‘Iyov’ (“Job”) or ‘Oyev’ (“Enemy”)? God's Precise Control of Nature and the Rhetorical Rebuttal of Job’s Accusation in Job 38-39 (Bava Batra 16a-b)

This passage presents God's reply to Job’s complaint by asserting divine omniscience and micro-level precision in creation.¹

The rhetorical refrain—“Would I confuse ‘Job’ (איוב - ‘Iyov’) with [an] “enemy”?!”²—anchors each argument, highlighting the absurdity of Job’s claim that God mistreated him unfairly or mistakenly.³

Through a series of analogies, God asserts His detailed control over nature, suggesting that such a precise creator would not err in identifying or judging a single person.

The Formula

This aggadic passage constructs a repetitive rhetorical formula to refute Job’s implicit accusation that God acted unjustly or mistakenly. The formula is:

1. A claim of divine precision in nature, using hidden, micro-level biological or meteorological mechanisms (e.g. hair follicles, raindrops, sound waves, birth timing).

2. A counterfactual: if this system were even slightly off, devastating consequences would follow (e.g. blindness, infertility, destruction).

3. A qal va-chomer–style rebuttal: If I don’t confuse X with X+1, would I confuse 'Iyov' with 'oyev'?

This repeated motif drives home the point: if God precisely manages individual hairs, raindrops, sound waves, and animal births, then He certainly wouldn’t confuse Job with an enemy. The formula emphasizes:

• Control of scale: from microscopic (hair follicles) to cosmic (weather, animal survival).

• Exact timing: especially in the animal birth cases, where being early or late by a moment results in death.

• Semantic irony: the Job–enemy confusion hinges on a pun (איוב–אויב).

In short, the structure is an escalating reductio: God’s meticulous design of the natural world proves He could not have accidentally misjudged Job.

Basic Formula:

I created (בראתי) many (הרבה) [X] in the [system],

and for each X I created its own Y,

so that no two X would share one Y;

because if (אלמלי) two X shared one Y, then [disaster] [would happen].

Between X and X I do not get confused;⁴

would I confuse Iyov with oyev?!

Where:

• X = individual elements (hairs, raindrops, thunder sounds, etc.)

• Y = their mechanisms (follicles, molds, paths, etc.)

• disaster = blindness, crop failure, world destruction, etc.

Outline

Intro

The Passage - ‘Iyov’ (“Job”) or ‘Oyev’ (“Enemy”)? God's Precise Control of Nature and the Rhetorical Rebuttal of Job’s Accusation in Job 38-39 (Bava Batra 16a-b)

1. Hair Follicles - Each hair has its own follicle - God creates a separate follicle for every hair - If two hairs shared a follicle, it would impair human eyesight (Job 38:1 – “Then YHWH answered Job out of the whirlwind”)

2. Raindrops - Each drop has its own channel (te'ala) - God creates a unique mold for every drop in the clouds - If two drops emerged from one mold, they would erode the earth (Job 38:25 – “Who has divided a channel for the torrent of rain?”)

3. Thunderclaps - Each thunderclap has its own path - God assigns a separate path to each thunderclap - If two came through one path, they would destroy the world (Job 38:25 – “Or a path for the lightning of thunder?”)

4. Wild Goat (יעלה) - Gives birth on mountaintops - God sends an eagle to catch the falling kid and return it to the mother - If the eagle were early or late, the kid would die (Job 39:1 – “Do you know when the wild goats give birth?”)

5. Hind (אילה) - Has a narrow womb - God sends a snake to bite and loosen the womb for safe delivery - If the snake were early or late, the mother would die (Job 39:1 – “Can you mark when the hinds calve?”)

Appendix - Table Summarizing

The Passage

Bava_Batra.16a.18-16b.2

Hair Follicles - Each hair has its own follicle - God creates a separate follicle for every hair - If two hairs shared a follicle, it would impair human eyesight (Job 38:1 – “Then YHWH answered Job out of the whirlwind”)

God opens by referring to the creation of human hair:⁵

Each hair⁶ is sustained by its own follicle⁷ to prevent two from drawing from one pore, which would impair a person’s eyesight.⁸

If God manages this microscopic separation accurately, He rhetorically asks, could He really confuse “Iyov” with “oyev”?

