Chapter 32 opens a completely new stage in the Book of Iyov. The three friends have exhausted their arguments, and Iyov has bested them with his claims. Now, in the poetic words of the Malbim: "A valiant man went forth into the fray, discerning in speech, and Hashem was with him. He spoke with the disputants at the gate, turned back the battle at the gate, and showed his might in declaring the truth of these matters. He established them and searched them out through the spirit of Hashem upon him, and through the intimate counsel of holy ones and those of perfect knowledge within his heart. Until, at the conclusion of his words, he revealed the secret of Hashem: what took place when the heavenly beings came to present themselves before the Master of all the earth, with the Satan among them, as recounted at the beginning of the book. The ultimate resolution of the debate is found in the prologue of the book, and all this became known to Elihu through 'the secret of Hashem to those who fear Him.'"
In other words: Elihu is destined to reveal the secret that we, the readers, were already introduced to in the opening chapters - that the heavenly beings came and declared that Iyov is God-fearing and shuns evil, the Satan countered, "Does Iyov fear God for nothing?", and the Holy One, blessed be He, said: test him. Not one of Iyov's friends knew that all he was enduring was not retribution or payment for his sins, but purely a trial. Such knowledge cannot be attained through human intellect alone, which is why the Malbim emphasizes that it became known to Elihu through "the secret of Hashem to those who fear Him." Who enters the inner counsel of Hashem to know that there was indeed a debate in the supernal realms and that the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded to test him? Only one admitted into Hashem's secret counsel. This is what Elihu knew, and this is what he is about to reveal.
The author of the book prefaces that already during the debate, Elihu's wrath flared. His anger burned against Iyov "because he justified himself rather than God." Elihu contends with him: although you know that you are righteous and have found no reason or cause within yourself for your suffering, you should not have allowed the subjective truth perceived by the observer to override the objective truth of the reality being perceived.
What does this mean? It is clear to all of us that one cannot attribute to the Holy One, blessed be He, any lack of wisdom, lack of capability, or lack of will. Such an idea is rejected by logic and reason; it is self-evident and requires no proof. This is what is termed an "axiom of the intellect": anyone with an ounce of sense recognizes that there is a Supreme Being. We know this is the Holy One, blessed be He, whose Name is Hashem (Y-H-W-H). Not one of the two hundred greatest scientists of the past two centuries denied the existence of a Higher Power that created the world. Even Einstein, a giant of science who was chosen as Time magazine's Person of the Century, believed that there is a God who governs the world. He did not follow through to the ultimate conclusions - that one must consequently put on tefillin and keep Shabbat - but the very existence of a Creator was obvious to him: he remarked that one would have to be blind not to see that Someone created and formed the world and guides it. This is an axiom, a foundational premise beyond dispute.
And from this premise it follows that this Being, His very Essence, blessed be He, is utterly and completely perfect, free of any flaw, and He governs and oversees the world with boundless and infinite wisdom and will. Along comes Iyov and says: I have a question on this axiom. On the one hand, I am told there is a God of abundant kindness, whose judgment is just, whose every act is utterly flawless and in Whom no injustice can be found - yet on the other hand, the empirical facts prove the opposite: here is Iyov, a righteous man, suffering.
Elihu answers him: it is unfitting for a person to decide based on empirical, sensory proofs against rational, intellectual proofs. What you perceive through your senses cannot overturn what is known to us through intellect and wisdom.
Take the perception of the eye as an example. Do we take in images right-side up or upside down? Upside down. No one would claim "right-side up," even though we see everything right-side up. Why? Because one never challenges the rational intellect based on sensory perception. What we know through intellect is far stronger than what we see. The scientific explanation is that the brain possesses a mechanism that inverts the image, and thereby we see it right-side up. One can always find an explanation, but to say "since that is what I saw, it cannot be" is sheer nonsense. After all, a person in the desert might see an oasis - a fata morgana - when in reality it is entirely an illusion.
