Chapter 9 marks the beginning of the fifth speech, Iyov's response. After hearing the reply of Bildad the Shuchite, Iyov now doubles down on his previous stance. His view is that the Holy One, blessed be He, does not exercise individual Divine Providence (hashgachah pratit), but only general providence (hashgachah klalit). Everything that occurs here in this world on an individual level stems from the heavenly host - the stars and constellations. These celestial bodies are like a blind ruler who makes no distinction between good and bad, which is why they afflict me with harsh suffering even though I am righteous. According to his approach, two conclusions emerge: first, that man lacks free will; and second, that the suffering I endure comes indiscriminately, without examining my standing, my spiritual level, or my righteousness. Only the Creator of the world knows how to make such distinctions, whereas the celestial system makes no distinctions at all, and Hashem has placed the governance of individuals into its hands.
וַיַּעַן אִיּוֹב וַיֹּאמַר. אׇמְנָם יָדַעְתִּי כִי־כֵן וּמַה־יִּצְדַּק אֱנוֹשׁ עִם־אֵל. - Then Iyov answered and said: Indeed, I know that this is so; but how can a mortal be justified before God?
In this first part, Iyov begins by saying: I have an answer to what you, Bildad the Shuchite, claim. Bildad had rightly argued that if injustice exists in the world, this implies, as it were, a flaw in Hashem's governance - that He supposedly handed over control to wicked subordinates. In other words: you have not exonerated the Creator; you have merely pushed the question back one step. Instead of asking, "Master of the Universe, why do You afflict me even though I am righteous?", we now ask a different question: "Master of the Universe, why did You place me into the hands of a celestial system that afflicts me even though I am righteous?" You added a step to the dilemma, but you did not change the core question.
To this, Iyov offers a philosophical response. The Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim (The Guide for the Perplexed) already cited this argument of the philosophers, and Iyov now adopts it to refute Bildad's words. The philosophers argue that evil in the world outweighs good. The Rambam explains why they think this way: because they evaluate reality from the perspective of an isolated individual. A person imagines that the entirety of reality was created solely for him, as if he alone exists in the world. When something happens to him that he did not plan, or that in his view is bad and not what he expected, he draws a sweeping conclusion: all of reality is bad; nothing in this world is truly good.
However, if he were to view the world in perspective, with a broad overview, and realize what a small cog he is within the grand system, he would understand that the hardship he faces is exceedingly small and marginal compared to universal reality as a whole, which is inherently good and wondrous.
The Rambam explains that the evil that befalls man stems from the nature of physical existence and decay (havayah ve-hefsed) - from the mere fact that man is made of matter. A spiritual entity endures forever: the soul does not cease to exist, nor do the angels. But a physical entity, by its very material nature, is subject to decay. Take iron: it rusts. Take earth: it erodes into fine dust. Take glass: it breaks. Take a body: it ages and wears out. Take plants: they wither. By the very virtue of being composed of matter, any physical object subjected to natural events will eventually see its elements break down into their components, ultimately reaching dissolution.
The Rambam quotes the physician-philosopher Galen: "Do not falsely desire that it should be possible for a living creature formed from menstrual blood and semen to be immortal, free of pain, in constant motion, or luminous as the sun." That is, it is inconceivable that from physical and crude matter a creature could be generated that never dies, never suffers pain or harm, or remains in perpetual motion. Let a person run for five minutes and he is panting heavily; yet a bee moves for hours. Consider how many tons of potatoes a human would have to consume in a day to provide the energy for the continuous movements a bee makes! Similarly, "luminous as the sun": angels are radiant, but a material human being is not. The general principle is this: anything composed of physical matter must inevitably experience evil, damage, deficiency, and eventual demise. Yet despite all this, know that this is only a tiny fraction in relation to the universe as a whole and in relation to the entire human race.
The Malbim notes that scientists have already established that the stars, too, belong to the category of generation and decay. There are meteorites, which are fragments of stars, and there are stars that collide with one another. Just as the Earth undergoes generation and decay, so do the stars. In the past, people believed that the celestial bodies were a fifth substance, a fifth kind of matter beyond the four classic elements: fire, air, water, and earth. Today, scientists classify matter not into four elements, but into one hundred and twelve or more, discovering new elements all the time. In any case, decay applies to the stars as well, as the Prophets state: "For the heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a garment." Decay applies even to earth and dust; destruction applies even to them.
After all, our sun is only one of myriads upon myriads of suns. The solar system in which we exist is merely a tiny fraction of the many star systems in the galaxy, many of which scientists cannot even see directly, knowing of their existence only from the radiation reaching us across distances of millions of light-years. It turns out that all the reality we are discussing here is miniscule in comparison to the totality of the cosmos, all of which is subject to the nature of generation and decay. All the stars, all the galaxies and solar systems - all are physical matter, subject to decay, and all capable of destruction.
