Book of Job
The readings are interspersed with my notes, but you can get
a quick list here
Issues
·
The dichotomy between the purported issues at hand—whether man
is capable of altruism—and the actual issue, whether God does justice in this
world
·
Lack of perfect synch between the pose and the poetry, or more
specifically between the framing story, and the debates that take up the middle
section of the text.
o
One author, or multiple authors
·
Construct problems:
o
What happens to the third
friend? He has no conversation
o
Eliyhu
comes out of left field
o
2 sections of God speaking rather than one
Ibn Ezra held that it was a translation from Aramaic.
Tur-Sinai (Bibliography #22) feels that it
What the Rabbis Said
Tzvi Segel (B. #43 I think) has a Mavoh Lamikra with a nice
compilation (and some thoughts) on Rabbinic writings on Job.
The Debate in Baba Batra (14b,
15a - 15b)
indicates that the Rabbis did not have a mesorah as to the authorship of the
book. The Rambam
(Guide to the Perplexed 3:22) follows this up by saying that the book is a
Mashal (check this out to be sure), like the one opinion in Baba Batra. This
opens up a Pandora’s box allowing one to say than any story in the bible is a
fiction. Commenting on the is Moshe
Greenberg in Shaa’arei Talmon (Bibliography #92) Greenberg (I think) cites
a 13th century exegete, Rabbi Zecharya (B. #10), who states that the
book is certainly a Mashal.
References to Job
Ezekiel, dealing with the Issue of Schar and Onesh being
directed at the innocent/guilty, and not their kids, cites as righteous men:
Noah, Dan’el, and Iyov (14:12-14,
and 28:1-3).
Dan’el is pronounced (Kri’) Daniel, although it is spelled without
the Yud. It does not seem likely
that Ezekiya’s contemporary would be so referenced.
Uggaritic texts have been found with a wisdom story about Dan’el, so
this is probably who Ezekiel was referring to.
(The Book of Enoch (Chapter
4?) may also include an Danel reference..) In any event, it seems that Iyov the
person was known as real to Ezekiel and his audience.
A Synergy: Real-“ish”
There exists a possibility that Iyov was a real person, and
around him was constructed a wisdom story.
So Bereishit Rabbah (no reference).
Commentaries
Amos Chacham in Da’at Mikra, especially for philological
(B. #1)
Rav Yoseph Kara (B. #3)
Schwartz (B. #10)
Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam, Shoshana (B. #17)
Rashabm,
Japhet, S (B. #18)
Assignment
Read Chaps 1-2 with Amos Chacham and the Greenberg
article (I think B. #22). Also mentioned Ginsburg
(I think)
Read Meir
Weiss. Bereishot Rabba quotes Reish Lakish that Iyov never was, and then
goes on to explain that it meant the punishments never occurred, but Iyov was a
real person. The author needed a character that the reader would believe would
act the way his protagonist does and stand up to the punishments. (By the way,
the one who warned about the Pandora's box of saying the story and person are
Mashalim is Rav Ibn Caspi). Read Shmuel
Lieberman (B. #36) which is cited by Greenberg.
Focuses on a change to the talmudic text from "Mashal" to "LiMashal"
supporting the idea that a real person (Iyov's) life was used FOR a Mashal.
(Eric: I'm a bit confused here. The way I read Lieberman, Iyyov AND his
life were real, but the reason his life was so pitiful is that he was created
specifically to undergo those challenges do that his REAL life could be used as
a Mashal.)
Rav Zarachya's proofs that Iyov was not real:
- The use of similar language style by different characters
- Yehezkal does not necessarily know who Iyov was
Issue: Iyyov is considered a wisdom book. The moral and message are
universal. Proof: The Tetragrammeton appears in the opening and closing
framing story, but appears only twice in the body of the work. Both times (12:9
and 28:28) the use is idiomatic, and probably a direct quote. 12:9 appears in
Yishayahu.
So why choose a non-Jew as a hero. Perhaps the author wanted to create a
universal work, rather than just a Jewish one. The Bedouin references and
ancient language also give it an air of ancientness, but do not necessarily mean
it was written then, but that the author used the ancient phraseology intentionally.