So too with radio waves. If someone asks whether there are radio waves here, we would say: yes. Yet no person has ever seen a radio wave. What is drawn as waves is not a photograph; no one knows what a radio wave looks like. And how do we know they exist? One turns on a transistor radio and it works. The intellect tells us that radio waves are present, even if one waves his hands and nothing tangible moves. The same is true of the atom: no human being has ever seen an atom - not even Einstein - nor is it possible to see one, let alone subatomic quanta, even under a microscope. How then do we know? From particle accelerators, from the behavior of matter under specific conditions. We are discerning enough to know that sensory perception does not determine reality; the intellect does.
And this is Elihu's argument against Iyov: you should not have privileged the truth perceived by the observer over the objective truth of the reality being perceived. You are not permitted to decide based on what is perceived through the senses against the inner truth of the matter as grasped by the intellect. The Malbim offers his own illustration: if a person were asked about the size of the sun, he might take a ruler, look up, and say, "Four centimeters." Yet the sun is vastly larger than the earth! But what you see is nothing compared to what we know through intellect - that the sun is immense, and that it appears small only because of its vast distance. So too here: it was proper for you to set aside what you see and believe in what you know - that the judgment of the Holy One, blessed be He, is righteous and there is no injustice. And if one sees the opposite, it is simply a sign that he is not seeing correctly.
And nevertheless, Elihu's wrath was also directed at the three friends. It is true that the rational supersedes the empirical, but is that any reason to ignore empirical reality entirely? Absolutely not. After all, any investigation begins with what is perceived by the senses, with the tangible reality before us. When a contradiction appears between sensory perception and rational deduction, neither extreme is acceptable: to abandon sensory perception completely and rely solely on reason is unacceptable, for empirical reality is still crying out otherwise; and to abandon reason completely and rely solely on perception is unacceptable, for intellectually we know otherwise. What is proper? To find a middle path, a resolution that explains how reason does not contradict empirical observation.
Consider the example given earlier: reason dictates that the eye sees inverted, while sensory perception tells you that you see upright. The solution is not to dismiss either reality, but to explain that a mechanism in the brain flips the image. Now the rational truth does not contradict empirical perception: one explains both why we see upright and why, in truth, the eye captures the image upside down.
This was Elihu's critique of both sides. You, Iyov, clung to one extreme: what I see is all that exists, and I give no weight to rational truth. You forgot that the world has a Creator, that His judgment is just, that all is governed by law, and that He is absolute perfection. And your friends went to the opposite extreme: they completely disregarded empirical reality and followed only abstract reason. They should have found an explanation for why Iyov suffers even though he is not wicked; instead, they immediately declared: Hashem is righteous, and if you suffer, it proves you are wicked. But empirical reality shows otherwise! One can clearly see that Iyov is righteous, God-fearing, and untainted by wrongdoing. You should have found an explanation wherein Hashem is true and His judgment just, while Iyov remains upright and decent, yet nevertheless endures suffering. This resolution, Elihu declares, I will now present to you, and from it you will understand that both extreme perspectives - that of Iyov and that of his friends - were mistaken.
וַיִּשְׁבְּתוּ שְׁלֹשֶׁת הָאֲנָשִׁים הָאֵלֶּה מֵעֲנוֹת אֶת־אִיּוֹב כִּי הוּא צַדִּיק בְּעֵינָיו׃ - "So these three men ceased answering Iyov, because he was righteous in his own eyes."
The three friends cease their attempts to provide Iyov with explanations for his suffering. Why? "Because he was righteous in his own eyes." They had searched for sin within him: Eliphaz claimed he bore some overt past sin; Tzophar the Na'amathite claimed he harbored hidden sin; Bildad the Shuchite claimed he lacked complete perfection, and that the Holy One, Blessed is He, sought to refine and elevate him. This became especially pronounced in the second debate cycle, where they moved from analyzing "the righteous who suffers" to "the wicked who prospers", asserting that his wickedness was the sole cause of his suffering, and that his very afflictions were the proof. None of these arguments satisfied Iyov, because he could not accept the underlying premise from which they proceeded. Iyov knows that he never sinned, neither openly nor in secret, and knows that he did not lack perfection - and therefore, their entire line of reasoning failed to even begin addressing his suffering.
