Ecclesiastes · Chapter 1

The words of Koheles. Wherever it is stated, “the words of דִּבְרֵי,” it introduces words or reproof. [For example,] “These are the words הַדְּבָרִים that Moshe spoke,” [followed by,] “And Yeshurun became fat [and kicked].” [Also,] “The words דִּבְרֵי of Amos,” [followed by,] “Hear this word, you cows of Bashan.” [Also,] “The words דִּבְרֵי of Yirmiyahu,” [followed by,] “Ask now and see whether a male gives birth, etc.” [And finally,] “And these are the words דִּבְרֵי of Dovid,” [followed by,] “But the wicked are all like thorns thrust away.” “The words דִּבְרֵי of Koheles” [is followed by,] “The sun rises ... All the rivers flow into the sea.” He refers to the wicked as the “sun,” the “moon,” and the “sea,” which earn no reward. So it was taught in Sifre. I learned from there that the section deals with the wicked and he compares them to the rising sun, which ultimately sets. Addendum: Another explanation, “All the rivers flow into the sea.” What is the meaning of this? This is stated concerning idolaters, the fools who prostrate themselves to the water thinking that it has substance because they see the Great Sea, into which all the rivers flow and it is not full, but they have no understanding that to the place where the rivers flow, they repeatedly go, for the water of the rivers that flow into the sea are the very same waters that already flowed; they flow from under the deep and flow above the surface until the sea and then flow again. Therefore, the rivers do not stop, and the sea is not full, and not because they have substance. End of addendum. — Notes: (1) Devarim 1:1. (2) Ibid. 32:15. (3) Amos 1:1. (4) Ibid. 4:1. (5) Yirmiyahu 1:1. (6) Ibid. 30:6. (7) II Shmuel 23:1. (8) Ibid. 23:6. (9) Below, verse 5. (10) Below, verse 7. Koheles. [He was called Koheles] because he gathered [=קִהֵל much wisdom, and similarly, elsewhere [Scripture] calls him, “Agur Bin Yokeh,” because he gathered אָגַר all the wisdom and spewed וַהֲקִיאָהּ it out, and some say that he would say all his words in public assembly [=בְּהַקְהֵל. — Notes: (11) The term קהלת meaning gathering is in Devarim 33:4 where it states, “the gathering [קהלת] of Yaakov.” (Metsudas Tzion) (12) Mishlei 30:1. This is a reference to Shlomo, meaning the gatherer [אגור] of wisdom [בן] spewed out [יקה] the prophecy [המשא]. (13) Alternatively, he gathered together and clarified many conflicting views. (Metsudas Tzion) King in Yerusholayim. The city of wisdom. Koheles is replete with wisdom, therefore it states that its author reigned in “the city of wisdom,” thus he was exposed to much wisdom and his conclusions are worthy of great regard. — Notes: (14) Shlomo is known by three titles. In Shir Hashirim 3:11 he is called King Shlomo, in Mishlei 1:1 he is called “King of Yisroel,” and here he is called “King in Yerusholayim.” The Gemara in Maseches Sanhedrin 20b, comments that his kingdom was diminished by the virtue of sin. He was first recognized universally as King Shlomo, after his sin he was King of Yisroel only, and then King of Yerusholayim alone. Alternatively, Sefer

"The words of" — It is written, "And he spoke three thousand proverbs, and his song was..." etc. (I Kings 5:12). Now a mashal (proverb/parable) is when one thing is represented through another, as in "propound a riddle (chidah), and speak a parable (mashal)" (Ezekiel 17:2) — that being "the great eagle" (Ezekiel 17:3), while the nimshal (the thing represented) is Nebuchadnezzar. And the way of a shir (song) is to be about something that has already occurred, or something that is destined to occur in the future. Now because Solomon wished to compose the matters that arise in the heart, he began with the word "the words of" (divrei) — yet it does not mean "all such words" without qualification, for the verse that comes after it clarifies it, or it itself likewise indicates it: namely, that the second verse in this book encompasses the first. And Kohelet is Solomon, for none of David's sons was anointed as king except him alone, and he was called thus because of the wisdom that was gathered (nikhalah) in him. And he mentioned the name of the place of his kingdom on account of its glory. Do you not see that the king of Jerusalem is called "Malki-Tzedek," for it (Jerusalem) is "Shalem" — as is shown by "and His tabernacle was in Shalem" (Psalms 76:3)? And likewise "Adoni-Tzedek" (Joshua 10:1), because he was lord of the place of righteousness (tzedek); and likewise "after the manner of Malki-Tzedek" (Psalms 110:4) — and he is King David.

May His glory be exalted and His splendor lifted high above all the good things that Hashem bestows upon man. This is because man is exalted above all the creatures, for behold, it is he who sustains all the worlds through every utterance that goes forth from the mouth of Hashem — that is, he fulfills, through the Torah of Hashem, His will, and through His commandments, by which he completes and imparts holy spirituality into this physical world; for a spirit from on high is poured out upon him to sustain him, lest he be, like smoke, dissolved into mere materiality — lest what befalls the body of a man in whom there is no spirit of God within him befall him too, for that body is like rot that decays, so would he too decay. And the way of his sustenance in this world is this: that the righteous man holds fast to his practice of treating the world and its affairs, in themselves, as hevel (vanity/breath), so that the World to Come be precious in his eyes, and that this world and its fullness be, in his regard, nothing but vessels and preparations by which to acquire the life of the World to Come — like one who sets up a ladder resting on the earth to reach the heavens, through engagement in Torah and mitzvot, which he performs with physical limbs and with the matters of this world, by means of which man performs the commandments of Hashem that Hashem commanded him to do. Therefore Solomon came in his wisdom, at the end of his days, and set, as the cornerstone of the sayings of the book he wrote, [the teaching] to treat the parts of the world as hevel, and made of it a cornerstone, from it a peg, toward the perfection of man, so that he might gain understanding to do good. For through it he will take to heart that the whole force of the deeds of this world is not to eat of its good and be satisfied from its fruit, to fill his belly and delight in the richness of his body; rather, [the purpose is] that all its good be considered nullified, reckoned like the dust of the earth, with his spirit raised above it. For when he comes forth from his mother's womb with the spirit of God within him, from Him, may He be blessed, he is like one who goes out from a permanent dwelling and comes to a temporary dwelling; or like one who goes out from a great city to a town, to trade in various kinds of merchandise, in order to bring home, at the appointed time, provisions for his house. He shall fill his soul from all the acquisitions of his gain that he acquired in the town to which he went, so as to delight in richness in the great city from which he came out — for there is his home, there he shall rest from all the labor with which he labored in the town to which he went. But one who did not labor in the town to accumulate gold like dust, shall return to his place naked as he came, and instead of delighting, he shall waste away and it shall go ill for him. For behold, this entire vision applies to every man of Israel: he goes forth from the permanent dwelling of the world above — from delight and luxury in the palaces of the King of the universe — and comes to the temporary dwelling of this world, to conduct business in Torah and mitzvot, in order to bring to the treasuries of the Holy King in the world above, filling his soul from all the labor with which he labored in this world. But if he chooses his path in this world to sit idle from the labor of Torah and mitzvot, and to delight in richness, eating of the fat and drinking of the sweet, so as to fill his belly, to eat to satiety and for lavish covering, and casts the labor of Torah and mitzvot behind his back — the stillborn is better than he. For the spirit shall return to God empty of all good, soiled with miry clay, defiled with every iniquity and every sin. And who did all this evil to him, if not that he regarded [the good things of this world] as of consequence, and did not treat as hevel the vanities of the good things of this world? For this reason, step by step, he went further and further away from following Hashem, until he came to despise the good and choose the evil. Therefore Solomon came in his wisdom, and with this began to teach man knowledge — to treat the affairs of the world as hevel; for by this matter the righteous man holds fast to the way of Hashem, resolving in his heart that there is no good except the service and fear of Hashem all the day. And this is what he concluded in saying, at the end of the matter: "the sum of the matter, all having been heard: fear God...," etc.