Justice: Lack of justice. Yehezkel Kaufman (B. 47) (Only to p. 604? Not
sure. Eric.) in chapter on Torat Gemul. Personal vs. Group, referrers to the
two types of Gmul: Group and Individual. Personal Gmul finds its best
representation in Ezekiel 18, and maybe in Jeremiah 31:26 (based on the way it
is understood.) Some scholars wanted to say that Personal Group was only an
issue for individuals, rather than in ancient times, and therefore the book must
be late. However, there is plenty of personal Gmul in the Torah Devarim: Don't
Kill Father/Sons for the sins of Sins/Fathers, although this might be referring
only to human judges, not God. Also found in ancient, even Sumerian texts, so
don't reject the personal Gmul as "modern." Not true. On this See
Weiss (B. #26)
Group vs. Individual Recompense.
Weiss
says there is no distinction, the prophet speaks to whatever problem needs to be
addressed (Eric: Not sure what this means.) Optional Reed: Article by Tzvi
Weinberg (#31).
See Fables and Didactic tales in ANET or Bayamim Harchokim Haheem, S. Shapira
(1) A Dispute over Suicide (Egyptian), (2) Sumerian
Wisdom, Man and hid god, Samarian variation on the Job Motif. (3) "I
will praise the lord of wisdom" (Babylonian Job) (4) Dialog
of Pessimism (like Kohelet), (5) The
Babylonian Theodicy.
Rav Ya'akovson does a summup of all the places where Reward and Punishment is
mentioned in the Tanach. (Olam Hatanach, Nispach A. (Eric: Do Qumran
Sectarian Texts deals with Schar and Onesh, and if so, How?)
Gordis, Book
of God and Man (P31) Wisdom of Job and chapter 5. Gordis also has a good
translation. See also 3
introductions in JPS Job. Language issues on the Prosaic section in JBL #76
Substratum in the Prose of Job. Avi
Hurvitz, The Date of the Prose-Tale of Job Linguistically Reconsidered (HTR 67 (1974) 17-34 )(#74)
Dating the Book
Iyyov: Mentioned again the critics who believe that the book must be later
(person) based on later use of terminology. An example is "Hayu Chorshot"
which is present perfect (or something like that) which is not present in the
Torah and older biblical books. Mentioned reading Greenberg and Horowitz on the
subject. The assumption is that there was a core ancient story, around which the
author wrote his book. The editing of new text onto older text leaves
"stitch lines" which are apparent. On this see Shalom Spiegel (#87
Sefer Yovel to Louis Ginsburg - He also has a famous article on the Akeida). He
points out that 42:11
is actually the natural extension of 2:10
in the original story, as verse 42:10
already has Job restored in double, why do we need the mention of people coming
to comfort him, and giving him a Ksita to regain his wealth. See also Gordis
Special notes #41: The Juncture in the Epilogue.
What's in a Name?
Rambam sees the name (as the whole story) in allegorical terms, and following
after the Gemara
B"B 16a where Iyyov is interchanged with Oyev, or one who has enmity
put upon him. However, one should note that names don't always match their roots
("Zeh
Yenachameinu" should have produced Nachum, not Noah. Shmuel
should have been Shaul. Moshe
is also not a good fit to Mishitihu. However, Yishayahu uses Moshe's name (63:10-12)
as "M'shoch" or pull.
The name Iyyov has actually turned up in ANETs-especially Acadian-from the
second millennium up through close to CE. The Acadian version might be Ayya Abu,
or "Where is Father" or "where is God" which fits the story.
So Albright.
Iyyov might also be from Ov. One who return (either repentance or a
resuscitation/resurrection). Like in an Ov, necromancer, one who brings back the
dead.
Also, the name might match the Edomite king's son Yovav (Genesis
36:33) (Eric: In fact I think Sarna mentions in the Intro to JPS that Eben
Ezra took some pains to convince people that Iyyov and the Edomite Yovav of
Genesis were not one and the same.)
The
LXX (which is rarely useful in Iyyov studies since the translation indicates
that the Greek translators were themselves perplexed by the difficult vocabulary
in Iyyov, sometimes resorting to guessing and sometimes resorting to deleting
whole verses) has an Epilogue that the name means "He will rise again with
those whom God will raise up. This book comes from Utz in Syria on the boarder
between Edom and Arabia. He took a Jewish wife and changes his name to Chanun."
The same Epilogue is also found in the Apocryphal Tzvaot
Iyyov." Both paint the person and setting as historical, not Parable,
and Support the name Yov.
Chapter 1 and 2
Curse and Bless
Blessing and Cursing Job's wife's advice to "Bless God and Die".
The use of the word "Bless" when curse is meant is similar to a
concept called Tikkun Soferim (See Lieberman's Hellenism in Jewish Palestine on
this), but this is not found in any Tikkin Soferim list mentioned by the Rabbis.