Herein lies a well-known principle in debate: one cannot debate someone who "denies the first principles upon which the debate is built", as the Philosopher put it. When entering a debate, there must be an agreed-upon foundation from which both parties proceed. If one says, "This act is moral," and the other says, "It is immoral," both share the fundamental premise that a person ought to act morally, and the debate concerns only this specific instance. But if one says an act is immoral, and the other responds, "Nonsense; man is merely another zoological species - would you demand morality of a lion, a cat, or a dog?" - there is no common ground for discussion. If you do not agree on the fundamentals, there is no point in debating the structure built upon them.
This is precisely the situation here: the friends' entire argument is built upon the premise that Iyov is wicked, from which they proceed to debate whether the wicked should suffer in this world or prosper. But Iyov rejects the fundamental premise that he is wicked. Consequently, the friends conclude: there is no purpose in continuing, "because he was righteous in his own eyes."
וַיִּחַר אַף אֱלִיהוּא בֶן־בַּרַכְאֵל הַבּוּזִי מִמִּשְׁפַּחַת רָם בְּאִיּוֹב חָרָה אַפּוֹ עַל־צַדְּקוֹ נַפְשׁוֹ מֵאֱלֹהִים׃ וּבִשְׁלֹשֶׁת רֵעָיו חָרָה אַפּוֹ עַל אֲשֶׁר לֹא־מָצְאוּ מַעֲנֶה וַיַּרְשִׁיעוּ אֶת־אִיּוֹב׃ - "Then the wrath of Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite, of the family of Ram, was kindled; against Iyov his wrath was kindled, because he justified himself rather than God. And against his three friends his wrath was kindled, because they found no answer, yet condemned Iyov."
Before examining this wrath, let us clarify who Elihu ben Barachel the Buzite was. In the Yerushalmi in Masechet Sotah, Rabbi Akiva expounded: "Then the wrath of Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite, of the family of Ram, was kindled" - Elihu is Bilaam; "the son of Barachel" [literally, blessed of God] - for he came to curse Israel and ended up blessing them, as it says, "And the Lord your God would not listen to Bilaam"; "the Buzite" [from buza, disgrace] - for his prophecy came in disgrace, "fallen, with eyes unveiled", as an uncircumcised gentile who could not converse with Hashem while standing; "of the family of Ram" - for he came from Aram, as it says, "From Aram Balak brought me."
Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah said to him: If it is indeed he - the Omnipresent has already concealed his identity, for Scripture hid his name and called him Elihu ben Berachel the Buzite; and if it is not he - he is destined to dispute with you and say: Why did you call me Bilam? In either case, one should not say so. Rather, Elihu is Yitzchak. "Ben Berachel" (son of Berachel) - a descriptive title, for God blessed him (berecho El); "HaBuzi" (the Buzite) - because he despised (bizah) all shrines of idolatry when he was bound upon the altar, being prepared to give his life for the sanctification of Hashem's Name; "of the family of Ram" - the son of Avram. And we have already seen an opinion that Eliphaz, one of Iyov's companions, was Eliphaz the son of Esav, and according to this, it refers to the same era. There are other opinions among Chazal, but these two opinions cited in the Yerushalmi are sufficient for us.
And now to the burning wrath. Elihu knew the true reason for Iyov's suffering - that it was a trial, as was revealed to us at the beginning of the book - and therefore his wrath burned against both sides. Against Iyov: It is true that you know you are righteous, and with great difficulty you ask how it is possible that a righteous person suffers, but you should not have drawn the conclusion from this that Hashem acts unjustly and inflicts punishment on those who do not deserve it. You should have acknowledged intellectual axioms - that "The Rock, His work is perfect, a God of faithfulness without iniquity, righteous and upright is He." You went to one extreme: looking only at sensory perception; the senses say that a righteous person is suffering, and your conclusion is that there is no justice in the world. You should not have ruled against the proofs of intellect.
