איוב, פרק ל״ה, פסוק ד׳

In the midst of a heated debate over the nature of suffering and divine justice, a new voice steps in to challenge the assumptions of everyone involved. Elihu comes forward to confront not only Job but also the friends who sit with him, offering a fresh philosophical perspective that breaks away from both sides. He makes it clear that his response is directed at the friends just as much as it is at Job [ביאור שטיינזלץ].

The inclusion of these friends in the rebuke stems from a few different factors. On one hand, they are criticized for their silence; when faced with Job's difficult arguments, they were simply unable to provide a proper response [רש״י]. However, the primary approach among commentators is that Elihu fundamentally disagrees with the friends' entire worldview. He firmly rejects their harsh judgment, which assumed that Job's severe suffering could only be the result of great sin and wickedness [מצודת דוד, אלשיך].

Their underlying theology was deeply flawed. The friends believed that human worship actually benefits God and fulfills a divine need, much like a human king who rewards those who help him and punishes those who harm him. Elihu dismantles this assumption. If God truly needed human righteousness, then Job's complaint about not receiving a proper reward for his perfect service would actually be justified. Furthermore, viewing human actions merely as a mechanical service would imply that people act purely out of necessity, stripping away their free will. In such a scenario, a person would be no different from a millstone that grinds flour simply because the water forces it to turn, making the very concept of an earned reward meaningless. By uprooting this core theological error held by the friends, Elihu simultaneously answers Job, effectively countering the misguided claims of everyone involved in the dispute [מלבי״ם, אלשיך].