Now consider: if a certain person experiences hardships, what is he in comparison to all the residents of his neighborhood? What is he compared to all the residents of the city, the country, and the entire globe? Even if many evils and troubles befell you, the overall governance is good. All the galaxies endure, all the worlds exist, the Earth remains whole, and most people in the world are alive, breathing, and have food and drink. What you perceive as a problem is a minor detail. It is like someone who owns a car where everything runs perfectly, yet he comes and complains: "There is a screw in the engine, and I think it has a scratch on it." That is what you are complaining about? The system as a whole is sound; what is flawed is merely a tiny screw within the whole. The Rambam explains that this happens simply because a person focuses exclusively on the detail, and on himself as an isolated detail, and nothing more. He fails to look at the big picture.
To use an analogy: it is like someone looking through a keyhole, seeing an area strictly limited to the size of that hole. And what does he see? An ashtray full of filth, or a child's chamber pot. When asked what is in the room, he replies: "A filthy, disgusting room; all I saw was filth." Then the door is opened for him, and he beholds a magnificent palace - a palace in whose far corner sat a chamber pot, and the keyhole just happened to align directly with it. This is precisely how a person looks at things: he gazes at a single detail and declares that everything is bad. But if he were to look at the whole, he would see how much good exists compared to that single point of bad upon which he focused.
Furthermore: even if you see that the entire Earth functions properly, what is it in comparison to the totality of creation? The Rambam develops this gradually, but moving straight to the final stage: even if the entire human race were to perish, what would that be before the Creator of the universe compared to His universal governance and all the worlds He created? It would not equal a pinhead; it would be virtually nothing. The Holy One, blessed be He, would still remain in the realm of complete goodness - where perfection reigns, accompanied only by a minuscule deficiency. Therefore, says the Rambam, the presence of evil is nothing relative to the good, and the good is absolute perfection. And if evil exists nonetheless, it is minimal - and not only minimal, but unavoidable, stemming from the very fact that man is composed of four elements whose nature is to disintegrate and return to their source. When a person dies, the fire, water, and earth within him each return to their root: "The dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God Who gave it."
In simple terms, Iyov comes and argues: You, Bildad, claim that I have, God forbid, turned the Creator of the universe into an evildoer by claiming He handed governance over to a ruler that does not distinguish between good and bad. Iyov answers: I am by no means claiming that Hashem commits injustice. Reality as a whole is good, and what can be done - when you chop wood, chips fly. Man is subject to the nature of generation and decay, and out of the totality, some fall and some suffer damage.
To what is this comparable? To a king administering justice. A man comes before him for judgment, and the king sentences him: "You committed murder; your sentence is thirty years in prison." Is this a just verdict? Certainly, he earned it rightfully. Yet his family members may come and say: "We did nothing wrong, so why must we suffer?" His employer may come and say: "I trained him for two years, he finally started working, and now you are taking him from me!" Many others suffer as a result of that same verdict. Should we say on that account that it is not justice? Naturally, when justice is carried out, some surrounding people suffer collateral consequences. Yet on the whole, the king's verdict is just: whoever deserves punishment receives punishment, and whoever deserves reward receives good. And if you say, "Look, you gave someone good fortune, and his son inherited it and used it to harm others," the king will reply: "I judged justly; he deserved good and I gave him good. What can I do if bad ultimately came of it?" And likewise in reverse: "He deserved punishment and I gave him punishment; what can I do if people who did not deserve it suffer from that punishment?"
And this is Iyov's argument: I have no complaint against divine providence, for the overall governance is executed with justice. The Holy One, blessed be He, maintains the governance of the world, seeing to it that rain falls in the appropriate places, ensuring the distribution of the human population across the globe and its sustenance. Against general providence I have no grievances; Hashem conducts things justly. But when one descends to particulars, some suffer and some incur damage - that is the nature of the physical world. And if I see that I am suffering, it is a sign that this matter was relegated to particular governance - the natural order - and the order of nature produces situations in which people suffer. The Holy One, blessed be He, does not exercise individual providence over the specific detail, but oversees reality as a whole. Reality as a whole is good, and the private suffering of isolated individuals is negligible compared to the whole. Therefore, Iyov tells Bildad: Do not falsely accuse me of claiming that Hashem acts unjustly. Even from a just verdict, collateral suffering can result. And if you ask why this is so, Hashem does not occupy Himself with the micro-details; that was left to the natural mechanism. Yet the macro-governance, which Hashem does orchestrate, is absolute and total justice.