On the other hand, "and against his three companions his wrath burned, because they found no answer and condemned Iyov": You indeed followed intellectual axioms, that Hashem's judgment is true and there is no injustice before Him, but how could you ignore reality? You should not have denied the observable reality, and the observable reality is that Iyov is righteous. Both sides went to extremes: Iyov says he has no interest in intellectual principles, only in reality, and his conclusion is that Hashem acts unjustly; while the companions follow only intellectual principles, erasing reality and saying: You are wicked. And when they see he is not wicked, they repeat again: Wicked. Both extremes are illogical. What should have been done? To find an explanation wherein intellectual truths reconcile with reality: indeed you are righteous, and nevertheless there is no injustice here. Following one side while ignoring the other - both extremes do not act properly.
וֶאֱלִיהוּ חִכָּה אֶת־אִיּוֹב בִּדְבָרִים כִּי זְקֵנִים־הֵמָּה מִמֶּנּוּ לְיָמִים׃ - And Elihu had waited for Iyov with words, because they were older than he in days.
A tremendous wonder: Only in Chapter 32 did you awaken, Elihu? People here have been debating for weeks and months, each presenting his arguments, and you come along and refute everyone - neither Iyov spoke to the point, nor did the three companions speak to the point. If so, why did you sit on the side until now?
Regarding this, Scripture says: "And Elihu had waited for Iyov with words" - he waited and did not say the things he wanted and needed to say. And the reason: "because they were older than he in days." Since they were older than he, they had the right of precedence. Proper conduct dictates that the elder speaks first, and only afterward does the youth open his mouth, so that an ordinary person does not jump to the head. Therefore, he did not want to speak until he heard everything the elders had to say, and only then would the younger ones have their say.
וַיַּרְא אֱלִיהוּא כִּי־אֵין מַעֲנֶה בְּפִי שְׁלֹשֶׁת הָאֲנָשִׁים וַיִּחַר אַפּוֹ׃ - And Elihu saw that there was no answer in the mouth of the three men, and his wrath burned.
Seemingly, this is an unnecessary repetition: it was already stated above that his wrath burned against Iyov and against his companions, so why "and his wrath burned" once again? Rather, there is an added dimension here. As long as the companions presented a system of thought, Elihu said to himself: Perhaps later they will reinforce their words, perhaps in the next round they will find arguments that corroborate their line of reasoning, and therefore he waited. But once he saw that there was no answer in their mouth at all, that they could not conclude the debate even according to their own approach and could not substantiate their words - then his wrath burned all the more.
And this is a profound moral lesson: If ultimately it turns out that your words are not correct, why did you stubbornly persist all along in justifying them? It is a sign that from the start you did not come seeking genuine reasons; rather, it was the desire for victory - the main thing is that I come out right, that they will not say I was mistaken, I will subdue him. For if in the end you had been proven right, one could understand why you were so stubborn: you spoke the truth, he did not understand you, and you persisted until you proved it. But when in the end you throw up your hands, it becomes clear in retrospect that the entire dispute was solely to emerge triumphant and to be stubborn. And for that, the wrath is doubled.
Chapter 32 opens the speech of Elihu ben Berachel the Buzite - who, according to Rabbi Akiva, was Bilaam, and according to Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah, was Yitzchak Avinu - the only one who knew "from the secret of Hashem to those who fear Him" that Iyov's suffering was a test and not retribution for sins. The friends ceased answering because Iyov was righteous in his own eyes, and without agreement on the foundational premise, there is no room for debate at all. Elihu is angry with both sides alike: Iyov decided based on empirical reality against intellectual reason, deducing from it that there is injustice, Heaven forbid, while the friends clung solely to intellectual reason and denied the empirical reality that Iyov was righteous. The correct path is to reconcile the two - to show how the truth of Heavenly justice does not contradict the reality that a righteous person suffers. Elihu held back from speaking out of respect for his elders, and when he saw that they had no response at all, his anger flared even more; for prolonged stubbornness that ends in failure reveals that from the very beginning, this was not a search for truth, but merely a desire for victory.