HaSatan
See Wiess
on the subject of HaSatan. There are three uses of Satan in biblical
literature. 1) Something
sent to interfere (Like by Bilam). 2) A
prosecuting Attorney (Like Zecharya) (C) A manifestation of God's
destructive side. This third one shows up more in later literature (See how the God
who causes David to sinfully count his people in II Samuel is changed to the
Satan in
the identical story in I Chronicles.) Apparently, the later generations (Eric:
Exilic?) saw the need to separate the destructive from God himself (Eric: to
keep God Kindler and Gentler? Not at the root of all the destruction and
exile??). Sefer
Hayovlim has God changed to Satan in the Akeida story by Avraham. Also note
the Rabbinic statement that the Satan came to Sarah with the story about the
Akeida, with disastrous results. The inner conflict is anthropomorphized into an
outer conflict. This is why some think of this as a later text, but the
following things should be noted: A) The Satan shows up only with the Heh
Hayedia: [Ha]Satan, indicating a work/duty, not a person. B) there is no mention
throughout the book of a test or bet between Satan and God. It's a non Issue.
The bad things that happen are not a test, they are just something that happens.
A Satan doesn't show its ugly face past chapter 2
This brings up the whole issue though of tests. See the Ramban on Iyyov
(Found in Sha'ar Hagmul, at the End of Torat Ha'adam in Kitvei Ramban) which
presents the idea that God doesn't bang on cracked containers; tests are only
given to those who will be successful in order to make them better. (Eric:
What doesn't kill us makes us stronger?")
Vaya'an
Chapter 3 open up with Iyyov Saying and "answering" Vaya'an. Ibn
Ezra points out the possibility that there is missing words from the friends
like "What happened to you, dude?" Much like the Kohen might ask the
Pilgrim of the First Fruits: "What do you have in the basket?"
Rav Yosef Kara says the word always means that a voice is raised: like the
Levi's on Har Eval and Gerizim, and is not necessarily an answer. See also the
Grossman article. (See Pozansky and Greenberg in Encyclopedia Mikra'it companion
on Rav Yosef Kara and other medieval exegetes.)
Read an article by Tzvi Weinberg from “Shnaton Hagot
Bimikra ז"לשת
#31.
Chapter 3
Ramban explains the cursing of nights and days to be
Job’s stating of his astrological worldview, and because he has an awful
horoscope, he is wishing that he had been born on a luckier day.
However, the speech seems quite emotional and passionate, and the cursing
of the day can be understood, like by Jeremiah (who certainly didn’t have a
astrological-based belief system), as lashing out at the start of all his
problems, rather than the source of all his problems.
What he is in fact saying is that he wishes that he were dead.
Breakdown of the Chapter:
1.
3-10: Better not to have been born.
2.
11-19: Death is better
3.
20-23: Turns against God—why does God allow suffering. (Eric:
Notice the switch of “lasuch” a wall of stones which in chapter 1 is used by
the Satan to describe how God unfairly defends Job, Job turns it around here and
says God unfairly shuts him down.)
A Word about David Yellin, "Chokrei Hamikra"
Lonely Job
See article
by ED Greenstein “The Aloneness of Job”, in a book by Mazon (#38).
Notice that in the comparison to Jeremiah
20:14, in the latter Jeremiah references people, e.g. his mother’s womb,
the one who told that a child was born. In Job, the womb is ownerless, and
teller of the birth is unnamed. All
people references are removed except Job himself who is the “owner” of the
Stomach that he emerged from (not his mother!).
Job loses wealth, family, and ultimately disconnects with the people
around him. Even God doesn’t show
up to help out Job until the end, quite different from Jeremiah and Abraham’s
tests. (Eric:
Perhaps the wife piece indicates the withdrawal/loss of wife as well.
And no wife, no future.)
Grammar of “Hora”
Seems to be passive Kal, which has been lost to Hebrew
Grammar. I have no idea what this
means.
Plays on Words
Notice the word “`HD” (v.
6), which seems like it should mean count or include, but sounds like Yitro’s
‘HD which means happiness, from
the root HDH (like Chedvah). In
fact, the proper form for “include” would have been like by Shimon
and Levi’s “blessing” from Ya’akov.
What the author seems to be accomplishing here is what Yellin calls
“Mishna Hora’ah”: teaching two things by playing with one word.
So by redoing the vowels, the word, matches with “Spor” “to
count” in the same verse, and “happiness” “Ranana” in the following
verse. Other examples are
·
Ha’amek
Sheola: Isaiah 7, meaning To
Ask and Hell
·
Tikva: Job 7:6 meaning hope and string.
