creates suspense by dividing the action into two verses. The use of the participle medaber (speaking) and ochlim v’shotim (were dining and drinking) present the reader with the immediacy of the situation.
Rashi contends that the messengers who brought Job the bad news were agents of Satan determined to provoke Job into sinning by presenting a graduated set of losses beginning with that which was comparatively negligible, the loss of cattle and their keepers, and ending with what is horrific, the apparent loss of Job’s children.
1:19 “All of a sudden, from deep in the wilderness, an enormous wind blew in, smashing the four corners of the house, collapsing it on the young people, killing all of them. I am the only one who got away to tell you this.”
While this seems like a simple reporting of events, there is no way to describe the deep pain implicit in this verse. All of Job’s children have been killed by an unexplained and unanticipated natural force. Most of the commentators wisely do not try to interpret this verse and simply allow it to stand in all of its ugliness. They do, however, try to understand the location of eyver ha-midbar, which we have translated as “from deep in the wilderness.”
1:20 Job got up, tore his garment, shaved his head, fell on the ground and prostrated himself.
Job’s pain could not be articulated in words. He knew not what to do. So he responded silently. But the reader can hear the pain screaming out from his silence.
Understandably, Job collapses on the ground. Yet, the Targum feels compelled to translate v’y’ishtachu (prostrated himself) as segeed (worshipped). It therefore suggests that Job’s reaction was to worship God—a highly improbable reaction. On the other hand, Rashi’s interpretation of vayagoz (shaved his head) is probably more accurate: “he tore out his hair.”
1:21 Job said, “Naked came I from my mother’s womb and naked will I return there. Adonai has given and Adonai has taken away. Praised be the name of Adonai!”
This is a well-known verse. The last phrase has entered into the liturgy for Jewish funerals. This stoic and faithful response seems not to be in accord with the reaction described in the previous verse. Perhaps some time transpired between Job’s actions in 1:20 and what he says in 1:21.
In his commentary, Gersonides reminds us that even with this terrible trial, Job maintained his integrity and his faith, directing us to the verse that follows. Job did not sin. Rather, he continued to praise God.
Anyone would have expected Job’s reaction to be one of outrage and anger. For the believer, however, one might have expected a response such as “There must be some divine purpose in all of this” or “We cannot know why God so acts.” For most of us, his reaction is not a Jewish reaction; we would not expect a Jewish person to resign oneself to whatever one receives in life. Rather, one expects him to cry out, to lash out. The reaction of Job is not one with which we are familiar nor to which we can relate, even among the faithful.
1:22 With all of this, Job did not sin nor did he say anything bad about God.
This is what we have learned about Job. He experiences the worst things imaginable and accepts it all. We assume that his faith was unshaken. For the book of Job’s logic to work, Job had to maintain his belief in God. Job does not express his discontent by rejecting God nor by behaving the way someone who does not acknowledge God might behave. Rather, he continues to lead a good life and presumably continues to praise God, maintaining the same life of faith as he had before his family was taken from him.
Satan
Unlike in popular culture (which is informed by Christian religion), in the Hebrew Bible, Satan is not used as a proper name nor is it a reference to a demonic antagonist to God (except for its usage in 1 Chronicles 21:1). Instead, Satan is an adversary—sometimes even human—who opposes and obstructs. We have chosen to use Satan as a proper noun nonetheless in this translation. The term is used in another form in the rabbinic imagination of the heavenly court of judgment referring to the prosecutor and the role of the antagonist in general. In Job, Satan is clearly subordinate to God and a member of the celestial court.
Satan is given a much more prominent role in the Talmud and midrash. He is even identified as the yetzer harah (evil inclination) and the Angel of Death (Babylonian Talmud, Bava Batra 16a). He appears as the tempter, but his role is more clearly defined by the Rabbis as the accuser. References to Satan in the liturgy are sparse, although Satan is mentioned in the Hashkiveinu prayer of the evening service and the morning blessings that precede P’sukei D’zimra (verses of song).
Chapter 2
2:1 It was on another day that the angels of God came to present themselves before Adonai. Satan also came along to present himself to Adonai.
A scene similar to the one about which we read in 1:6 opens chapter 2. The author writes the verse to suggest that the scene is rather routine. The angels regularly present themselves before God and Satan is apparently included among them. B’nai elohim figure as the progenitors of giborim (mighty men) in Genesis 6:4. That those at Sinai (Exodus 20:2) were warned against elohim achareyim (others gods) suggests that monotheism proceeded first out of monolatry. B’nai elohim as a kind of congress of deities does not seem to faze the writer of the book of Job.
For Gersonides, the mention of Satan in this verse indicates a connection between the last and worst of the evils that befell Job. For Gersonides, evil doesn’t exist independently. Gersonides notes that unlike the previous verse (1:6) which also described the “children of God” who presented themselves before God with Satan in their midst, this verse tells us that Satan presented himself alone. For Gersonides, this is an allusion to that portion of the human soul to which advice may be directed, that is, for the service of the human intellect so that it may achieve perfection. So for Gersonides, the book of Job is a parable about imagination’s role in moving us toward what is impermanent and away from what is permanent.
2:2 Adonai said to Satan, “Where are you coming from?” Satan answered Adonai, “From wandering around the earth and walking back and forth through it.”
As in 1:7, the Targum adds that Satan’s movements were to mivdsak b’ovdai bnai nesha, to “examine the deeds of humans.”
2:3 Adonai said to Satan, “Have you paid attention to my servant Job? Nobody on earth is like him. Upright and honest, revering God and turning away from evil, he remains without blame, even though you have incited me against him to batter him for no reason.”
God shows Satan that Job didn’t react as Satan had expected. Rather than react with anger to what befell him, Job continued to lead a life of blessing.
2:4 Satan answered, “Skin for skin. For one’s own life, a person will give up everything he [or she] owns.”
Many families have their own insights that reflect the folk wisdom of this verse. The phrase “skin for skin” appears to be a proverb of some kind. To help understand it, the Targum translates the proverb as “limb for limb.”
Rashi thus understands the phrase: Were one to see a sword about to strike one’s head, one would raise one’s arm to protect oneself. How much the more, he adds, would one use one’s entire fortune to protect oneself.
2:5 Just stretch out your hand and touch his bone and flesh and he will surely curse you right to your face.
Satan remains dissatisfied and wants to continue his abuse of Job. What had taken place to this point was apparently insufficient. Satan assumes that eventually Job will reach his breaking point and curse God as a result. So now he argues that if Satan causes him physical pain, rather than the psychic pain of his losing his family, then Job would strike out against God.
Gersonides offers us philosophical insight on this verse. Satan thought that Job might curse God as a result of Job’s apparent misunderstanding of divine providence. Job thought that God did not afford that providence to lower beings. Had he conceptualized the matter correctly, he would never have been moved. Job’s confusion was due to the lack of proper philosophical investigation in the matter of perfection, so says Gersonides, which protects a person from what will turn