhaps he was a descendant of the שבט אפרים who were דוחק את הקץ and left מצרים earlier and איוב managed to settle in ארץ כנען?⁵

footnotes: ¹ Towards the bottom of טו,א. ² This is in reference to the פסוק of היש בה עץ אם אין. ³ See ‘Thinking it over’. ⁴ See footnote # 3. ⁵ See ספר תוספות ישנים who adds the words (at the very end of תוספות) ומגן) [ומגין] על דורו כעץ).

דור¹ ששופט את שופטיו—A generation that judged its judges

OVERVIEW The גמרא explains the פסוק of² ויהי בימי שפוט השופטים to mean that the judges (leaders) of בנ"י needed to be judged and admonished, for their conduct was lacking. תוספות challenges this interpretation.

תוספות asks: תימה לרבינו יצחק דאמר (בפ"ק)³ דתמורה (דף טו,ב) – The ר"י finds this statement astounding; for the גמרא states in the [second] פרק of מסכת תמורה – כל האשכולות שעמדו לישראל מימות משה עד שמת יוסף בן יועזר לא היה בהם שום דופי: All the אשכולות⁴ that arose for ישראל from the days of משה until יוסף בן יועזר⁵ passed on, had no blemish in them. How can we therefore state that the שופטים (who lived much before יוסף בן יועזר) did not act properly, since לא היה בהם שום דופי?! Our תוספות does not answer this question.⁶

SUMMARY תוספות cannot reconcile the concept of שופט את שופטיו with לא היה בהם שום דופי.

THINKING IT OVER Why does not תוספות differentiate between the מקבלי התורה (including the זקנים, נביאים and אנשי כנה"ג)⁷ that אין בהם דופי, and the שופטים that were before בנין הבית who were known to lack perfection (and therefore שופט את שופטיו)?!⁸

footnotes: ¹ The order of the three following תוספות should (seemingly) be; ד"ה ויש אומרים, ד"ה בפירוש, וד"ה דור. ² רות א,א. ³ This is amended to read בפ"ב. ⁴ The literal translation would be clusters of grapes. This alludes to the leaders of כלל ישראל who are people who have all the necessary attributes to be leaders; אשכול is a composite of איש שהכל בו. ⁵ יוסף בן יועזר (ויוסי בן יוחנן) were from the first set of זוגים (in the בית שני) who were מקבל from אנטיגנוס איש סוכו (see אבות פ"א מ"ד). The first lasting מחלוקת in הלכה (regarding סמיכה on יו"ט) began with them. However it was בסוף ימיו therefore up until then it was אין בהם דופי for there was no (lasting מחלוקת). ⁶ See נח"מ, who differentiates between the national leaders (where לא היה בהם שום דופי) and the local judges (where it was שופט את שופטיו). ⁷ See הקדמת הרמב"ם ליד החזקה that שמואל was מקבל from עלי and עלי from פנחס and פחנס from יהושע. He does not mention any of the (other) שופטים. ⁸ See מצפה איתן and אהל משה.