Another different form of wordplay is where one word
matches a close-by word but is forced to change meaning: Like “Yaft…LiYafet”
Showing Some Concern
Please note that final verse in chapter 3 indicate that Job
was worried about thing before all heck broke loose. Perhaps that coincides with his sacrificing for the sake of
his maybe-sinful children in chapter 1. Maybe
he is trying to tell God (us, the
audience?) that he was not some nose in the air rich guy, but someone who was
always cautions about steering clear from sin.
Chapter 4
Two ways to understand “M” in verse 17.
Can you argue better than God (Mem Yitaron) or “can you be righteous in
front of (or in comparison) to God. The
latter presents Eliphaz’s problem. He
has no idea what Job did wrong. And
since he can’t point to anything specific, he says that everyone has some
flaws. Throughout the speech, Eliphaz wavers between giving Job
consolation, and accusing him of some guilt, justifying God’s actions.
(Eric: I wonder if “viLo techeteh”
in 5:24 indicates “ a day will come when you won’t sin? I.E. like you were
before.) Fullerton
noticed this duality of comfort and attack.
Yair
Hoffman (#62) wrote that the use of equivocal words is intentional, implying
a double meaning. Later, we will
see that Iyov is upset with Eliphaz since he can’t site a specific sin.
Based on this Hoffman points out that the poetic/philosophic middle
section was written by the same author at the same that he redacted the
bracketing prose since they are symbiotic:
·
Without the introductory story, we would have to agree with
Eliphaz that perhaps Job has sinned. Without
the intro telling us that God Himself attests that Job has not sinned, we would
not understand Job’s anger at Eliphaz. Additionally,
there would be no need for the over-
·
exaggerated presentation and testimony to Job’s purity in the
intro, if we didn’t know what was coming in the middle.
(Eric: Sarna says that this dramatization is common in ANET epic
literature, but perhaps he would still agree.)
Eliphaz's First Speech: Chapter 4
Double readings
Continuing with yesterday's discussion of The
Heart of Eliphaz's Claim and Hoffman's assertion of intentional double
meanings. These include: (Notice that Rashi always takes the negative
view of Eliphaz.)
- Hanisa (v.
2):
- Test. So Rashi. I.e. "You failed on the first try."
- Let's try.
- YiSarta (v.
3):
- L'Chazek, L'Oded: (proof-text = "Ashrei HaIsh Asher TiYasrena
Yah") From the word belt, indicates a strong belt or tie.
- "You are punished." So Rashi
- Kislatecha
- "Fool" So Rashi. Ralbag goes with the
"trust/faith" explanation, but turns it negative, like Rashi.
- Trust/Faith. So Ibn Ezra. See the Gemara Baba Matziya 58b
and Tosafot. Yellin explains how "Kesel" relates to both
fool and trust, since thinking biblically is tied to the heart, and CSL
is the fatty stuff that covers the heart, limiting one's ability to
think correctly. See Yishayahu
6:10.
The overall sense is that the author of Job is painting Eliphaz as one who
talks out of both sides of his mouth, remaining noncommittal.
Sanctimoniousness
The author of Iyyov seems to be presenting negatively the view that one can
balance God's checkbook. (Eric: I got that expression from Rav
Lichtenstein who asked about the then head of Shas: It's amazing that a person
that can't balance the books of his own political party can balance the books of
God.)
Modern vs./ Biblical Hebrew
Note: "Rov" (v.
14) means "my many", or "all of my many" rather than the
modern usage "most" One must always be careful to understand the
usage in the day's of the author.
Angel's Vs. Man
The Kal viChomer (If X is true, than Y is certainly true) comparing the non-righteousness
of Angels to the certainly non-rightous humans is not clear cut, based on
the stated problem of one being born of "Chomer", the physical.
The dichotomy between "Ruach" and "Chomer" is not really
presented in Tanach. Perhaps the problem is the tendency of Chomer to
desire sin, but this is not stated.
Ash
Most translate "Ash" (v.
19) as worms, as in the body is eaten by worms. Yellin, based on the
use of this word in 27:18 prefers a house (Eric: did he mean a cacoon)
which is an unstable structure. This wopuld then match the concept of a
weak "Yesod" and "Bayit" in the verse. Arabic is
the source for thus usage.
Chapter 4
The class started with a little backtrack.
We reviewed the difficulty of the Angel/Human
comparison (4:18-19). Rav Josef
Kara supported the idea that humans are inclined to failure because of their
physical makeup.
Chapter 5
Prevention
Small note: Eliphaz seems to be referring to a preventative
punishment in 5:17.