אמר לו:

הרבה נימין בראתי באדם;

וכל נימא ונימא בראתי לה גומא בפני עצמה,

שלא יהו שתים יונקות מגומא אחת;

שאלמלי שתים יונקות מגומא אחת –

מחשיכות מאור עיניו של אדם.

בין גומא לגומא לא נתחלף לי;

בין איוב לאויב נתחלף לי?!

What is the meaning of “out of the tempest”?

God said to him:

I have created many hairs [nimin] on a person,

and for each hair I created its own follicle through which the hair is sustained,

so that two hairs should not draw from one follicle.

As were two hairs to draw from one follicle --

they would impair a man’s vision.

Now, if I do not confuse one follicle with another,

would I confuse Iyov with oyev?!

The Hebrew word for tempest, se’ara, is phonetically identical to the Hebrew word for hair.

Raindrops - Each drop has its own channel (te'ala) - God creates a unique mold for every drop in the clouds - If two drops emerged from one mold, they would erode the earth (Job 38:25 – “Who has divided a channel for the torrent of rain?”)

God states that each raindrop has its own mould,⁹ preventing two drops from emerging through the same channel, which would otherwise erode the earth and harm agriculture.

The Talmud supports the reading of te'ala as “channel” with a verse from I Kings 18:32.

Once again, if God differentiates between raindrops, how could He confuse Job with an enemy?

״מי פלג לשטף תעלה [וגו׳]״ –

הרבה טיפין בראתי בעבים,

וכל טיפה וטיפה בראתי לה דפוס בפני עצמה,

כדי שלא יהו שתי טיפין יוצאות מדפוס אחד;

שאלמלי שתי טיפין יוצאות מדפוס אחד –

מטשטשות את הארץ, ואינה מוציאה פירות.

בין טיפה לטיפה לא נתחלף לי;

בין איוב לאויב נתחלף לי?!

God further said to Job: “Who has divided a channel [te’ala] for the torrent of rain, or a path for the lightning of thunder”? (Job 38:25).

I have created many drops of water in the clouds,

and for each drop I created its own channel,

so that two drops should not emerge from the same channel.

As were two drops to emerge from the same channel

they would destroy the earth and it would not yield produce.

Now, if I do not confuse one drop with another,

would I confuse Iyov with oyev?!

מאי משמע דהאי תעלה לישנא דדפוס היא?

אמר רבה בר שילא:

דכתיב:

״ויעש תעלה

כבית סאתים זרע״.

Incidentally, the Talmud asks: From where may it be inferred that this term te’ala means a channel?

Rabba bar Sheila said:

As it is written with regard to Elijah the prophet:

“And he fashioned a channel [te’ala] about the altar,

as great as would contain two se’a of seed” (I Kings 18:32).

Thunderclaps - Each thunderclap has its own path - God assigns a separate path to each thunderclap - If two came through one path, they would destroy the world (Job 38:25 – “Or a path for the lightning of thunder?”)

God states that he created unique paths for each thunderclap¹⁰ so they don’t converge and destroy the world.

The same formula follows: if God can separate thunderclaps, He surely can distinguish between a loyal servant and an enemy.

״ודרך לחזיז קלות״ –

הרבה קולות בראתי בעבים,

וכל קול וקול בראתי לו שביל בפני עצמו,

כדי שלא יהו שתי קולות יוצאות משביל אחד;

שאלמלי שתי קולות יוצאות משביל אחד –

מחריבין את כל העולם.

בין קול לקול לא נתחלף לי,

בין איוב לאויב נתחלף לי?!

The second half of the aforementioned verse in Job states: “Or a path for the lightning of thunder,”

which is interpreted as follows: God said: I have created many thunderclaps in the clouds,

and for each and every thunderclap I created its own path,

so that two thunderclaps should not issue forth from the same path.

As were two thunderclaps to issue from the same path --

they would destroy the world.

Now, if I do not confuse one thunderclap with another,

would I confuse Iyov with oyev?!

Wild Goat (יעלה) - Gives birth on mountaintops - God sends an eagle to catch the falling kid and return it to the mother - If the eagle were early or late, the kid would die (Job 39:1 – “Do you know when the wild goats give birth?”)

The female wild goat¹¹ is described as cruel, giving birth from high places so the offspring falls to its death.