"The words of Koheleth" — It is known that excellent investigation is only accomplished by three ways together. The first is by way of study (iyyun), when it takes place amid a gathering of differing opinions, so that one may contemplate one view against another and discern which is correct. The second is by way of tradition (kabbalah) received from a person distinguished in wisdom and in fear [of Heaven]. And the most excellent of all is when the one who transmits the tradition hands it down to his own son, since the father desires his son's welfare and will instruct him generously and establish him in the truth. The third is by way of testing and experience with things that actually come to pass — all the more so if these things occur in a place with an abundance of wise men who are discerning enough to grasp the truth of the matter as it really is. Therefore the compiler said, at the opening of the book, "The words of Koheleth," etc. — meaning: these matters were investigated through the gathering of a collection of differing opinions, joined with the tradition received from a person distinguished in wisdom and in fear [of Heaven], namely King David; and the recipient [of that tradition] was his son, who had nursed at the breasts of truth; joined further with the testing of things that occur in Jerusalem, the city of his kingdom, whose people are wise of heart and discerning of the truth of the matter — and indeed nothing was hidden from the king who reigned there. It is as if to say: since this is so, behold, these matters were investigated with the utmost completeness, than which there is none higher.

"Koheleth" — this is an expression of gathering and assembling, like "the congregation (kehillat) of Jacob" (Deuteronomy 33:4); and King Solomon was called by this name because he gathered together the conflicting opinions, in order to refine and clarify the correct from the incorrect.

Vanity of vanities, said Koheles. Koheles complains about the entire seven days of creation, that it is all a vanity of vanities. — Notes: (15) Vanity is something empty of substance, it is zero. However, when combined with something of substance, such as Torah study, it adds value to it, in the same manner that a zero that is placed next to a number adds value to it. (Mashal Umlitzah) Vanity of. הֲבֵל ] of ‘הבל’ is 37, corresponding to the 37 years of Shlomo’s reign, considering his exile of three years. (Gra) is punctuated with a chataph patach, because it is in the construct state; i.e., the vanity of the vanities. Seven vanities [are mentioned], corresponding to the seven days of creation. — Notes: (16) The numerical value [gematria (17) הבל is one, הבלים [plural] are two, הבל is one, הבלים are two, and הבל is one, making a total of seven.

"Vanity" (hevel) — He speaks of the vanities of the world, and he attached the singular "hevel" to the plural "havalim." Now, although one does not find, among nouns of the pattern of "eretz," any that change their vowel in construct — except for the phrases "the chamber of your bed" (cheder mishkavcha), "bolt your door" (sagur daltecha), and "the outbreak of your fury" (mispach chamatecha), and these change to patach (an a-vowel), whereas this one (hevel) changes to tzere (an e-vowel) — nonetheless, the construct of a singular noun to a plural noun expressing a single idea works in two ways: for greatness, as in "melekh melakhim" (king of kings), or conversely, as in "eved avadim" (slave of slaves); and "hevel havalim" is like this — as in the matter of "surely men of low degree are vanity (hevel), and men of high degree are a lie; in the balances they go up, they are together lighter than vanity" (Psalms 62:10). And the mem in "me-hevel" stands in place of "more than" (yoter), like the mem in "more than all who were before me in Jerusalem" (Ecclesiastes 2:9), and the mem in "more than all my teachers I have gained understanding" (Psalms 119:99). And the sense is: if men were placed in the balances together with vanity, they would be lighter than vanity. And he doubled "hevel havalim" to indicate that this holds true at every time, just as in the matter of "the floods have lifted up, Hashem, the floods have lifted up their voice" (Psalms 93:3), and likewise "they compassed me about, yea, they compassed me about" (Psalms 118:11), repeated many times. And so that a person should not say in his heart that among the affairs of the world there is some vanity, yet also within it some root that endures — behold, he sealed the verse: "all is vanity."