God punishes so that humans will be introspective and self-assessing.
This, however, seems out of scale compared to the severity of punishments
Job received, and Job rejects it.
Kedoshim
Who are these Kedoshim
in 5:1? Amos Chacham explains
it in terms of the angels, as is often seen from liturgy.
But who said that Job was turning prayers towards angels.
Gordis says that Kedoshim can be understood as God.
See Hoshea 12??? Have to look this up!)
Gordis explains that the “M” is not “from” but “except for”,
i.e. “who except for God should you turn to?”
Ekov
'Ekov'
is difficult. Eliphaz is
talking abstractly about what happens to bad people, so why should he include
his own curses into the picture? Notice
that the destruction of bad people is automatic, or comes from God, as an
example in Tehillim 37:9, 10,
13, etc. Gordis
says that it is a declarative use: I declare that they are cursed.
While declarative usually is in Hiphil or Piel, he adduces some Kal uses
as well.
Why do the Evil Prosper (and Why are we so focused on them)?
The focus is usually on why the evil prosper rather than
why are the righteous smitten. This
change of focus is particularly strange here since Job has not been complaining
about the prospering of the wicked, but his own situation: a righteous man who
suffers. Perhaps the answer is that
an Evil person spits in the eye of God, and therefore it seems unacceptable that
God should not respond. See Tehillim
73:11, also Habakuk
1:5-15. (Eric: It seems to
me that the Tehillim proof seems to be concerned that the righteous will be
swayed by the success of the Evil, and turn away from God.)
Amal
The use of Amal in 5:6-7
seems contradictory. In 6 Eliphaz
is saying that Amal (punishment) don’t grow out of the earth, but they are the
result of wicked action. Then he
says in 7 that Man is born for punishments, i.e. it is an inevitable part of his
existence. So which is it?
Possible answers:
- Rav
Josef Kara: Ignores the contradiction and says: True, man leans to sin so
much, he has no escape from punishments.
- Amos
Chacham: Inserts words to create the following meaning: Man is the father of
Amal, and gives birth to it.
- Gordis
and Kahana agree with Chacham that the implication is than man gives birth
to punishments, but they change the Masoretic reading from Yulad to Yoled to
support this reading. (Eric:
who knows what they will redline next!)
- Shadal
says that Eliphaz is quoting from a source he does not agree with, i.e. “I
have heard that some say ‘Man is born to suffering…’ but I say I will
turn to God…” This is also Ibn Ezra’s approach to understanding the contradiction in Kohelet between 3:17
and 9:10
(Eric: I’m not sure I got these verse correct). See Da’at Mikra on
this.
Play on Words
|
Job
|
Other
|
|
וַיֹּשַׁע
מֵחֶרֶב
מִפִּיהֶם
|
וְחֶרֶב
פִּיפִיּוֹת
בְּיָדָם
(Psalms 149)
|
|
וְעֹלָתָה
קָפְצָה
פִּיהָ
|
Look this up!
|
|
הִנֵּה
אַשְׁרֵי
אֱנוֹשׁ
יוֹכִחֶנּוּ
אֱלוֹהַּ;
וּמוּסַר
שַׁדַּי אַל-תִּמְאָס
|
Devarim 12???
|
|
יִמְחַץ,
וְיָדָו
תִּרְפֶּינָה
|
מָחַצְתִּי
וַאֲנִי
אֶרְפָּא
(Devarim 32)
|
|
כִּי
הוּא
יַכְאִיב
וְיֶחְבָּשׁ;
יִמְחַץ,
וְיָדָו
תִּרְפֶּינָה.
|
כִּי
הוּא טָרָף
וְיִרְפָּאֵנוּ;
יַךְ,
וְיַחְבְּשֵׁנוּ (Hoshea 6)
|
6 and 7
See article in Encyclopedia Mikra'it “Mispar” on the
use of numbers in and out of parallels.
Chapter 6
בְּמֹאזְנַיִם
יִשְׂאוּ-יָחַד.
While modern day usage of "Yachad" means together, and there is
certainly an element here of that, the word is usually equated in biblical parallelisms
with all - "Col." e.g. Tehillim
98, 49,
and Job 3.
כַּעְשִׂי is clearly a
back reference to Elphaz' statement: כִּי-לֶאֱוִיל,
יַהֲרָג-כָּעַשׂ
in the previous chapter. Ca'as here, however, means pain and sorrow, not
anger. See Job
17:7 (parallel to "TZar") and Job
10:17 (parallel to "Eidecha" = wounds, so Ibn Ezra) Notice
also Tachanun.
