Job 35

(מענה אליהוא) — הזאת חשבת למשפט. שהוא משפט הבריות כנגד יוצרם אשר אמרת צדקי משל הבורא:

כי תאמר מה יסכן לך — דרכי יושר:

מה אועיל — בצדקתי יותר מחטאתי:

ואת רעיך עמך — ששתקו על דבריך:

הבט שמים — ואחרי שהוא גבוה ואתה נמוך ואין לו תועלת ברשעך וצדקך למה תתפאר אליו בצדקך:

לאיש — אשר כמוך יוכל ויועיל רשעך וצדקתך, ראה רשעים רבים אשר:

מרוב עשוקים — שהם עושקים יזעיקו את הבריות לפניו וישועו עניים מזרוע רבים העושקים אותם:

ולא אמר — הרשע:

איה אלוה עושי — לירא מפניו:

נותן זמירות — כמו כרמך לא תזמור (ויקרא כה) שמכרית את הרשעים בלילה כגון אמרפל וחביריו ומצרים וסנחרב:

מלפנו — מלמדנו חכמה יותר מבהמו' כלו' חשבנו וגדלנו מבהמו' ומעוף:

שם יצעקו — וראה אשר שם צועקים העניים מפני גאון העושקים אותם והוא אינו עונה:

אך שוא לא ישמע — מיד:

ושדי לא ישורנה — להנקם מיד אלא מאריך אפו:

אף כי תאמר — כ"ש אתה שאין צעקתך באה כי אם על ידו ואתה תאמר ותזעק על אשר לא תשורנו להתווכח עמו כלומר אותם הקובלים וצועקים אינו ממהר לענות' ואתה תצעק שלא תשורנו:

דין לפניו — (דברך סס"א) בכל מקום שהוא:

ותחולל — וקוה לתנחומין:

ועתה — דע לך כי אין היא פקידת (אפו) זאת עליך אינה כלום לפי רוב עוונותך:

ולא ידע בפש מאד — ברוב חטאך התנהג הבור' כאילו לא ידעם:

בפש — ל' רוב כמו ופשתם (מלאכי ג) וכמו כי תפושו וגו' (ירמיה נ, יא) כי פשה הנגע (ויקרא יג):

יכביר — ל' מאד:

What if man in fact has no free-will — that it is all an illusion and even our apparently voluntary acts are predestined; that whether we are righteous or wicked is decided naturally by the Cosmos; that there is no reward or punishment? This would undermine Elihu’s explanation of why Providence acts invisibly: it isn’t invisible; it just doesn’t exist, for without free-will there is no meaning to Providence. This in turn would remove the question of any injustice on God’s part.

Elihu now comes to the crux of his argument — He points out to Job and to his three companions that they had totally misunderstood the nature of Providence. It is not based on a reciprocity between man and God, for that would imply that there is something God needs from man and for which He is prepared to reward or punish. Were this so, a man as good as Job would be right to complain if God took away his prosperity: he had given God what He supposedly wanted and was entitled to expect his reward. But Providence does not work like that for there is nothing God needs from man.

The only person affected by man’s behavior is man himself — Elihu’s thesis is that man’s relationship with God is like that between a patient and his doctor. The doctor neither rewards his patient for taking the medicine he prescribes nor punishes him for refusing to: the patient’s reward or punishment is inherent in the prescription. Thus, the reward the patient gets for taking the medicine is that he gets better and his punishment for not taking it is that he doesn’t and might even die. This principle applies both to persons and to societies: their reward and punishment is inherent in their choices and actions. Furthermore, all creatures have been endowed by God with ways of protecting themselves. In addition, mankind has been endowed with the faculty to govern its own affairs. If they do so properly, they prosper; if they do not, they suffer. Therefore, let man look to himself for the reasons for his own condition. Referring specifically to Job’s complaints about God’s apparent indifference to the way the wicked exploit the weak, Elihu adds that it is not only God’s job to deal with tyrants, pirates and other evil-doers but man’s as well, through the instruments of human government. And if man is negligent in this duty, what right does he have to complain about God.

(Malbim adds that human beings should also learn from the animals how to protect their own species and its individuals; they too should unite to defend themselves against bandits and murderers.)

As 'the greatest man in all the East', Job should have ensured that justice was properly administered in his society: this was his mission from God. Had he used his wealth and influence to organize a campaign against crime, there would have been no rustlers and gangs of bandits to take off his livestock. But when Job failed to recognize the providential nature of the loss of his own livestock, God's anger was so aroused that he brought the further afflictions down upon him, namely, the death of his children and his sickness. He should have realized that he himself was the cause of everything that had happened to him. His possessions were stolen because he had not wiped out crime; his children were killed because he did not take this to heart and make amends for his sin; and he was also the cause of his own body's suffering because of his luxurious and indulgent life-style. According to Malbim's interpretation, Elihu appears to be accusing Job of being the sort of righteous person who only cares for himself. He is scrupulous about what he himself does but is less concerned with the problems and shortcomings of society: politics are beneath him.