Now, to come to the matter at hand: let us pay attention to the change of name and titles that he made in this book, as compared with his other two books. I say: behold, our Sages of blessed memory said, why was he called by the name Koheleth? Because he would gather assemblies (kehillot) of the multitudes to have them hear his wisdom. Our Sages also said further: had another person said 'vanity of vanities,' etc., people would have said it was because he never saw good in his days that he spoke so; but for whom is it fitting to say this? For Solomon. And according to this approach of theirs, it is possible that these words, too, are Solomon's own reasoning: for behold, the mouth that speaks before many and honored peoples must surely fear lest, among his words, there be found some point on which to seize — for it will not fail that, among the multitude, some individual will take hold of the heel of the snare in that matter, to say, 'he did not speak rightly.' Therefore, since it arises in the minds of most of the masses of the nations that wealth, honor, and the good things of this world are not an empty matter, when they hear one great man speak and say that all is vanity — the opposite of their opinion — it is not impossible that someone will speak up and say: 'Perhaps he himself is lacking in the good things of this world, and that is why he deems them vain.' But had he been full of all good, he would not have deemed it vain — for behold, the wine of drunkenness, that is, the abundant good of this world, intoxicates a person and puts into his heart that it is a great thing, and elevates him above all other creatures, so that he says, 'my strength and the might of my hand have made me all this wealth' (cf. Deuteronomy 8:17) — and from this it follows that, so long as he lives, he takes this to heart and refrains from speaking against the matter. Therefore Solomon said: behold, although the words of Koheleth, who gathers assemblies among the multitudes, are such that among them there will not fail to be one who will nullify his statement, since it is the opposite of the opinion of the multitude — nevertheless it was pleasing to his heart to say it, seeing that he is 'the son of David,' 'king,' the son of a king, and also 'king in Jerusalem' — Jerusalem being 'great among the nations, a princess among the provinces' (cf. Lamentations 1:1) — and so he will not fear the lash of a tongue that might say it is due to his own lack of good fortune in this world that he deems it vain. Therefore, 'vanity of vanities,' said Koheleth — that is, in full assemblies, and I shall not be ashamed. Alternatively, this may be explained by paying attention to the fact that he repeated and mentioned his name again in the second verse, not relying on what was mentioned in the first, and also that he said 'vanity of vanities' twice, and afterward said 'all is vanity.' This is because our Sages of blessed memory said in the Gemara that three periods passed over him: king, commoner, and king again — king at the beginning of his reign; a commoner when Ashmedai cast him four hundred parasangs away and he went about begging from door to door, saying, 'I am Koheleth, I was king,' etc.; and according to the view that he did not return to his kingship it would be otherwise — but the more correct opinion is that of the one who says he did return, though his rule was no longer strong over all the provinces of the nations, but only over Jerusalem and its districts. And from the sum of their words we learn that his being called Koheleth in essence preceded his becoming a commoner, for it was not while he was a commoner, going about begging from door to door, that he would say, 'I am Koheleth,' etc. — this points with a finger, that is, proves, that he was called Koheleth at the beginning of his reign, when there were assemblies of many peoples gathering to hear his wisdom. Now let us come to the matter: there would be room to say that, while he was still in the preciousness of the splendor of his greatness at the beginning of his kingdom — when those from the ends of the earth would come to submit to his authority — he did not deem the world vain, for his honor was great in his own eyes; but after his fall, when he was a commoner going about begging from door to door and saw that he was comparable to vanity, he then conceded and said that all is vanity. Therefore he says: know, then, that in every one of his three stages he deemed the world utterly vain and despised it in his heart. And this is the meaning of 'the words of Koheleth' — the first period, when he would gather assemblies of Israel and the nations; and likewise when he was stripped of the mantle of kingship and his title was only 'son of David,' not 'king' — this is the meaning of 'son of David'; and likewise when he returned to being king, though his kingship did not extend beyond Jerusalem — in all these his words were consistent, for from the first he was called Koheleth, and also afterward, in the two remaining periods, he always said 'vanity of vanities' — and this is the meaning of 'vanity of vanities, he said,' said from the time he was first called Koheleth. And to carry this reading through to the end of the verse, the construal of the verse would be: 'the words of Koheleth' is the first period; and also, in the second, when he was 'son of David,' stripped of the title of kingship; and also in the third, when he would be king in Jerusalem — in all these his statement was of one piece. And he explains: behold, 'vanity of vanities, said Koheleth' — that is, in the first period, when he was then at the height of his kingship, but said only out of reasoning, for he had not yet experienced it; but afterward, in the second period, he not only said it as an unproven statement, but also saw and confirmed that it was so — and this is why he repeated and said 'vanity of vanities' plainly, meaning that a time came when he no longer needed to qualify it — this is the second period, referred to by 'son of David.' And lest you say that perhaps, when he returned to his kingship after his fall, he went back to saying that his present state was better than the time when he had fallen and been despoiled, and that this good would loom large in his eyes — for this reason he adds that also in the third period his view agreed that all is vanity, whether from the perspective of his being king or of his being a commoner — and this is the meaning of 'all is vanity.' It follows, then, that his statement 'vanity of vanities, said Koheleth' refers back to what was said first, 'the words of Koheleth'; and his repetition, 'vanity of vanities,' refers back to 'son of David'; and 'all is vanity' refers back to 'king in Jerusalem,' as discussed. Now, our Sages of blessed memory said that the seven 'vanities' in this verse correspond to the works of the seven days of Creation. At first glance this is difficult, for on the seventh day nothing was made. But behold, our Rabbis of blessed memory raised the difficulty that verses contradict one another: one verse says, 'For in six days Hashem made heaven and earth' (Exodus 20:11), and another says, 'And God finished on the seventh day...' (Genesis 2:2), etc. Rather, the resolution is: in six days Hashem made the world, and the world was lacking rest; Shabbat came, and rest came — showing that the seventh day, too, was an innovation in the world. And it is possible that, on this basis, the workings of Shabbat are included together with the workings of each of the other days. But it is still difficult: how can the Sages call rest a 'deed,' when it is mere passive abstention? Indeed, this same difficulty is present within that very statement of the Sages: how does it resolve the difficulty of the verse that says, 'And God finished on the seventh day His work which He had made' (Genesis 2:2) — which implies something acquired and positive — when in fact it is nothing but a cessation from deed, not a deed or work at all? But to get to the matter, let us attend to the phrase 'the world was lacking rest.' If rest is merely cessation from labor, as its plain sense suggests, what lack was there in the world, that it should say 'the world was lacking rest'? And also, to grasp the truth of the matter, let us attend likewise to the verse's statement, 'He rested (shavat) and was refreshed (vayinnafash)' (Exodus 31:17) — for the word vayinnafash has no meaning other than cessation, yet it already said shavat! Rather, the explanation is this: we wrote in the introduction that this is the way of every physical thing — whatever lacks the quality of something spiritual within it does not endure, and the proof is that man hastens toward death, for when his soul departs from him, he ceases and expires. The same analogy applies to the world: it is physical, and if no spiritual influx is poured into it, it will cease and be lost. These, then, are the words of the Sages when they say 'the world was lacking rest' — meaning, since the world is physical, it must inevitably cease and become corrupted, and this, without doubt, is the lack of rest — for the four elements would not rest together with one another, but would separate, become corrupted, and shatter; and it needed a spirit of influx to be poured upon it from on high, like a soul into a body, into the rest of their intermixture, so as to sustain them. But the weekdays lack the readiness to pour that influx into the world, until the great and holy Shabbat comes, bringing that rest, by which the world is sustained. This is 'He rested and was refreshed' — for He ceased from labor and infused a spirit of soul into the world. It follows that there is no deed greater than this, for through it the world is sustained; and with Him, may He be blessed, the pouring forth of influx is itself called 'work' and 'deed,' as it is said, 'How great is Your goodness... which