וַאֲסַלְּדָה
is from the root SLD which means to recoil, not like its later liturgical usage:
prayer.
Judging Job
Job's testimony in verse 10 requires us to judge its veracity. Iyov
says he never spoke badly to (about?) God. Is this so? Perhaps
anything less that actually cursing God, which was the Satan's contention, is
considered passable.
Why
Verse 24 contains a key element to understanding Job. He really does
not know what he has done wrong, and really wishes that someone would tell him.
Verse 27 is a play on Mishlei (not sure where) with a change from Rah to
Rei'ah.
Chapter 7
"Not enough time" seems to be the issue in the opening
verses. He doesn't have time to wait while God changes his fate, as
Eliphaz promises that he will.
The Everafter
In verses 7-10 Iyov doubts the future. According to Chazal in BB 16a
Iyov is doubting that there is Tchiyat Ha'Meitim. So Rashi.
Rav Y. Kara however explains the the plain sense simply means that Iyov believed
it will take a long time to come back to life. Amos Chacham says that
there is no reference to resurrection: Job is talking about a second chance at
life that won't be coming.
Moari states that Iyov, like everywhere else in Tanach, is not
referring to the world to come. Tanach is firmly grounded in this world,
and deals with issues of reward and punishment in our lifetimes. See Ibn
Ezra on this (not sure where!)
Isaiah 26:15-19 and Ezekiel 37 are speaking metaphorically. The only
clear reference to the afterlife and resurrection is found in Daniel 12:2.
Bible critics use this as one of the reasons to date the book of Daniel late,
saying that the idea of afterlife and resurrection came only with Hellenism, as
can be seen with the Macabean
story about the mother who lost here 7 sons (verse 7:9). (Eric:
It's amazing how far bible critics will go to take away our religion.
Amazing that we are the founder of the worlds greatest religions, but ours was
the only ancient religion WITHOUT an afterlife principle. It seems to me
that the total absence of anything remotely explicitly stating an afterlife is
proof that the subject was intentionally avoided in written scriptures.
How could an idea so fundamental to the concept of the transcendental soul not
slip in even a little to so much text. It reminds me of what Rav J.B.
Soleveitchik said. Olam Habah is part of Torah Sheb'al Peh.) 
Some
point to Job 19:21=29 as a reference to afterlife, and in fact the verse has
been used for Christiological purposes because of its reference to a "Gorali,"
intestinally mistranslated as redeemer. See the Christian
Iyyov painting "The Meditation on the Passion" (at
the Met) with what is said to be Job sitting in chapter 19. The Syriac,
Aramaic, and of course the Vulgate support the afterlife translation.
Actual meaning of Goel: fate, or close relative who buys out debts and takes
care of one in a downtrodden state.
Chapter 7
Yam - Tanin - Mishmar
Battles vs. Angelic beings. Tehom comes from Tihamat. See
Cassuto's Shirat Ha'Alila. This mythical verbiage disappeared from the
Torah, probably due to the polytheistic overtones. But as time went on the
expressions became cliches, rather than indicating real events and creatures, so
they drifted back into the language. Yishayahu also talks about "Rahav"
but is is metaphoric, similar to Yirmiyahu who talks about the need to
limit the oceans. See also 38:8
Insignificant Man
Compare 8:17 with Tehillim 8. In the former there is an appreciation of
what the mighty hashem does for his insignificant creatures. In Iyyov, the
focus is on: "Leave me alone" and "stop paying attention to
me." In verse 17-20 Iyyov feels that he has become the enemy of the
"State."
Boy, you've got to carry that weight!
Notice the Tikkun in v. 20. "to be a burden upon myself" when
Iyyov really means "a burden on you (God)." (See Eben Ezra who
notes the the verse reads fine as it appears.) The word Masah in verse 20
is being used as "forgive" in relations to sins. The idea is
that God carries the weight of the sins, rather then letting them fall on the
sinner. In a similar vein: Genesis 4:13. Where Kayin
complains: "My punishment is to great to bear." (Notice
that "Avon" probably means "punishment" rather than
"sin.")
Chapter 8
Bildad Gets Tough
Bildad says that Iyyov sinned, but can't specify what that sin is.
However, he is much more direct than Eliphaz, telling Iyyov that he deserves to
suffer. Notice the accusation against his sons in verse 4. Notice
also the conditional "if" starting verse 6. Only if you are
clean will you be absolved. Bildad ends with a warning in verse 22, as
opposed to Eliphaz, who ended more positively.
