Читать книгу The Book of Job - Leonard S. Kravitz - Страница 12

6:1 Then Job answered:

This verse introduces a series of connected verses in which the meaning of each one is dependent on the understanding of the one that follows. The formula “answered and said” (without the latter word in the translation for the sake of English) often presents a formal declaration. (See Genesis 31:43.)

6:2 Would that my grief might be weighed out and my suffering placed together on a scale.

As part of Job’s response to Eliphaz, he tries to communicate the depth of his suffering. However one understands his statement, it is clear that he is trying to demonstrate the unbearable extent of his pain.

6:3 Surely it would weigh more than all the sand of the sea! That’s why my words make no sense.

Any words would be inadequate to express Job’s pain. And he finds any measurement unsatisfactory. Rashi notes that it is common for a drunkard to mumble his words. Although he is not suggesting that Job is drunk, Rashi does seem to indicate that what Job is trying to express is as hard to understand as the “mumblings” of someone in a drunken stupor.

6:4 The arrows of the Almighty are indeed into me. My spirit sucks up their poison. The terrors of God are set in array against me.

Job presents himself as if shot through with poison arrows. As a result, his death is both imminent and certain. In the throes of death, Job is portrayed as beset with all kinds of frightening visions.

6:5 Does the wild ass bray when it has grass? Does an ox bellow when it has fodder?

The author is trying to explain what is a natural reaction coming from Job. The use of the uncommon verbs yenhak (bray) and yegeh (bellow) are onomatopoeic words whose sounds indicate their meanings. Rashi explains that Job asks: “Do I cry out for no reason? If a dumb animal is silent when its needs are met, an ass does not bray when it has grass to eat nor does an ox bellow when it has mash, so would I be still were my needs to be met.”

6:6 Can something that is tasteless be eaten without salt? Does the juice of a mallow have any flavor?

While the meaning of chalamut (mallow) is not clear, it complements what was said in the previous verse. The sense of both verses is simply to state the obvious.

6:7 I refuse to touch it. Such food makes me sick.

If the prior sentence is a metaphor for tasteless food standing for meaningless arguments, as the former provides little nourishment and the latter little sense, then in this sentence Job refuses to touch the food or respond to any kind of arguments that Eliphaz has provided.

6:8 Would that I would get what I ask. Would that God would give me what I hope for,

6:9 That God would decide to crush me, to let loose the divine hand and finish me off.

This comment comes as no surprise. Job doesn’t ask that he be spared the pain and suffering that he experienced. At this point, he only wishes that God would end his life which is the substance of his request. Ironically, this is precisely what God required Satan to refrain from doing if God allowed Satan to proceed with his experiment with Job.

6:10 This would be my consolation. I would jump for joy even in my pain. Although God has no compassion [on me], I have not denied the word of the Holy One.

This verse presents a surprisingly profound expression of faith, especially when it is read in conjunction with the previous verse. Job is disgusted with his life. He asks God to take his life. At the same time, Job’s faith in God remains steadfast.

The classic commentators struggle with Job’s expression of faith in the midst of his pain and are looking for a realistic way for its expression in the text. Even as pious scholars, they find his faith unsettling and disturbing. Lashing out at God would be a natural and expected response from someone who has suffered as has Job. Had Job lashed out at God, the book would not have been published. Critical to the book of Job is the notion that Job, in some manner, has accepted what has happened to him.

6:11 What strength have I that I should hope? What future have I that I should hold out?

The sense of this verse is clear. Job’s strength is diminished by his suffering and he lacks any sense of hope or optimism for the future. So his question is really a self-reflective thought. He thinks to himself, “Why should I bother? I have nothing left to hope for.”

6:12 Had I the strength of stones, were my flesh bronze.

While this verse appears incomplete, it is really Job’s own response to the question he posed in the previous verse. It is as if he said, “Had I the strength of stones or were my flesh bronze, then [maybe] I would be able to be hopeful or anticipate the future.”

6:13 Is it not that I have no help and that success is driven away from me?

Job’s sentiment is that because he cannot turn to God, since God has not been willing to take his life, he has nowhere else to turn for help.

6:14 The one who is discouraged should have steadfast love from one’s friends, even if one forsakes the fear of the Almighty.

Job is telling his readers that his friends should support him even if his faith in God diminishes. Perhaps the Targum offers us the best translation even if it does so by adding words: “That person who has withheld steadfast love from his friend has forsaken the fear of the Almighty.” Rashi contends that steadfast love would consume such a person.

6:15 As treacherous as a wadi, so have been my brethren. As the flowing together of wadis, so they move away.

To emphasize his plight, Job chooses an image from nature that would have been readily understood in ancient Uz. A wadi (nahal) is a riverbed that is dry throughout most of the year. It fills with water only during the winter rains. Once filled, the wadi may become a roaring torrent. As a result, the wadi is not a dependable source of water and may even become a source of danger. Just like when one wadi joins with another, the speed of the flowing waters increases, so his brethren, who individually failed to help Job at one point, now collectively speed away from him, rather than responding to his needs.

6:16 Darkened by ice and hidden by snow upon them.

This verse continues the image that was initiated by the author in the previous verse. In the winter, the riverbeds are even more dangerous than they are during other seasons of the year. Although they are now visible since they are filled with water, one may step into them and be carried away.

6:17 When they dry up, they disappear. When it gets warm, they are gone.