You have wrought (pa'alta) for those who take refuge in You' (Psalms 31:20). Thus we have arrived at the substance of that statement of the Sages: that even on Shabbat 'work' was done, and it is what is called 'rest,' as discussed. But regarding the verse before us, the difficulty grows very great in a different way: could it enter the mind that Solomon, in his wisdom, would call the holy influx that flows on Shabbat, like a soul to the world, to sustain it, 'vanity' — that he would say that what was made in the seven days of Creation are seven 'vanities'? However, to arrive at the explanation, let us attend to the statement of our Sages of blessed memory, that 'if there is no Torah, there is no world' — for it, the Torah, is like a soul to a body. This is one of the interpretations given of the blessing over the Torah, in its words, 'and He has planted eternal life within us' — namely, that this is the Torah, which gives life to the world. Now, after we have shown that He, may He be blessed, instilled a spirit of influx like a soul to a body, what need is there for the Torah? But indeed, without the Torah, that influx would not endure in the world, for how could it bind itself to earthly dust? Rather, the Torah is what sustains it there, as discussed. Let us come to the matter: our Sages of blessed memory said in Genesis Rabbah, quoted also in Midrash Shocher Tov (Midrash Tehillim), that six things preceded the world: Torah, the Throne of Glory, Repentance, the Garden of Eden, Gehinnom, and the name of the Messiah, as it is said, 'His name shall be Yinnon before the sun' (Psalms 72:17). In our commentary on Genesis Rabbah we explained this at length, for that is its proper place. But the sum of the matter is that without those six things — or seven, according to the Midrash that adds also the Patriarchs — the world would not endure; therefore Hashem brought them into being beforehand. And the matter, in brief, is this: without supernal influx the world does not endure, and, owing to the turbidity of this world's quality, it was impossible to receive influx from Him, may He be blessed, except through the emanation of the Throne of Glory, whereby the influx descends in a chain, growing ever denser. And for the lower worlds to be worthy to receive it, the merit of Torah and its commandments is necessary, as is known: first the quality of the light of the holiness of engaging in Torah and mitzvot rises upward, drawing down the light of supernal influx. Therefore the Sages, of blessed memory, necessarily concluded there that the Torah was created first, and afterward the Throne of Glory — for first the lights of Torah and mitzvot rise, and afterward, by a reversal in the chain-descent, the lights of supernal influx descend by way of the Throne of Glory, to rectify the world. And because 'the inclination of man's heart is evil' (Genesis 8:21) and prevents the influx, He created Repentance, the merit of the Patriarchs, and the Sanctuary, to atone; and reward and punishment, which are the Garden of Eden and Gehinnom — in order to bring them to repentance, and in order that they see that even matter, the body, can also acquire fortune, and not ponder and say, 'Where is the reward of the body, which also engages in Torah and mitzvot?' — for the Garden of Eden is for the soul alone. Therefore the name of the Messiah was created, which is Yinnon — for he is so called, as our Sages of blessed memory said in Shocher Tov, because he is destined to make those who sleep in the dust sing (le-yannen yeshenei afar), that is, the resurrection of the dead; and He, may He be blessed, created this name so that it be a remembrance to the Children of Israel of the fortune of the body as well, which will likewise be granted then. In sum: through these seven, the workings of Creation have endurance, and without them, all is vanity. Even the rest created on Shabbat — were we to imagine its rest without the Torah, which was created before the world, it would have no fortune or good, but rather, absent the Torah, would be comparable to vanity, for it would not endure; there would be no substance in the rest of Shabbat. It follows, then, that everything created in the seven days of Creation, absent the seven things created beforehand, is wholly vanity. And thus the statement of our Sages of blessed memory is validated, that everything created in the seven days of Creation is vanity — meaning, absent what was created before the seven days, namely the seven things created before the world. And by this the following verse continues, explaining the matter further: it says — what I have said, that everything created in the seven days of Creation is vanity, that is, absent the seven things that preceded the world — is it not that 'there is no profit for man' (Ecclesiastes 1:3) in all his labor that is 'under the sun,' that is, under the daily orbit, while he does not labor in what is above it, namely Torah and its commandments, laboring instead in the spiritual worlds above — for there, the one who engages in them is working with the very things that preceded the world. Alternatively, 'vanity of vanities,' etc., may be explained by attending to the fact that he first said hevel (vanity/vapor) in the singular, adjoining to it hevalim (vanities/vapors) in the plural, then repeated and concluded again with hevel in the singular adjoined to hevalim in the plural, and then said hevel once more in the singular, and also the word hakol (all) — what does this come to add and multiply? It is possible, following the approach of our Sages of blessed memory, that he speaks of the workings of the days of Creation, but not of all seven of them, only of six. This is because on the first day the entire Creation was included in its totality, but in fine, subtle form — existing only in potential — in the heavens, the earth, and the waters, as our Sages of blessed memory said; only that, on each subsequent day, something emerged from what was created on the first day, moving from potential to actuality, in the manner of 'let the earth put forth' (Genesis 1:24), 'let the earth sprout vegetation' (Genesis 1:11). Therefore the first day has no aspect comparable to the second day, for the one includes everything, while the other is but a single offshoot among the particulars; therefore the term hevel is used regarding it, in the singular. But the second and third days became united, in that between them the work of the waters was completed — which is why it is not said on the second day 'that it was good,' since the work of the waters was not yet finished on the second day — therefore he included them in a single word, and regarding both of them together he said hevalim, in the plural. But the fourth day is like the first, in that neither the day preceding nor the day following it is comparable to it; therefore he said hevel regarding it, in the singular. But regarding the fifth and sixth days, whose common feature is that on both of them all living creatures — man and beast — were created, on account of this shared feature he grouped them in a single word, saying hevalim. Now, there would still be room to say that he did not mean to include man in his word hevalim, even though man too was among all the creatures of the sixth day — for is he not the handiwork of Him, may He be blessed, and was not the whole world created for his sake? Why, then, should he be included among the hevalim? Therefore he went back and said hakol hevel, all is vanity. This is because man is called kol (all/everything), for he encompasses four worlds, by which he serves as a ladder to draw down influx from the supernal world through engagement in Torah and mitzvot, as discussed in Parashat Vayetze; and furthermore, because within him were contained all the souls destined to come into the world, as our Sages of blessed memory said in Parashat Ki Tisa, in Exodus Rabbah — and this is why it was said to Job, 'Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?' (Job 38:4) — meaning, where was yours — where was it? It follows, then, that man is called kol, as we discussed regarding the verse 'hakol ka'asher lakol,' all is as it is for all (Ecclesiastes 9:2). And accordingly, Solomon says here that even the one who is 'the all,' namely man, is hevel — this in keeping with what we wrote, that he means to say that the entire work of Creation, apart from the deed that preceded it — namely the seven things that preceded the world, which are Torah and the Throne of Glory, etc. — is vanity, for even man, without Torah, is truly vanity. And this is why he juxtaposed and said, 'what profit,' etc. — to say that what I have compared to vanity is man without Torah, for 'there is no profit for man' in that his labor is 'under the sun,' rather than in that his labor is above the sun, namely engagement in Torah and mitzvot, whose glorious work is performed above the heavens. And in Midrash Chazit (Song of Songs Rabbah): 'Vanity of vanities' — Rabbi Huna said in the name of Rabbi Acha: David said one thing and did not explain it, and Solomon his son explained it; Solomon said one thing and did not explain it, and David his father explained it. David said, 'Man is like unto vanity (hevel)' (Psalms 144:4) — to which vanity? If to the vapor of an oven — there is substance in that; if to the vapor of a stove — there is substance in that. Solomon came and explained: this is what is written, 'Vanity of vanities, said Koheleth.' Rabbi Yishmael bar Nachman taught it in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korchah: it is like a person who sets seven pots one atop the other, one atop the other, and the vapor of the topmost one has no substance in it. Solomon said, 'For who knows what is good for man in his life... and makes them, his days, like a shadow' (cf. Ecclesiastes 6:12) — to which shadow? If to the shadow of a wall — there is substance in that; if to the shadow of a palm tree — there is substance in that. David came and explained: 'his days are like a passing shadow' (Psalms 144:4). Rabbi Huna said in the name of Rabbi Acha: like a bird that passes, and its shadow passes with it. Shmuel said: like the shadow of bees, in which there is no substance at all. End of quotation. And it is fitting to consider: what difficulty did he find in the verse, that he had to say Solomon's statement is an explanation of David's statement? And furthermore, could it enter the mind that David was speaking of the vapor of an oven or a stove, such that the Midrash had to reject it? And also, what substance is there anyway in their vapor? And furthermore, his saying 'this is what is written' — which is like pointing with a finger to say, 'this is Solomon's statement, hevel,' etc., and no other — yet there is nothing of this in the verse itself! And furthermore, his saying 'to a person who sets pots,' etc. — but there is not even a single pot in the thing being likened, that is, in the verse! And likewise, regarding the matter of the shadows — what is the point of all the kinds of shadows he mentioned? And also, who compelled him to say that this one depends on that one, and that one on this one? And it is also fitting to consider: what is the difference between man's being vanity and his days being like a shadow, for both would appear to be the same matter. Now, several things were difficult for him. First: if the meaning of the word hevel is nullification and non-existence, how can a number, as in 'vanity of vanities,' implying multiplicity, rightly apply to it, since all nullities are one and the same? And in the same way he found it difficult in the verse 'man is like unto vanity' — for what comparison can be drawn to a mere nullity, to say that man resembles it? Second: why did the matter come down to require the number of seven vanities? Third: why did he say hevel three times and hevalim twice, and why did he not group the singular occurrences together, and the comprehensive, plural, ones together, separately? Fourth: he saw that two things are mentioned by David, and both also by Solomon — namely, that man is vanity, and that his days are a shadow. And David places the heh of definiteness on hevel, saying le-hevel damah, with a patach under the lamed, not a sheva, yet he does not do so with 'shadow,' saying only 'his days are ke-tzel,' like a shadow, with a sheva; whereas Solomon does the opposite: he says hevel hevalim, etc., without the heh of definiteness, but with 'shadow' he places the heh of definiteness, saying va-ya'asem ke-tzel, with a patach under the kaf. On this basis the Midrash determined that David said 'the known vanity' — that is, the one specified in Solomon's words — while Solomon, who placed the heh of definiteness on 'shadow,' relied on David's explanation, that is, 'the known shadow' mentioned in David's statement. And regarding the first difficulty, the Midrash determined that this hevel derives from the same root as 'its vapor' (hevlo) of an oven. And with this explanation, the rest are resolved. This is that Solomon came to teach the people understanding, so that it should not enter their hearts that their own power endures in the life of this world — and this concerns two things. First, that a person sees that his natural bodily heat is strong and vigorous, and says in his heart, 'Who shall bring me down to the earth' (cf. Obadiah 1:3) — confident of length of days. Second, that a person says: behold, it is the way of men to live to seventy years, and by this his heart is set at ease, confident that he will reach that age; and, in general, that it should not occur to him that he departs from the world only at the moment his soul leaves him, at death — but this is not so; rather, every single day he continues to depart from the world and draw nearer to death. This is David's statement regarding the first matter: he said, 'man is like unto vanity' — meaning, that his vapor and the heat of his vitality are comparable to the known, specific vanity that Solomon explained, namely the seven 'vanities' he mentioned — teaching that man's natural heat is not like the vapor of an oven, which has substance and staying power, such that we might say its vapor will last a day or half a day; nor is it even like the vapor of a stove, whose heat we can trust to last two or three hours; rather, it is like setting seven pots atop a stove, one upon the other, such that the vapor of the stove heats the substance of the first pot, and from its vapor spreads to the second one above it, and from that to the third, and so the heat continues down the chain to the seventh — for there is no doubt that no strength remains in the vapor of the seventh, after these seven successive stages. This is because the chain-descent of the influx that sustains the world is comparable to seven pots atop a stove. The matter, as is known from our Sages of blessed memory, is that there are seven firmaments: Aravot, Makhon, Ma'on, Zevul, Shechakim, Raki'a, and Vilon; and they also said that Vilon serves no function except that it enters in the morning and departs in the evening, whereby the work of Creation is continually renewed each day — for owing to the diminution of its light, it lacks the strength to spread and shine forth the light of the second firmament above it from within itself, and therefore must withdraw each morning to reveal what is in the second firmament. And this is only because the glow it receives comes to it through seven screens — for behold, He, may He be blessed, rides upon Aravot, the uppermost firmament, receiving everything, with the influx from Him, may He be blessed, comparable to a stove heating the pot immediately adjoining it in substance; and from what Aravot receives, it descends in a chain from firmament to firmament, down to Vilon; and since it continually diminishes in the chain-descent, it lacks the strength to make the light of Raki'a shine into Vilon — and this is the meaning of his saying that the vapor of the seventh has no substance; therefore Vilon enters and withdraws in the morning and goes out in the evening, to display the operation of the sun, moon, stars, and constellations that are in the second firmament. So too man's vapor is comparable to this — as if he lacked the strength to endure a full day and night, but rather were like one who enters the world in the morning and departs from it in the evening — to reveal the providence of Him, may He be blessed, who sustains us 'new every morning' (cf. Lamentations 3:23), sustaining him day by day and year by year. This is what Solomon informed us by mentioning seven vanities, alluding to the seven stages of the chain-descent. And regarding the second matter — that man trusts in 'the days of our years' being seventy (cf. Psalms 90:10) — this is what David explained by saying 'like a passing shadow.' He explains it by way of the construct form, saying 'the shadow of one who passes' — that is, of a bird at the moment it flies and passes from place to place. For had it referred back to 'the shadow that passes and turns from its place,' it could still possibly be understood like the shadow of a tree passing from its place; but the heh of definiteness in Solomon's ke-tzel compels the reading that it is specified elsewhere — and this is the meaning of 'that passes, and its shadow passes with it' — meaning that both are mentioned in the verse: the shadow, and the object cast, which passes together with the shadow. The matter is this: there are three gradations. First, the shadow of a wall — for there are two benefits to the one who takes shelter beneath it: first, that the shadow is thick and shelters him, hiding the sun so that it strikes him from no side; second, that he knows how long that shadow will last, according to the time of day — he knows the time the sun will turn, or depart. But in the shadow of a tree you find the second benefit, but not the first, for the sun passes between the branches of the tree and strikes him on some side, between branch and branch. But the shadow of a bird, when it spreads its wings, lacks both, for between feather and feather the sun passes, and one does not know how long it will remain still without moving from its place, taking its shadow with it. Now, these very deficiencies exist in man: he does not know his own time, nor can he be assured against being struck by the sun of troubles, for there is no person without suffering. In this way he is not like the shadow of a wall nor the shadow of a tree, but like the shadow of a bird at the moment it takes flight — that it passes, and its shadow with it — to convey what we have written, that man's death does not come in an instant at the moment of his departure, but rather, from his birth onward, he is continually going and dying. This is why the parable is drawn from a bird that flies, 'and its shadow passes with it' — so too man goes along with his days, which are likened to his shadow. This is unlike what it would be had the parable been of a bird while stationary, which would imply that man too has a period of stability in his life and does not die except at his departure — like a bird that flies only when it journeys from its place. And Shmuel said, 'like the shadow of bees,' etc. Consider: even though, with a bird, when it spreads its wings, sunlight enters through the air between feather and feather, nevertheless the shadow of the bird's own body is thick; so likewise a person is exposed to troubles round about him, but not, for most people, in his own body. Therefore he said 'like the shadow of bees' — for even the shadow of their own bodies has no substance; and likewise, there is no moment without loss and the wasting away of the body's moisture, which is harmful even to the healthy in their bodies.