God ensures survival by sending an eagle to catch the newborn mid-air—precisely on time. If the eagle arrived early or late, the kid would die.¹²

The argument: God times even such moments accurately, so He wouldn’t misjudge Job.

״הידעת עת לדת יעלי סלע,

חלל אילות תשמר״ –

יעלה זו אכזרית על בניה,

בשעה שכורעת ללדת,

עולה לראש ההר

כדי שיפול ממנה וימות;

ואני מזמין לה נשר

שמקבלו בכנפיו

ומניחו לפניה,

ואלמלי מקדים רגע אחד או מתאחר רגע אחד –

מיד מת.

בין רגע לרגע לא נתחלף לי,

בין איוב לאויב נתחלף לי?!

It is further stated there: “Do you know when the wild goats of the rock give birth?

Can you mark when the hinds do calve?” (Job 39:1).

This goat is cruel to her young and shows them no pity;

when she squats to give birth

she ascends to the top of a mountain

so that the kid should fall down from her and die.

And I summon her an eagle

that receives it with his wings

and places it before her;

and if the eagle reached her one moment early or was one moment late --

the kid would immediately die.

Now, if I do not confuse one moment with another moment,

would I confuse Iyov with oyev?!

Hind (אילה) - Has a narrow womb - God sends a snake to bite and loosen the womb for safe delivery - If the snake were early or late, the mother would die (Job 39:1 – “Can you mark when the hinds calve?”)

The hind¹³ has a narrow womb¹⁴ that endangers her during birth.

God sends a snake¹⁵ to bite her womb (בית הרחם - i.e. her external genital area) to loosen it just in time.¹⁶

Once more, precision is critical; a moment too early or late would be fatal.

If God distinguishes between moments, He wouldn’t confuse Iyov and oyev.

״חלל אילות תשמר״ –

אילה זו רחמה צר;

בשעה שכורעת ללדת,

אני מזמין לה דרקון

שמכישה בבית הרחם,

ומתרפה ממולדה;

ואלמלי מקדים רגע אחד או מאחר רגע אחד --

מיד מתה.

בין רגע לרגע לא נתחלף לי,

בין איוב לאויב נתחלף לי?!

Similarly: “Can you mark when the hinds do calve?” (Job 39:1).

The womb of this hind is narrow, which makes for a difficult delivery.

When she squats to give birth,

I summon her a snake [derakon]

that bites her at the opening of the womb,

which then becomes loose, and she gives birth,

and if the snake reached her one moment early or was one moment late --

she would immediately die.

Now, if I do not confuse one moment with another moment,

would I confuse Iyov with oyev?!

Appendix - Table Summarizing

1. This extended passage is embedded in the larger Job sugya; I analyzed that sugya in my recent three-part series: “Book of Job in Talmudic Interpretation: Job's Contested Righteousness and Satan's Character (Bava Batra 15b-16b)“, final part here.

This passage specifically is a continuation of the statement in the section, ibid.: “Rabba - Job blasphemed with a tempest and was answered in a tempest - Job 9:17; 38:1“.

2. אויב - ‘oyev’ - through flipping of the middle two vowels - yod and vav.

In linguistics, this flipping of letters/sounds is called “metathesis”

See Wikipedia, “Metathesis (linguistics)“:

Metathesis […] is the transposition of sounds or syllables in a word or of words in a sentence.

Most commonly, it refers to the interchange of two or more contiguous segments or syllables, known as adjacent metathesis or local metathesis:

• anemone > **anenome (onset consonants of adjacent syllables)

• cavalry > **calvary (codas of adjacent syllables)

For other examples of wordplay in the Talmud using metathesis, see these pieces of mine:

• here (in a footnote): פרזונו - פזרן - metathesis of zayin and reish

• here (in a footnote): “רפיא - an Aramaic word meaning “weakened, loosened”, cognate with late biblical Hebrew ריפה, interpreting the biblical word yafri (יפריא) based on this sense, with metathesis to rafya (רפיא).“

3. It’s worth noting that in the Talmudic worldview, the possibility of divine harm due to mistaken identity is not inherently absurd. The Angel of Death’s assistant is said to have mistakenly killed someone due to confusing identity; see my “Three Stories: Mistaken Death Caused by the Angel of Death's agent; R' Yehoshua ben Ḥananya and a Heretic in Caesar’s Palace; and Rav Kahana’s Voyeuristic Eavesdropping on Rav (Chagigah 4b-5b)“, section “Story of a mistaken death caused by the Angel of Death's agent“, where a woman named “Miriam” is killed due to being mistaken with a different Miriam.

