The Beraisa that we just discussed (which lists Yehoshua as the author of the last eight Pesukim in the Torah) conforms to the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah (or Rebbi Nechemyah). In another Beraisa. Rebbi Shimon, based on the Pasuk in Ve'yeilech "Lako'ach es Seifer ha'Torah ha'Zeh", disagrees with him - because the Seifer-Torah (that Moshe was told to take and place in [or beside] the Aron) would then have been missing eight Pesukim, rendering it Pasul.

According to Rebbi Shimon - Moshe himself wrote the last eight Pesukim, but he wrote them a. without repeating them before transcribing them (as he did the rest of the Torah), and b. with tears and not with ink (see also Agados Maharsha).

When Rav Yehudah Amar Rav says that a Yachid reads the last eight Pesukim in the Torah, he means - that one person must read them all (and they cannot be divided into two Aliyos).

This statement seems to follow the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah in the Beraisa that we just learned. We nevertheless reconcile it with the opinion of Rebbi Shimon - on the grounds that since it is different, it is different (even though Moshe wrote them, too).

The person who continued to write Yehoshua from the Pasuk that records ...

... Yehoshua's death was - Elazar ben Aharon.

... Elazar, the son of Aharon's death was - his son, Pinchas.

The two Nevi'im who concluded Seifer Shmuel, from the Pasuk that records Shmuel's death were - Gad ha'Chozeh and Nasan ha'Navi.

We learned that ten people contributed towards Seifer Tehilim. The Tana does not include Eisan ha'Ezrachi because, we learn from the Pasuk (in connection with Avraham) "Mi He'ir mi'Mizrach" - that Eisan ha'Ezrachi was alias Avraham (who is already including in the ten).

Rav learns from the Pasuk "be'Chol Beisi Ne'eman Hu" (from a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Heiman" "Ne'eman") - that Heiman is alias Moshe.

Nevertheless, the Tana lists Heiman despite the fact that we did not list Eisan - because the Heiman to whom he is referring is somebody else (not Moshe).

The problem with the proposal that Iyov lived concurrently with Moshe, due to the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Eifoh" "Eifoh" ("Mi Yiten Eifoh" and "u'va'Meh Yivada Eifoh") is - that the word "Eifoh also appears in connection with Yitzchak, Ya'akov and Yosef.

Rav finally learns that Iyov lived in the time of Moshe, based on the Pasuk in Iyov "Mi Yiten ba'Seifer ve'Yuchaku" - from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "ve'Yuchaku" "Mechokek" (written in ve'Zos ha'Berachah in connection with Moshe).

Initially, Rava learns from the Pesukim "Ish Hayah be'Eretz Utz Iyov Sh'mo" and "ha'Yesh bo Eitz im Ayin" (in Sh'lach-Lecha) - that Iyov lived in the era of the Meraglim (the twelve spies).

We refute this 'Gezeirah-Shavah' however, on the grounds that "Utz" and "Eitz" are totally unconnected. So Rava finally extrapolates from "ha'Yesh bo Eitz" that Iyov lived in the time of the Meraglim - because this expression has the connotations of someone who protected the Cana'anim (with his merits) like a tree, and who lived long like a tree, and the only person who fits this description is Iyov.

When a certain Chacham ...

... Darshened that Iyov was a parable and that he never lived, Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmeni retorted - that if that is so, why does the Torah write about him "Ish Hayah be'Eretz Utz, Iyov Sh'mo" (based on the premise that "Hayah" [Lashon Havayah] is always based on reality).

... countered by quoting the parable of the poor man and his lamb that Nasan ha'Navi told David (by which the Pasuk also writes "va'Tehi lo la'Bas"), he replied that, nevertheless, the cases are not comparable - because (irrespective of the Lashon), if Iyov never lived, why does the Pasuk here present us with Iyov's name and place of birth?