"Vanity of vanities, says Koheleth" — meaning: in this book Koheleth speaks to mankind and warns them to regard the vanities as vain and to hold them in disdain, and he then goes on to explain his own words, saying "vanity of vanities" — that is, everything is vanity, things from which, in no way whatsoever, does any fitting and precious end result grow. (But as for vanities that ultimately bring about some beneficial end, it is not proper to regard them as vain and hold them in disdain, since some good and beneficial thing is found in them.)

"Hevel" (vanity/breath) — its meaning is a thing without substance, and it is borrowed from the expression "hevel peh" (breath of the mouth) mentioned in the words of our Rabbis of blessed memory; and similarly, "and they went after vanity (ha-hevel)" (Jeremiah 2:5).

What profit. [What] reward or gain. — Notes: (18) Ordinarily, יתרון connotes “greater,” as when comparing two parts or objects, one to another. (Sifsei Chachomim) Beneath the sun. Instead [=תַּחַת .” The Gemara in Maseches Shabbos 30b renders תחת as “after,” and interprets the verse, that for his labor “after the sun” he realizes no profit, but for his labor “before the sun,” i.e., in Torah, which existed before God created the world, there is profit. (Sifsei Chachomim) of the Torah, which is called light, as it is stated, “and the Torah is light.” All the labor which he does instead of engaging in Torah study, what reward does it yield? — Notes: (19) Ordinarily, תחת means “under,” but in this verse that definition would be difficult. Therefore, Rashi interprets תחת as “instead,” as we find in Bereishis 30:15, “in exchange [תחת] for your son’s duda’im (20) Mishlei 6:23. (21) “For all his labor” should not be misconstrued to include even engaging in Torah study, because otherwise Scripture should have stated בכל עמל [=all labor], however it states בכל עמלו [=his labor], referring to his own personal physical labor. Thus, one should labor in the study of Torah.

"What profit" — The word "yitron" is of the pattern of "zikaron" (remembrance), and it is a noun derived from verbs whose first root-letter is not sound (i.e., a weak first radical), and the hifil pattern indicates this. And the sense is: since all is vanity, what benefit does a man have from all his labor? And the meaning of "under the sun" is the ever-turning time, for the sun alone generates time: the day depends on the sun, from the time of its rising until its setting, and the night is from the time of the sun's setting until its rising, whether the stars or the moon are seen or not seen. And likewise seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, depend on the leaning of the sun toward the northern or the southern side. Even though the moon has fine effects on rivers, on moist plants, and on the brain, and Kimah (the Pleiades) to bind, and Kesil (Orion) to loose (Job 38:31), all their actions together are not equal to its (the sun's) actions, but are only one part among many parts. And although the sun is one, its actions change according to the change in the sixty (lit. "forty-and-twenty") conjunctions of the seven planets, and the change of all their courses, together with the motion of the apogee of the solid sphere that projects outward. Therefore you will not find the configuration of the workings of the heavens resembling another configuration for even a single moment. And concerning this it is stated in Sefer Yetzirah: "two stones build two houses... up to nine — a number that the mouth is unable to speak and the ear is unable to hear" (Sefer Yetzirah). And the labor to seek wisdom, until my spirit becomes clear, does have profit (yitron), for the spirit of man is not "under the sun."

"What profit has man..." etc. — Have I not told you that everything is hevel (vanity/futility), even man, for whose sake the world was created? But know, then, that he does not sustain this lowly world except by not making it his primary concern, apart from the affairs of the upper world. And this is [the meaning of] "What profit..." etc., that is to say: Open your eyes and see what profit or perfection a man acquires and has from all his labor in which he labors — in things that are below, on the earth, under the daily-revolving sphere, earthly and material things — and not looking to his Maker, to serve His service and keep His charge, and to meditate on His spiritual Torah which is above the heavens in glory; for it, and its commandments, are what impart the eternal, supernal, spiritual perfection without end. And to recount the disgrace of those who labor in material things, he said, "a generation goes and a generation comes" etc. And the matter is that our Rabbis of blessed memory said, in Midrash Shocher Tov, on the verse "the enemy have come to an end" etc.: Constantinus built Constantina, Romulus built Rome, Pulyus built Pulya — and they came to an end, yet their ruined cities remain standing. But He, blessed be He, is not so, Heaven forbid; rather, "the cities Thou hast uprooted — their memory is lost — they themselves" (Psalms 9:7), "but Hashem sits enthroned forever" (Psalms 9:8); for He, blessed be He, wears out His works, but His works do not wear Him out — as happens to those who called cities by their own names upon the earth, for their works and their land wore them out and consumed them. And this matter, I think, is what Kohelet meant in saying "a generation goes and a generation comes" etc. — to say how very great is the error of those who occupy themselves with earthly matters, which wear out the one who busies himself and labors in them. For behold, with our own eyes we have seen that a generation goes and a generation comes, and the earth — which the people of those generations made their primary concern and busied themselves with its affairs — is what stands forever, and wears out and consumes them, even though it too is destined to be consumed; and this is folly and foolishness. Whereas had they instead occupied themselves with the work of Hashem and His Torah, then indeed they would have remained and endured forever, for they would cleave to their Maker; for even though "the earth shall wear out like a garment, and the heavens shall vanish away like smoke" (Isaiah 51:6), the souls of the righteous are eternal without end, as is known. "And the sun rises" etc. — from the saying of our Rabbis of blessed memory, who said that before the sun of a certain righteous man had set, the sun of another righteous man had [already] risen — from this we learn that the verse speaks of the righteous, according to our approach. And he said: Have I not told you that the wicked are hevel, for their deeds wear them out? Now, there was room for a disputant to object and say: But does the righteous man too not have any advantage over the wicked, since "as this one dies, so that one dies" (Ecclesiastes 3:19), and the earth wears them out as well? Therefore he said that the righteous, who are likened to the sun that gives light to the world, are not so; rather, "the sun rises, and the sun sets" etc. And the matter is that when the sun darkens at its setting, it is not that its lamp has been extinguished or its light diminished — on the contrary, the light of the sun will be sevenfold, for there is the joy of its course (cf. Psalms 19:6), and it will light up its darkness — as our Rabbis of blessed memory said, that the sphere of the sun has a sheath and a pool of water before it, and at the time when it goes forth [in the morning], the Holy One, blessed be He, weakens its strength in the water so that it will not burn the world. Behold, then, that its principal shining is above, once the sun has "set" from below. And that which appears to our eyes — that the sun darkens when it sets — is not so; rather, Hashem withholds its light from us, for its path is hidden from us and concealed from the eyes of every living thing. So too the righteous man: when he departs [this world], his good is not diminished from him — on the contrary, there are the chariots of his majesty. From the time of his going to his eternal home, he goes on and grows in the light of life (cf. Proverbs 4:18); and even though it appears to the eyes that he has passed on and gone, that is only in relation to our perception, for we have eyes of flesh. And this is [the meaning of] "the sun rises" etc., for the rising of the sun and its setting correspond to the birth of the righteous man and his death. And just as the sun's light is not diminished when it sets — on the contrary, it yearns and longs to return to its supernal place, because it shines there in its very essence, for there is its principal shining, without sheath or garment — so too the righteous man suffers no loss when he departs; for on the contrary, there is his principal shining, for there is his root and his essence and his place, from which he was hewn, and to that place his soul's strength yearns, for it is there that he shines in essence and gives light.

"What profit" — These are the words of Koheleth, who opens by saying: what is the gain that comes to man from all the toil that he toils at something placed under the dominion of the sun — namely, the toil of gathering possessions, which is entrusted to the hand of the heavenly order. (He mentions the sun because it exerts the greatest influence on the lower [earthly] realm and is the greatest of all [the heavenly bodies], and is therefore called "the queen of heaven," from the language of malkhut/kingship, as it is said, "to burn incense to the queen of heaven" (Jeremiah 44). It is as if to say: what is the benefit in these possessions? Behold, tomorrow the one who gathered them will die and take nothing with him in his hand.) Or: "under the sun" means in this world, in the place where the sun shines — what gain is there in the toil one toils at to gather possessions?