Wadis exist even in the absence of water. They simply have a different appearance. In the winter, there is water in the wadi. In the summer, when the waters dry up, the wadi disappears, so to speak. The dry river bed is hardly visible. Taking its cue from the great flood reported in the book of Genesis but without referencing it, the Targum reads this verse as a moral lesson: “When a generation incurs guilt, a flood is heated up to boiling into which they are cast and so are wiped from their place.”

6:18 The caravans snake around. They go to the wasteland and perish.

Ibn Ezra contends that orchot does not mean “caravans.” He takes it to mean “paths,” because he understands yeelphatu to mean “to be made crooked” or “to twist.” He relates this verse from Job to the previous verse that refers to wadis and explains to the reader that water normally runs downhill. However, when the water in the wadi becomes heated, it rises, evaporates, and disappears.

6:19 The caravans of Tema looked. The traveling companies of Sheva hoped.

This verse continues the sentiment expressed in the previous verses. Haleechot (traveling companies) is a synonym for orchot (caravans). Nevertheless, it is unclear as to what the caravans were looking for or what they hoped for. We can imagine that the caravans were looking for / hoping to find water to satiate their thirst, only to find dry riverbeds.

6:20 They were abashed, because they were confident. They arrived and were ashamed.

It is not made clear by the author in this verse why they were ashamed.

6:21 Now you have become his. You see a terror and you are frightened.

This verse contains what scholars refer to as a k’tiv/k’re problem. This is the difference between the text that is written and how it is customarily read. The k’tiv has lamed-alef (not) and the k’re has lamed-vav (his). Even were we to accept the k’re, it is not clear to whom or to what “his” refers. If “his/His” refers to God, one might wonder why a believer in God would be so frightened and ashamed. If it refers to something else, one still might wonder what would be the relevance of the second clause in the verse.

6:22 Did I ever say, “Give me something” or “Use your wealth to bribe someone for me”?

All of these bribes would have been used to prevent the tragedies that befell Job.

6:23 “Save me from the power of an enemy” [or] “Redeem me from the grasp of the powerful”?

This is a continuation of the previous verse and the listing of favors that Job claims he has not asked of anyone. Up until this point, Job has not asked for help. However, now those who see his need pretend that they have no idea of what afflicts him.

6:24 Teach me and I will be quiet. If I have been wrong, enlighten me.

For Eliphaz, for whom human suffering is divine punishment for sin, what Job has endured is proof that Job is both a sinner and a hypocrite. Job’s response is a way of saying, “Prove that I have sinned.”

6:25 How painful are honest words. But who among you can [offer] rebuke?

Job verbally attacks his accusers. The Targum reads the verse in an ironic way: “How seasoned are these correct words and who among you is fit to rebuke?”

Rashi takes the first clause as Job’s plea: “If my words were true, you would say that you would have accepted them?” Since Rashi understands hokeach to mean argue, he takes the second clause to mean “Who among you can argue [with me]?”

6:26 Do you think to argue about words and treat what the despairing say as wind?

Job continues his attack on his accusers. Rashi understands the first clause as “Do you think to clarify words” but understands the second clause as “words as meaningless as the wind.”

Ibn Ezra offers a little more clarity to Job’s intent. He takes the first clause to mean, “You argue only with words because you have no proof.” He reads the second clause as “You think my words are as empty as the wind.” Thus, Ibn Ezra understands the verse as Job’s plaint, “You think that your words are correct and the words of someone who is in pain to be as meaningless as vapor.”

6:27 You would bring down disaster even on an orphan and would dig a pit for your friend.

Job’s words are becoming increasingly accusatory and reflecting his frustration and disappointment with his friends. Ibn Ezra interprets the verse as Job’s statement, “You are so without pity that you bring down a wall, or something like it, even upon an orphan. You are so bereft of feeling that you would even gather together and rejoice at what happened.” Ibn Ezra also relates the digging of the pit to trap the unfortunate and unknowing friend to the “bringing down of the wall.”

6:28 And now please look at me. Would I lie right to your face?

In this verse, Job confronts his friends directly. He wants them to see him as he is, suffering without cause and thereby challenging their view of the world and of God.

6:29 Think again. Let there be no mistake. Think again. My innocence still stands.

This verse follows directly on the preceding verse. Job’s sentiment is striking. He wants to make sure that his friends are clear about his situation. Job is unwavering in his claim of innocence. And he wants to make sure that his friends also understand and agree that he is innocent of any wrongdoing that would incur such punishment as he has sustained. The context of the verse suggests that Job is claiming that his friends simply do not understand his situation. Their mistakes are reminiscent of the French folk saying, “Some things are worse than sins; they are mistakes.”

6:30 Is there malice on my tongue? Can my taste not discern threats?

It seems to us that Job is saying to his friends in this verse, “I have not lied, but I can tell that you don’t believe me and want to treat me as a sinner and hence a danger in your midst.”

K’tiv and K’re

These are technical terms referring to the way the text is written (k’tiv) and the way it is suggested to be read (k’re). This distinction was a compromise suggested by the Masoretes for certain biblical words, so that the text could be read and interpreted correctly without changing the text itself. For this reason, certain words appear in the [Hebrew] text twice in a row, once smaller and without vowels (k’tiv) and once with vowels (k’re).5

5. Kravitz and Olitzky, Mishlei, 13.