According to Rebbi Yochanan and Rebbi Elazar, Iyov returned with Ezra from Bavel, and his Beis ha'Medrash was - in Teverya.

They reconcile their opinion with the Beraisa which lists Iyov as having lived from the time Yisrael arrived in Egypt until they left, by adjusting the Lashon slightly to read - that he lived 'as long as from the time ... (two hundred and ten years)'.

When Iyov's troubles began - he was seventy, and a hundred and forty years were subsequently added to his life, as the Pasuk specifically writes.

The Tana in a Beraisa lists - seven prophets who prophesied on behalf of the Nochrim.

The last four are Elifaz ha'Teimani (from the family of Eisav), Beldad ha'Shuchi, Tzofer ha'Na'amasi (the three friends of Iyov) and Elihu ben B'rachel from the family of Ram. The first three were - Bil'am, his father and Iyov.

Rebbi Yochanan and Rebbi Elazar reconcile their opinion (that Iyov was from Yisrael) with the previous Beraisa - by interpreting it to mean that they prophesied on behalf of the Nochri nations, but not that they themselves were necessarily Nochrim.

We prove this from Elihu ben B'rachel, who, we know, was a Yisrael, either because the Pasuk gives his Yichus, or - because Ram refers to Avraham, from whose family he descended.

The Tana is indeed informing us that the above-mentioned prophets prophesied on behalf of the Nochri nations (and not that they were themselves Nochrim), and their prophesies differed from those of many of the other prophets, who also prophesied on behalf of Nochri nations - inasmuch as the thrust of the latter was on behalf of Yisrael, unlike the above seven, who prophesied predominantly on behalf of the Nochrim.

Another Beraisa says that Iyov, who lived in the days of the Shoftim and whom it describes as a Chasid Umos ha'Olam explains that - he came down to this world to receive his reward. When Hash-m sent him suffering, he (ultimately) cursed and insulted Him, so Hash-m doubled his reward in this world.

Rebbi Yochanan and Rebbi Elazar will justify their opinion in view of this Beraisa - by citing a Machlokes Tana'im (as we shall now see).

Rebbi Elazar (ben Shamua) in yet another Beraisa, extrapolates from the Pasuk in Iyov "Hein atem Kulchem Chazisem, ve'Lamah Zeh Hevel Tehbalu" - that Iyov must have lived in the times of the Shoftim (because that was an era where the best among them were worthless).

Rebbi Yehoshua ben Korchah extrapolates from the Pasuk "And there were not to be found in the entire land women as beautiful as the daughters of Iyov" - that Iyov must have lived in the times of Achashverosh, when they were searching for beautiful women throughout the land.

The Pasuk cannot be referring to the time of David (where the Pasuk in Shmuel also writes "And they sought a beautiful girl throughout the borders of Yisrael") - because that was confined to all of Yisrael", and not throughout the world, as was the case by both Iyov and Achashverosh.

According to Yesh Omrim (Rebbi Nasan), Iyov lived in the days of the Queen of Sheba, and according to the Rabbanan, in the days of the Kasdim (Nevuchadnetzar), and they learn this from their respective Pesukim. Yesh Omrim learns learn from the Gezeirah-Shavah "ha'Nevalos" "Nevalah" ("ke'Daber Achas ha'Nevalos" [Iyov] and "ki Nevalah Asah be'Yisrael" [Vayishlach]) - that Iyov must have lived during the era of Ya'akov (and Sh'chem) ...

... and that he must have married Ya'akov's daughter, Dinah,

We know that all of these Tana'im (consider Iyov to have been a Yisrael (except for one [vindicating Rebbi Yochanan and Rebbi Elazar]) from a statement by Mar, who learned from the Pasuk "ve'Niflinu Ani ve'Amcha" - that there would be no more prophets among the Nochrim after the days of Moshe.

The one exception is - Yesh Omrim, in whose opinion Iyov lived in the times of Ya'akov (who preceded Moshe), as we just explained.