As I summarize there:

Rav Yosef cried upon reaching the verse: “But there are those swept away without justice” (Proverbs 13:23). He questioned if people die before their time for no reason.

The Talmud confirms this with the incident of Rav Beivai bar Abaye, who frequently saw the Angel of Death (מלאך המות). The Angel of Death sent his agent to kill Miriam the hairdresser (מרים מגדלא שיער נשייא - a personality possibly related to Mary Magdalene, in the Talmud’s view), but the agent mistakenly killed Miriam the caregiver of babies (מרים מגדלא דרדקי). When asked if the mistake could be rectified, the Angel of Death refused, stating that once she was brought, she counted toward the number of deceased.

Rav Beivai questioned how the agent could kill her prematurely. The agent explained that Miriam’s luck had turned when she scalded herself, providing an opportunity for her death.

Rav Beivai then asked the Angel of Death if it was just to take someone before their time. The Angel of Death cited Proverbs 13:23 to justify his actions, and Rav Beivai countered with Ecclesiastes 1:4, suggesting that life spans are predetermined.

The Angel of Death explained that he ensures the years of each generation are completed before passing them to the angel Duma (דומה). When asked about the unused years of those who die prematurely, the Angel of Death explained that these years are given to Torah scholars who forgive personal offenses, thereby extending their lives as replacements for the prematurely deceased.

It’s worth noting that according to Tal Ilan, around half (!) of all known named women with Hebrew names in 1st-2nd centuries CE were named Miriam (=Mary). So surnames/nicknames were needed, and mistaken identity was likely indeed common.

4. נתחלף לי - literally: “be switched for me”.

This is the standard way of saying “to confuse two things”.

For example, see Taanit.25a.5:

חד בי שמשי

חזייה לברתיה דהוות עציבא,

אמר לה:

בתי!

אמאי עציבת?

The Talmud relates that one Shabbat evening (בי שמשי - i.e. late Friday afternoon, erev Shabbat),

R’ Ḥanina ben Dosa saw that his daughter was sad (עציבא).

He said to her:

My daughter!

why are you sad?

אמרה ליה:

כלי של חומץ נתחלף לי בכלי של שמן

והדלקתי ממנו אור לשבת.

She said to him:

I confused (נתחלף לי) a vessel of vinegar for a vessel of oil

and I lit the Shabbat lamp (אור) with vinegar.

Soon the lamp will be extinguished and we will be left in the dark.

אמר לה:

בתי!

מאי אכפת לך?!

מי שאמר לשמן וידלוק —

הוא יאמר לחומץ וידלוק.

תנא:

היה דולק והולך כל היום כולו,

עד שהביאו ממנו אור להבדלה.

He said to her:

My daughter!

what are you concerned about?! (מאי אכפת לך)

He Who said to the oil that it should burn —

can say to the vinegar that it should burn.

A tanna taught:

That lamp burned continuously the entire day (i.e. the entire Shabbat, the 24+ hours from before Friday sundown to after Saturday sundown),

until they brought from it light for havdala.

5. Via wordplay on the word “se’ara” in Job 38:1 as storm/hair, linking the storm (סְעָרָה - se’ara) of Job’s vision to God’s “hairs-breadth” (שַׂעֲרָה - se’ara) precision.

6. נימין -from Greek nêmă: “thread, strand”.

7. גומא - literally: “dimple‏, indentation‏, ditch”.

8. Modern scientific assessment: True that each hair grows from its own follicle.

However, shared follicles do occur (e.g. pili multigemini) and do not affect eyesight.

9. דפוס - from Greek. On this word, see my extended note in “Pt2 ‘Leḥem Oni’ vs. Luxury: ‘The Bread of Affliction’ and the Halakhic Boundaries of Passover Matza (Pesachim 35b-37b)“, on section “Debating Shaped Matza and Leavening Risks“.

10. קולות בראתי בעבים - literally: “I created sounds in the clouds”.

11. יעלה - “wild goat, mountain goat‏, ibex‏‏‏‏”.

