איוב, פרק ל״ב, פסוק י״ד

Elihu steps into the debate with a fresh, independent perspective, deliberately distancing himself from both Job's complaints and the failed responses of the companions. He intends to approach the mystery of God's justice from a completely different angle.

The primary approach among commentators is that Elihu begins by pointing out a simple fact: Job never directed his arguments toward him, nor did they engage in a direct dispute [רש״י, ביאור שטיינזלץ]. Furthermore, Job's ongoing claims of personal innocence do not pose a challenge to Elihu, because the fundamental concepts Job uses to build his case do not align with Elihu's own system of wisdom [רמב״ן, מצודת דוד, מלבי״ם]. Taking a slightly different view, Elihu is expressing surprise that even though Job never aimed his arguments at him, the companions still broke down and found themselves entirely unable to answer [אבן עזרא].

Looking ahead to his own response, Elihu draws a distinction between basic concepts and fully formed arguments [מלבי״ם]. He makes it clear that even if Job had addressed him directly, he would never use the companions' statements to reply [רש״י, ביאור שטיינזלץ, אלשיך]. The companions had attempted to tear down Job's claims of innocence by accusing him of numerous sins. They operated under the assumption that since God does not pervert justice, Job must have done something terrible to deserve his punishment [מצודת דוד, אלשיך]. Elihu entirely rejects this method. He makes it known that his understanding of why righteous people suffer is entirely separate from theirs. He plans to offer a completely new answer, one that truly resolves the theological problem without relying on the companions' false accusations [רמב״ן, מלבי״ם].