איוב, פרק ט״ו, פסוק ג׳

Engaging in a pointless argument that leads to no practical outcome or intellectual growth is considered a deep flaw, especially when it happens among wise individuals. Eliphaz expresses intense frustration and criticism toward Job, questioning whether it is appropriate for a man of wisdom to argue when there is absolutely no benefit to his speech and neither side learns anything from the other [מצודת דוד]. Such an empty debate is not merely tasteless; it carries the risk of causing actual harm and becoming a stumbling block for others [רמב״ן].

The primary approach among commentators is that speech must offer a tangible benefit. Some emphasize that this benefit should come in the form of bringing pleasure and satisfaction to the listener [רש״י, מצודת ציון], while others focus on the value of teaching and learning [אבן עזרא]. To achieve this standard, words of wisdom require a dual perfection. First, the core topic itself must be interesting and bring pleasure to the audience. Second, the specific rhetoric and phrasing used to express the argument must be useful and directed toward a clear goal. The sharp criticism leveled at Job is that his arguments completely lack both of these essential qualities [מלבי״ם].

From a completely different angle, the situation highlights Eliphaz's deep despair over his inability to influence Job. He applies a psychological deduction, reasoning that if the severe physical suffering and actual afflictions that God brought upon Job failed to humble him and return him to the proper path, then the mere spoken rebukes of his friends will certainly be useless. In fact, more talking might only cause Job to become more entrenched in his position. The ultimate conclusion is that if a person is unwilling to accept a short and focused message, he will not be moved by a flood of words, making silence the much better option [אלשיך].