12. Modern scientific assessment: Wild goats (e.g. ibex) do climb to birth sites but do not drop offspring intentionally; no evidence of eagle midwifery.

13. אילה - “hind, deer‏, stag‏, hart‏, buck‏‏“.

14. רחמה צר.

The Hebrew term rehem (“womb”) has very broad usage in the Talmud; it can refer to any part the female reproductive system. In our context, it’s clearly referring to the birth canal, and external genitalia.

The (supposed) “narrow womb” of the ayalah (hind) is also mentioned elsewhere in the Talmud, to assert that her mate gets special pleasure during sex, due to her tight vagina. On this, see my “Talmudic Interpretations of the Book of Esther: Esther 2:6-20 (Megillah 13a)“, section “Ahasuerus’ Attraction to Esther (Esther 2:17): Ahasuerus could choose to experience her as either a virgin or as a non-virgin“, and my extended note there.

For other rabbinic terms for parts of the female reproductive system, see my “Pt2 Fig Metaphors and Female Development: Puberty, Maturity, and Majority (Niddah 47a-b)“, section “Appendix 4 - Architectural Metaphor for Female Reproductive Anatomy: Room, Corridor, Upper story (=Uterus, Vagina, and Bladder) (Mishnah Niddah 2:5 = Niddah 17b)“, and ibid., section “Appendix 1b - Dictionary / table of unusual anatomical and metaphorical terms used in the sugya“ (rows # 10-15).

The standard Talmudic euphemism for a woman’s vulva / genital area is “that place” (אותו מקום); see for example the multiple appearances of that term in my piece “Pt1 Talmudic Perspectives on Marital Sex: Behaviors, Consequences, and Ethics (Nedarim 20a-b)“, section “Ministering Angels and Congenital Disabilities: R' Yoḥanan ben Dehavai’s Teachings on the Causes of Physical Impairments from Proscribed Sexual Behaviors“.

15. דרקון - from Greek drắkōn: “dragon, serpent“.

Cognate with modern English “dragon”.

Notably, one of the returning clans listed in the Book of Ezra is named “Drakon”; see Hebrew Wikipedia, ibid., my translation:

Based on the foreignness of their names, the Bnei Drakon were labeled as descendants of foreigners, and they were likely the offspring of populations annexed into the Kingdom of Israel as early as the time of Solomon’s reign.

Over time, they shifted from being temple slaves to temple functionaries.

In the book of Ezra, they are considered assistants to the Levites and low-ranking temple workers who became assimilated into Israel.

Probably by complete coincidence, the clan name immediate before Drakon’s is “Ya’alah” (! - יעלה = “female wild goat”, as earlier), in Ezra.2.55-57:

בני עבדי שלמה:

1. בני־סטי

2. בני־הספרת

3. בני פרודא

4. בני־יעלה

5. בני־דרקון

6. בני גדל

7. בני שפטיה

8. בני־חטיל

9. בני פכרת הצביים

10. בני אמי

כל־הנתינים ובני עבדי שלמה —

שלש מאות תשעים ושנים

Benei “Solomon’s slaves” (בני עבדי שלמה) [are as follows]:

1. Benei Sotai,

2. Benei Hassophereth,

3. Benei Peruda,

4. Benei Yaalah,

5. Benei Drakon,

6. Benei Giddel,

7. Benei Shephatiah,

8. Benei Hattil,

9. Benei Pochereth-hazzebaim [=”the deer”(?)],

10. Benei Ami.

Hebrew ‘Bnei’ here means ”sons/children/descendants of”.

Compare Arabic ‘banu’:

Banū or Banī is Arabic for "the children of" or "descendants of" and appears before the name of a tribal progenitor.

And compare the standard Biblical and rabbinic term for Jews: “Benei Yisrael” (בני ישראל).

On clan names in the Second Temple period (in late biblical books and in the Mishnah), see the following pieces of mine:

• “The Eight Second Temple Clans in the Schedule of the Wood Offering, Purported Descendants of Families mentioned in Late Biblical Books (Mishnah, Ta'anit 4:5)“

• “Fifteen Named Officials Who Served in Specific positions in the Late Second Temple, in the Context of Late Biblical Books (Mishnah, Shekalim 5:1)“.

16. Modern scientific assessment: Some deer species have narrow birth canals, but no role of snakes in parturition.