Having cited the position of Iyov, and before examining the rebuttals, one must first recognize that Iyov's answer is not acceptable according to the Torah. For in the final analysis, this approach still implies that the Creator caused injustice, merely minimizing it as negligible. But with the Holy One, blessed be He, there is no injustice whatsoever, not even the slightest amount. According to the Torah's perspective, we affirm: "A God of faithfulness and without iniquity, righteous and upright is He," "For all His ways are justice."
And people ask: What kind of praise is "A God of faithfulness and without iniquity" (El emunah ve'ein avel)? The Chofetz Chaim raises a question: If you wanted to praise someone, is this how you would praise him? A person comes to make inquiries about a young man for a shidduch, and you reply: "Listen, I can tell you one thing: I went shopping with him many times and he never stole anything, he only visits banks during the day and not at night, and as for drugs, I think he has been clean for two months already." Is that praise? The other side will immediately say, "Thank you very much," and move on to the next suggestion. If so, what is the praise of "A God of faithfulness and without iniquity"? We have so many praises of the Holy One, blessed be He - pure, upright, merciful, gracious, slow to anger - so what praise is there in the fact that He does no injustice?
Rather, says the Chofetz Chaim, the continuation of the verse explains: "For all His ways are justice." When a mortal king or judge executes justice, he inevitably creates injustice for bystanders, and as we said, when you chop wood, chips fly. He has no way of descending to the resolution of the individual person harmed as a consequence of the one who was judged, and if he were to account for that, there would be no justice at all. What can be done - shall we release the murderer because his wife is not guilty, his children are not guilty, and his boss is not guilty? In earthly justice, there is no choice. But in Divine justice, "A God of faithfulness and without iniquity": "faithfulness" means truth, that His judgment is true judgment; "and without iniquity" means that there is not a single person in the world who suffers suffering that he does not deserve.
In simple terms: if a person deserves to die by Hashem's judgment, and death was decreed upon him, but his wife does not deserve this grief and his children do not deserve it, the Holy One, blessed be He, will keep him alive in their merit. He might argue with his wife and say to her, "You are the death of me," without realizing that she is giving him life - that in her merit he is alive, and that on his own account he would no longer be here. And so it is with every kind of suffering: when a person enters prison, or undergoes afflictions or illness, Heaven protect us, and the whole household is turned upside down and everyone is in anguish, know that each one received the exact dosage appropriate for him - the parents, the children, the wife, each according to his own accounting. And if there were someone there who did not need to receive it, the Holy One, blessed be He, would have prevented it and not brought this suffering at all.
And if you ask, where is precise justice found? Justice is in the World to Come. There, the Holy One, blessed be He, says: I can afflict you individually, so that you suffer alone without those around you suffering. But if I bring you suffering here in this world, "all His ways are justice" - the judgment takes into account all the surrounding options, all the situations, and all the possibilities that can result from it. Human judgment, by contrast, is not "all his ways are justice"; only that which he judges is justice, and he can achieve justice with respect to the defendant, but not with respect to those around him. Who can judge with faithfulness without causing any injustice to anyone around? Flesh and blood can never achieve this, only the Holy One, blessed be He, Who is God (El), the Master of all powers, omnipotent and all-capable.
In the second part, Iyov argues against Bildad's approach. Bildad claimed that afflictions come upon the righteous person by way of recompense: you suffer now, but in exchange you will receive light and bounty, you will have goodness and success. Iyov comes to examine the connection between the suffering and the recompense. How are they linked to one another? Why do I need to experience suffering in order to receive a good life afterward? And Iyov, who was a great philosopher, enumerates five possibilities for understanding this connection.
The first possibility: that there is an intrinsic connection between them, that the present evil inevitably gives birth to the future good by natural law. Just as an animal toils, runs, and exhausts itself, and in the end captures its prey - where the initial suffering itself causes the ultimate good - so too the righteous person cannot achieve success and perfection except through afflictions. The second possibility: by way of exchange, that Hashem wishes to weigh out good for him in place of the anguish he endured, as a form of compensation: you suffered, and in exchange I will now grant you good.
The third possibility: an incidental connection. That is, the good comes to him through the bad, in that out of his suffering he prays to Hashem and pleads with the Creator, and thereby the Holy One, blessed be He, rewards him according to his righteousness, so that the suffering ultimately brought about his benefit. The fourth possibility: by way of a test. You suffered, endured affliction, and remained silent; you withstood the test, did not speak out, and did not complain, so Hashem says: you deserve good and lovingkindness in return for this. The fifth possibility: that the Holy One, blessed be He, sees that you are destined to become wicked, like Chanoch, whom God took because Hashem saw that he was destined to turn to evil and said, "It is better to take him while he is still righteous." So too here, suffering subdues the heart so that one does not stumble into sin. "Had I left him as he was," Hashem says, "within a few months he would have reached a terrible state and committed severe transgressions. Therefore, I bring suffering upon him today; the suffering breaks his heart, he returns to Hashem and is saved from those future severe transgressions, and now only good will be due to him, since you did not commit the sins and performed good deeds." And against all five of these possibilities, Iyov sets out to respond.