Rebbi Yochanan learns from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Chazisem" " ve'Nechzeh" (from the Pesukim "Hein atem Kulchem Chazisem ... Hevel Tehbalu" [Iyov] and "Shuvi Shuvi ha'Shulamis ve'Nechzeh bach" [Shir Hashirim]) that the people who lived in Iyov's generation were licentiou (they wanted to gaze at the beautiful women). "Chazisem" cannot be a Lashon of prophesy, implying that the people of that time were all prophets - because then why would the Pasuk conclude with the words "Hevel Tehbalu"?

Rebbi Yochanan interprets the opening Pasuk in Shoftim "Vayehi bi'Yemei Shefot ha'Shoftim" to mean - that it was a generation that could judge its judges, since they were no less guilty than the people they sentenced.

When the Shofet ...

... would instruct the litigant to pay back the splinter that he had stolen, the latter would reply that - the judge should first return the beam that he had stolen.

... told him that his silver was mixed with impurities (see Rabeinu Gershom), he would reply that - his wine was mixed with water.

According to Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmeni Amar Rebbi Yonasan, "Malkas Sh'va" was not a woman, but - a kingdom (as if it had written "Malchus Sh'va") see Agados Maharsha.

The Pasuk in Iyov relates that the Satan came before Hash-m together with the other angels. He was coming to report the good deeds - of Avraham Avinu, who, he said, had no equal in the whole world. In particular, he praised him - for not querying Hash-m when he had to pay four hundred Shekel for a plot of land to bury Sarah, even though Hash-m had already given him Eretz Yisrael, and he had even had him walk the length and breadth of it, to reinforce his ownership.

Hash-m responded - by asking the Satan whether he had paid attention to Iyov, for there was nobody like him in the whole land.

Rebbi Yochanan comments on Hash-m's description of Iyov "Ish Tam ve'Yashar, Y'rei Elokim ve'Sar me'Ra" - that the praise that is written in connection with Iyov exceeds the praise that is written about Avraham, to whom Hash-m, in Vayeira, only referred as "Y'rei Elokim".

Rebbi Aba bar Shmuel interprets "ve'Sar me'Ra" to mean that Iyov was a 'Vatran be'Mamono' meaning - that when other people who owed a laborer half a P'rutah, they would take him to a store, where he would purchase eggs or milk to the value of a P'rutah, which they would then divide. Not so Iyov, who would give the laborer the full P'rutah to avoid being petty.

In prosecuting Iyov, the Satan claimed inter alia ...

... "Ma'aseh Yadav Berachta", which Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak explains to mean - that whoever received a P'rutah from Iyov was blessed.

... "u'Mikneihu Paratz ba'Aretz", which Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina explains to mean - that his flock broke all norms, by killing the wolves that attacked them.

When Rebbi Yochanan, explaining the Pasuk "ha'Bakar Hayu Chorshos ve'ha'Asonos Ro'os al Yedeihen", comments 'Melamed she'Hit'imo Hakadosh Baruch Hu le'Iyov Me'ein Olam ha'Ba", he is referring to - the phenomenon of his animals conceiving and giving birth on the same day.

It was with regard to his vast flocks and herds that the first messenger came with the bad news that they had all been captured. The second messenger broke the news that a band of Babylonians had attacked his camels and captured them. In both cases, the servants looking after them had all been killed, and messenger was the only one to escape. The third messenger told him - that his sons and daughters had all died when a storm-wind blew down the house in which they were all sitting.

Iyov's sons and daughters were - partying at the house of the oldest sibling, when this happened.

Iyov's immediate reaction to this bitter piece of news was - to rise from his seat, tear his clothes and shave off his hair. Then he fell on the ground and prostrated himself, and declared 'Arum Yatzasi mi'Beten Imi (referring to the bowels of the earth), ve'Arum Ashuv Shamah; Y'hi Shem Hash-m Mevorach!'.