"Profit" (yitron) — from the language of surplus and gain. "Under the sun" (tachat ha-shemesh) — in place of the sun.

A generation passes away and [another] generation comes. As much as the wicked man toils and labors to oppress and to rob, he does not outlive his activities, for the generation passes on and another generation comes and takes away everything from his sons, as the matter is stated, “His children must appease the poor.” — Notes: (22) Iyov 20:10. And the earth abides forever. But who are the ones who [cause the earth to] endure? The humble and low, who bring themselves down to the ground, as the matter is stated, “But the humble shall inherit the earth.” But Midrash Tanchuma states, that all the righteous of Yisroel are called earth [=אֶרֶץ, as it is stated, “for you will be a desirable land.” — Notes: (23) Tehillim 37:11. (24) Alternatively, unlike generations, that when one passes by, another one comes, the earth does not change. (25) Malachi 3:12.

"Generation" (dor) — Because everything that exists under the sun is composed of four foundations, from which they came forth and to which they return — namely, fire, and the still air (ru'ach ha-nach), which is the element air, and water, and earth — he mentioned all four of them. He began with earth, which is like the one that gives birth (the mother-element); then afterward he mentioned the sun, the place of fire, because of its abundant heat, it being the begetting fire; and afterward, the air and the water. And he said of the earth that all things formed from it return to it, as in the matter of "for dust you are, and to dust you shall return" (Genesis 3:19); and it endures, while "one generation goes, and another generation comes." It is possible that the meaning of "dor" is like "gerim" (sojourners/dwellers), and similar to it is "rather dwell (midur) in the tents of wickedness" (Psalms 84:11).

"One generation goes" — meaning: even though, indeed, when this generation goes to its death, another generation comes in its place, nevertheless there is no reason to think it worthwhile to toil and gather possessions in order to leave them to one's children after him, for "and the earth," etc. — meaning: does the earth itself stand forever? Behold, it too will wear out like a garment and come to an end; and so its inhabitants, together with all their possessions, will come to an end as well. Thus this is not something that endures forever.

The sun rises, etc. A generation passes on and a generation comes, as the sun rises in the morning and sets in the evening, in ‘וזרח’ demonstrates the connection with the previous verse of generations passing by. and it goes throughout the night, yearning to return to the place from where it rose yesterday, that it will rise from there also today. — Notes: (26) The connective vav

"And rises" — The men of geometry and calculation have already explained that of all the visible created things, divided into ten categories, the sun is greater than all of them, and there is none like it; and it is the foundation in the science of the heavens, like the point in the science of geometry, and the unit in the science of arithmetic. And the sense is: even though it has motion, and it rises and sets, it returns to its place as it was at first. And the place of its rising today is close to the place of its rising tomorrow; and because of its movement toward north and south, it rises twice a year from one and the same place, and from the point of the extreme south and the extreme north, once a year, until a complete year is fulfilled for it. And so too is the case with the moon and the five other planets — indeed all the host of heaven rises and sets. Therefore he mentioned the great one (the sun in particular), just as in the matter of "and for the sun He has set a tent among them" (Psalms 19:5), which did not mention the stars either. And the meaning of "hastens" (sho'ef) — is like "in her craving she snuffs up (sha'afah) the wind" (Jeremiah 2:24) — as if it (the sun) pants after the air out of its great longing to return to its place.

"And the sun rises" — Behold, the astronomers have determined that the sun's own motion in its sphere is from west to east; however, the daily sphere forces it to turn back westward. Therefore he said: behold, the sun, when it is close to the place of its setting, longs to rise again over the face of the earth, for it seeks to keep to its own course of travel eastward; but against its will it sets in its season, for the daily sphere is what forces it to turn back and travel westward and set. "And hastens to his place" — meaning: likewise, when it is close to the place of its rising, it desires to go to the place from which it emerged, so as not to rise over the face of the earth; but the daily sphere is what forces it to turn back, and against its will it rises there, in the place to which the daily sphere returns it.

"Goes down" (uva) — an expression of setting, like "for the sun had set (ba)" (Genesis 28:10). "Hastens" (sho'ef) — an expression of gazing and longing for a thing, like "as a servant pants (yish'af) for the shade" (Job 7:2).

The wind. The sun’s desire, talent in O.F., as in, “toward wherever there was the will הָרוּחַ to go.” — Notes: (27) Ordinarily רוח means wind, but because the “sun” is the subject of this verse, Rashi defines רוח as “desire” or “will,” i.e., the sun’s desire. (Sifsei Chachomim) (28) Yechezkeil 1:12. And upon its circuits [the wind] returns. Also tomorrow, the entire circuit and encircling that it went around yesterday, it encircles and goes around today. — Notes: (29) The expression הולך [goes] is used for moving toward the south [symbolic of wisdom] and סובב [goes round, circles] is used for moving toward the north [symbolic of wealth]. הולך denotes going without purpose whereas סובב implies a determined action. Koheles hints that man pursues wisdom with indifference, whereas his pursuit of wealth he does with great effort and determination. (Toldos Aharon) It [the wind] goes toward the south. Always by day. And it turns about toward the north. Always by night. Round and round goes [the wind]. To the eastern and western sides, which it sometimes goes through by day, and sometimes circles at night. In Tammuz it goes through them, and in Teves it circles around them. Also the wicked, no matter how much their sun rises, they will ultimately set. No matter how much they gain power, they will ultimately return to their stench. From filth they came, and to filth they will return. And so —

"Goes" — Some say that this verse, too, speaks of the sun, meaning that it inclines at one time to the north and at another to the south, and that "ruach" here means "direction" (pe'ah). But this is not correct, as is shown by the continuation, "and upon its circuits the wind (ruach) returns" — proving that the whole verse concerns the wind. For at one time the air moves toward the northern side, and at another toward the southern side, and it turns from south to north by way of the east, and from north to south by way of the west. Therefore it says, "the wind goes turning about (sovev holekh)," and in the end it returns to its circuits, just as the sun returns, for the sun is the cause of most of the movements of the wind. And sailors (yordei ha-yam) know from them, these wind-patterns, that they follow, in a single day, the same course the sun follows in a year.