Regarding the first possibility - that there is a natural connection between suffering and good, such that the moment you receive suffering it guarantees that you will have good in the end - Iyov says: there is no connection between them. Why must they be linked to one another? In an animal, I understand: you exerted yourself to capture prey and you received a meal. But in a human being, I exerted myself and suffered afflictions, I suffered from tzara'at, why should that be what guarantees me a happy life afterward? There is no direct connection between the two.
And if you claim that it is by way of exchange, where Hashem says, "You received suffering and in exchange I will give you a good life," Iyov says: If so, pardon me, but you are contradicting yourself. For you told me, "Strengthen your heart and accept the suffering with joy; it is worthwhile for you to accept it and Hashem will give you good afterward." But according to the exchange approach, on the contrary, what is more worthwhile for me: to feel more anguish or to rejoice more? The more anguish I feel, the greater the joy I will receive afterward, since it is a direct exchange: if you suffered fifty, you will receive fifty of good; if you suffered a hundred, you will receive a hundred of good, in direct proportion. If so, on the contrary, I should aim to suffer, whereas you told me, "Do not feel anguish, but rather rejoice." And if I rejoice, what will Hashem give me in return for joy? Hashem gives in return for anguish!
אֲשֶׁר אִם־צָדַקְתִּי לֹא אֶעֱנֶה לִמְשֹׁפְטִי אֶתְחַנָּן. אִם־קָרָאתִי וַיַּעֲנֵנִי לֹא־אַאֲמִין כִּי־יַאֲזִין קוֹלִי. - "Though I were righteous, I could not answer; I could only plead for mercy to my Judge. If I called and He answered me, I would not believe that He would listen to my voice."
The third possibility was that good would come to you in exchange for bad, because the affliction drives you to pray and supplicate Hashem, and then Hashem will do good for you. Iyov raises a logical argument: How do you expect me to plead? Imagine a person appearing before a judge and saying, "Your Honor, according to strict justice I do not deserve the sentence you are handing down to me," yet the judge closes his ears from listening, even though justice is on the man's side. Would supplication help? If justice did not convince him, supplications make sense only when you are in the wrong, where one says, "Let me plead, perhaps it will help." But if my justified claims were not accepted, implying as it were that He holds something against me, would supplications do any good? Moreover, Iyov argues, it is not applicable for Hashem to relent, for "He is not a human being that He should change His mind" - and if He is not like a human being who relents, supplications will be of no avail, for their very purpose is that Hashem should relent from the harm.
Against the fourth possibility, that suffering is a test (nisayon), Iyov argues: Sometimes, by the time they want to grant him the good reward for withstanding the test, he has already died! Like the man who wanted to train his horse to live without food, and on the sixth day the horse died, and he exclaimed, "What a pity, I had almost gotten him used to it!" So too here: You tell me to accept the suffering, because the Holy One, Blessed is He, is testing you with it and will reward you with good afterward. But of what use is the test if I might die in the midst of the test itself?
And against the fifth possibility, that suffering comes to prevent a person from sinning in the future, Iyov argues: This is neither just nor fair. Today I am not sinning, today I am righteous, so why are You punishing me in advance? Lest I sin in the future, You afflict me today? When I sin, afflict me! But as long as I have not sinned, why should Hashem strike me before the sin? This concludes the second part of Iyov's arguments.
In Chapter 9, Iyov maintains his stance that there is no individual Divine providence (hashgachah pratit), and that the guidance of individuals has been handed over to the natural celestial order, which does not distinguish between good and bad. In order to clear the Creator of the world from the charge of injustice, he clings to the philosophical argument cited by the Rambam: evil stems from the nature of generation and corruption inherent to all physical matter, and it is minuscule and negligible compared to the universal good - like someone peering through a keyhole who sees only the dirt and not the palace. Just as a king's righteous judgment inevitably brings suffering to bystanders, so too, in his view, the overarching governance is absolute justice, and the individuals who suffer are a negligible minority. But according to the Torah, this answer is incorrect, for He is "a God of faithfulness without iniquity," and "all His ways are justice": no person in the world endures suffering that they do not deserve, and each receives their precise measure. In the second section, Iyov listed five ways to understand the connection between suffering and the reward that follows it, and rejected them all. These themes continue to unfold in the chapters ahead.