The Mashal Boundry
The are a few aphorisms or parables starting with verse 11 and ending at
verse 20. The first two 11-13 and 14-15 are clearly (and, in the case of
the first one, explicitly) referring to evil men. The question is: are verses
16-10 a continuation of the evil-guy parable (so Rashi), or are we talking about
the righteous? Gordis prefers the latter since verse 20 sums up with a
reference to both the righteous and the evil, which would require that at least
one of the parables mentions the righteous.
Chapter 9
A Twisted Tzaddik
In verse 2 Job is quoting Eliphaz (4:17),
and the meaning of the word seems to indicate that compared to God, there is
always some flaw that precludes man being considered wholly Tzaddik.
However, this would seem to imply that Job agrees with Eliphaz, which the rest
of the chapter does not support. Rashi in Mishpatim
says that there is a difference between Naki and Tzadik. The former refers
to one that is truly sinless. The latter just means that he won his court
case, not that he is without sin. Iyov is not admitting that he has some
some, but by twisting Eliphaz's words, he states that he can't win the court
case against God. This idea is supported by the rest of the text.
verses 8-10 also either quote Eliphaz
or Amos
or Yishayahu
confirming God's power, but the mood is turned negative by Iyov by his first
citing God's destructive powers in verses 5-7.
Kinuy and Tikkun
Verse 3
in chapter 32 is a listed Kinui, where the author (or scribe) changed
"God" for "Iyov," the conclusion being that the
"friends" conclude that God was wrong. Geiger says that
there were more changes, and shows that the Targumim do it regularly, especially
be removing anthropomorphizations of God. (Geiger, a big Reformist of the early
reform movement in Germany, felt one could play those games with religious law
as well.) Geiger states that verse 11 should be read "ViLo Yioreh" (He
will not see) and "ViLo Yavin" he will not understand. (Eric:
I don't understand why this is necessary. This verse, without emendation,
seems to be an argument against Eliphaz's claim of prophetic authority as his
source, in 4:15-16.
Note the verb "CHLPH." I also don;t understand why it's
necessary to protect God from Insult in this and other verses, when there are so
many verses here that are left in their full chutpadik glory.) So too for
verses 19 ("Yodiyanu"), 24 ("Im Lo Hu"), and
35 ("Hu Imadi") Ezra Melamed (?) wrote an article on
Tikkun Soferim.
Tranlations
Rahav (13) : god of the sea or Egypt. Came to mean egotistical
(?)
Sa'arah (17): Hair ("you analyze me with a fine tooth comb")
or Storm ("you blow me around like in a storm")
Catch 22
Iyyov is presenting a catch 22. If he tries to make God understand that
he has no sins, the very act of speaking out will be considered a sin.
Chutzpa
Rav Yoseph Kara is uncomfortable with chutzpah of verses 22-24, so he says
that Iyyov means the Satan when he says "rasha" and he is
complaining that God allowed the Satan to have his way. This is not the
pshat.
Chapter 10
The chapter flows more relaxed, Iyyov calming down and being much more
supplicant to God, turning inward once fatalistic once again, begging to
understand his sin
Chapter 10
Verse 9 may be ending with a question: "must you return me to the
earth?" Something like: "if you made me like this, don't punish
me for how you made me."
Verse 11: Cahana writes that the pidyon haben is based on this (Eric:
Of have no recollection of what this means!)Verse 14:
Verse 14: "Shmor" is being used negatively here, e.g. "you are
watching my sins," or "holding me accountable for them." This is
on contrast to the use of "shmor" in verse 12.
Verse 15: "Ur'Eh" doesn't mean "to see." Notice the
parallel to "Savah." Instead, the root is RVH, or to be
satisfied, like "Orech yamim asbi'ehu VER'EHU biyshuati.". See
Rashi on the word "Titra'u" by Ya'akov and the famine.
Verse 15-16 indicate a cat and mouse game against Iyyov. Compare to
Yishayahu 5:29.
Verse 21-22: According to Yellin, the words "Lo Ashuv"
should be at the end of the sentence. ("From then land of darkness I will
not return," rather than "I will not return to the land of
darkness.") This is sometimes done for poetic reasons, and the
Ta'amim will prefer the poetry over the correct meaning, such as "In the
beginning God created / the heavens and the earth" really should be
"In the beginning / God created the heavens and the earth."
Verse 22: [Eric: I'll write this word for word from my notes since I do
not remeber what is means!] "Eipha" - Darkness and light:
"IkAr vi'IkUr, so "Ohr." (?????)
Chapter 11
Verses 5-6: Tzophar is saying "Iyyov, you can't understand God"
just as in chapter 28 when Iyyov says this himself, as does God in the
end. The difference is that Tzophar is still accusing him of a sin, just
that he can't understand how the sin matches the punishment. The real
upshot of the book, as shown from the opening two chapters of narrative, is that
Iyyov did not commit a sin! Tzophar can not admit that the truly innocent
ever suffer.
Verse 3: machlim = lig'or. No one castigated you when you spoke inappropriately
(mockingly).
Verse 15: MiMum = B'li Mum (Eric: See Rashi)
Verse 17: Chaled = Your Days. You will get a new life.
Verse 17: Ti'Uphe = the darness will become like the morning. All times
of the day are here: Ti'Uphe (night), Tzohorayim (afternoon), and Boker
(Morning).
Notice Tzophar ends on a negative
Chapter 12
Verse 6: Might makes right.
Verse 9: Notice the unusual usage of God's existential name. This was
probably used since the whole phrase was a common idiom.
Compare the end of the speech in this chapter to Tehillim 107, especially
verse 40-43.
Chapter 13
Here we get a peek into Iyyov's personality. Ityyov hates liars, and
says God hates liars. Here for the first time we sense that he believes on
God (and perhaps his justice). See verses 3-13.
Chapter 12
An Error?
Is it Masgi (to raise up), or Mishgi (to cause to err)? The LXX has the
latter. See Rashi. See medrash Tanchuma Parashat Vayikra Siman 18,
which seems to have a different nusach. Aslo see the Minchat Shai, who
deals with the issue.
Chapter 13
Taking a Risk
The phrase "Naphshi biKapi" generally means to take a risk, as can
be seen by Tiphtach (Shoftim 12:3), Yonatan's reference to David (I Samuel
19:5), and Shaul's necromancer-ess (?) (I Shmuel 28:21). In Iyyov,
this meaning would cause a contradiction: In verse13 and 15 he's going to take a
chance, but in 14 the "Al Ma" which agrees witht he first part of the
verse ("why should I stuff my mouth closed") seems to say "that
there's no use in taking a chance." Gordis sees it as a quote (???)
(Eric: I don;t see the probleem, since the copulative vav can be seen as
"BUT", and therefore disconnected from the Al Mah.
Verse 15 has a "Lo" (Not) and "Loe" to him, Kri/Ktiv.
Many times, both make sence, and perhaps that is the intention. Remeber
that since the "vav" is a Amot Hakriya, there's really no difference
orthographically, even though the mean is quite different. Apparently
Gordis wrote a whole book on this. See Mishna Sota 5:5 and the Gamara on
this.
14:22 - Chazal understand this as the pain after death.
14:10 expressed death backwards. First death and then
weakness.
Chapter 28
In chapter 28, Iyyov recognizes that God's wisdom is beyond man's ability
tocomprehed. If this is so, why does God show up at the end of the book to
restate this? Gordis says that in the first edition of the book, chapter
28 was the last chapter, but the author decided on a new version where God gets
the last word. Yishayahu Liebowitz explain differently. He says that Iyyov
understands that he can't understand, but he does not like it. He doesn't
think it's fair that he can't understand the world around him. He draws a
comparison between Iyyov and Avraham (which satisfies the Ishmael
connections in the names of the characters) where the ultimate lesson is one of
complete submission, and the best way to serve Gid is out of a total loss (Eric:
I'm probably getting this wrong, so please see the article--Avraham and Iyyov--
inside.)
Chapter 28
Verse 11: "Mib'chi" from the Uggaritic. See Da'at Mikra
footnote 45.
Chapter 29
Iyyov wants to turn back the clock. (Eric: I thisk this chapter is
critical since it gives us crucial boa graphical information that helps us
understand the 3 friends' words. Iyyov was a judge, highly respected, and
perhaps senior in his city-state. See verse 7 and on.
Verse 3. Notice the word "Hilo," which might have become
"Halo," the ring of light on the saints' heads.
Verse 4: "Sod" = Company. See Shimon and Levi's "beracha."
Chapter 33
Elihu
The point that he is trying to make is that pains come to purify a man, and
to make him better. The visions at night come to help one reflect and
correct.
Chapters 38 - 42: God and Iyyov
Whay is there the double conversation, why does God talk twice? The
first time Iyyov says he'll shut up, but the second time Iyyov gives in.
Maori thinks the fact that God shows up at all is enough for Iyyov. See
Tehillim 73:17. (??)