"The wind goes toward the south," etc. — Behold, the Targum explains: "it goes to the south side by day, and turns to the north side by night," and Rashi, of blessed memory, explained likewise. According to this, it is plausible that the going by day it calls "going" (halichah), while the going by night it calls "turning" (sibuv) — even though in truth it is all one circuit. And this is also why it says "goes" (holech) two times, and between the one and the other it says "turns about" (sovev), this being three times. However, since the main intent is the day's going, and the night exists only to complete the circuit so as to return and give light on the day that follows, therefore it [the night's motion] is called "turning." So then, let us continue our own approach, following their way — namely: another [interpretation] says that the righteous person, when he departs from this world, goes to the light, into the light of life. But our fundamental view is that a person returns to come into this world three times, as our Rabbis of blessed memory said — and even the soul of a righteous person, as is known. Now if there [above] is the delight of its way and the place of its attachment, why should it return? It would be better for it to remain there. Therefore, to answer this, it says "goes," etc., meaning: just as the sun goes its directed course by day and circles about by night in order to complete the circuit so as to return and give light by day, so too the righteous person "turns about, turns about" — his spirit is reincarnated into this world two times, in order to be set straight in its going the third time. And the intent is [as in the verse] "until his righteousness go forth as brightness" (Isaiah 62:1), so that afterward, the third time, "the spirit goes" its directed course, which is what is necessary for it to attain the perfection fitting for it — for through the circuits (sibuvim) its soul attains the final going. This is the meaning of its saying "the spirit goes" (holech ha-ruach), for that is the unique one, and it does not say "turns," because that is [merely] a preparation for the final going. And lest a person say: why did the soul of a righteous person need to return these three times, and would not less suffice, seeing that he is already righteous? — it says: know why a third time was necessary. Is it not because, up until now, in the two prior times, the spirit returned only "to its surroundings" (al sevivotav)? Meaning, the hand of its perfection did not reach, in the earlier times, to arrive at the exact character of the particular point that is fitting and proper for it, with Hashem's help, according to the aspect of its spirit; rather, it was only attaining as far as the surroundings of the point of its place, close to the point, round about, until the third time. This is [the meaning of] "to its surroundings," etc. — meaning that until now, before the third time, it returned only to its surroundings, and not to its own particular point. Or it may be said that [the phrase] "and to its surroundings" means that it is by means of its surroundings that the spirit returns to the place fitting for it. And I shall give you a parable — to what may the matter be compared? To "all the rivers run into the sea, yet the sea is not full" (Ecclesiastes 1:7), etc. The matter is this: behold, all the rivers go there, to the sea, and the sea is not full; therefore, to the place to which the rivers go, they return to go again, time after time — for had the sea become full, all the rivers would not return there to go again, since it would no longer draw them back. So too, all the souls go to the sea, which is the Shechinah, called "sea," as is known. And had all the souls, in a single time, been rectified of their deficiencies, the Shechinah would have been filled immediately — for when all the souls are perfected, it is filled in every aspect, and they would not need to return to go again a second and a third time. But because the sea is not filled by their going, since they were not rectified in one time, therefore they return to go again. Now there would be room to say that this is a hardship — that they should need to be reincarnated two or three times. To this it says "all things are wearisome," etc. (Ecclesiastes 1:8), meaning: would not impudent speech go forth from a person's mouth (cf. 1 Samuel 2:3) to speak and say "all things are wearisome" — for even for the rest of the souls of Israel who are close to you in quality, weariness would be required? But know indeed that "all things are wearisome; man cannot utter it" — for according to the great attainment achieved through the reincarnations (gilgulim), to be reincarnated "two or three times with a man" (Job 33:29) is not to be counted as weariness at all — for "the eye is not satisfied with seeing," etc. (Ecclesiastes 1:8). The matter is this: the soul becomes so refined through the rectifications of the reincarnations (tikkunei gilgulim), to the point that afterward — not only while the soul is divested of the body, but even in body and soul together — the Holy One, blessed be He, as is known from our Rabbis of blessed memory, is destined to be the head of the dance-circle (machol) for the righteous, and to expound [Torah] to them; and they gaze and see, and point with the finger, and hear face to face from His mouth, may He be blessed — unlike at the giving of the Torah, when their soul left them and they could not bear either sight or hearing, and they said, "You speak with us," etc. (Exodus 20:16). And this is a greater attainment than the attainment of the ministering angels, who say, "Where is the place of His glory?" Now, if the seeing were of a passing, fleeting kind, it would not be so wondrous, and likewise if the hearing were fleeting; but behold, "the eye is not satisfied with seeing" — meaning, it gazes continually and is never satisfied, and always desires to see, for "holy" shall be said to it. This, too, refers back to the verse "lest they break through to Hashem to gaze" (Exodus 19:21), meaning that it shall not be as in the earlier days, when they were commanded, "let them not break through to Hashem to gaze," but rather, on the contrary, "the eye shall not be satisfied with seeing." And likewise, "the ear shall not be filled with hearing" from His mouth, may He be blessed, and they shall not say, "You speak with us," etc., as before. And it would be possible to say that, out of respect for His honor, may He be blessed, it is not stated whom they shall see and whom they shall hear; but the verse lacks nothing, for it refers back to the name mentioned [earlier], which is the Shechinah, as has been discussed.

"Goes toward the south" — while it is traveling in the eastern quarter, in truth it goes toward the south by the compulsion of the daily sphere, even though it circles in its own sphere so as to turn toward the north. "Turns about continually," etc. — meaning: even though each time it circles to travel its course toward its desired destination, it does not fulfill its desire, and the will departs from it, for the hand of the daily sphere overpowers it and nullifies its will. "And to its circuits," etc. — meaning: nevertheless, the desire returns to it each time, to circle about its circuits just as it did before.

"The wind" (ha-ruach) — its meaning is "will," like "Behold, I will put a spirit (ruach) in him" (Isaiah 37:7).

All the rivers flow into the sea, yet the sea is not full. Because they do not remain therein, for the ocean is higher than the entire world, as it is stated, “He summons the waters of the sea and pours them, etc.” Now from where does a person pour? From above downward, and the rivers flow in the tunnels under the mountains from the ocean and flow repeatedly, and this is [the meaning of], “to the place where the rivers flow, there they continue [to flow].” Also, the wicked man, wherever he came from, so he will go. — Notes: (30) Amos 5:8. (31) They continue this cycle perpetually.

"All the rivers" — Even though the rivers go to the sea, it will not become full unless the boundary is breached and it covers the earth, because the waters that went to it return again to go to their place — many times, without end. For continually vapor rises from the sea to the firmament, and these make up most of the clouds; and the sweet waters rise because of their lightness, and the vapor returns as rain, similar to the matter of "He who calls to the waters of the sea and pours them out" (Amos 5:8; 9:6). And the waters of the springs come from the rain, and all the wadis/rivers flow out from the springs. Do you not see that in a year of drought most of the springs dry up? And it is written, "and the wadi dried up" (1 Kings 17:7), because there was no rain in the land. And this is the meaning of "to the place where the rivers go" — but Solomon did not explain the reason for the return of the waters to their place, just as he did not explain the reason for the sun's return from west to east — whether above the firmament, or by the sides, or by the way that the earth is round and situated in the middle of the upper sphere — for these matters require [scientific] proofs, and the basic principle of Scripture's account is to speak of whatever is visible to the eye, without requiring proofs. And the point of mentioning these four — namely, the sun (which is the place of fire), the air, the water, and the earth — is that all things existing under the sun are born from them: the plants, the animals, mankind, the birds, and the fish of the sea. And if they, the roots, have the way of returning to the place they were, how shall the things born from them endure? And if they were hevel (vanity/breath) in their beginning, so shall they be in their end. And if man is hevel, how much more so his deeds, which are like mere chance to him; and how much more so his thoughts, which are like the chance of chance — as in the matter, "Hashem knows the thoughts of man, that they are hevel" (Psalms 94:11).

Or one may say: "All the rivers run [into the sea]" etc. — Behold, the way of this holy book is to speak in the manner of an inquirer who raises a difficulty and then resolves it. Now, after he had said that the cycles of the righteous person's soul are for a purpose and a considerable benefit, he speaks in the manner of an inquirer: for who is to say that its purpose is to acquire perfection? Is it not possible that, just as we have observed the circuit of the rivers that flow to the sea — and this is not for the sake of some perfection that reaches the sea or the rivers — so too it might happen to man in the cycles of his reincarnations (gilgulim)? That is: behold, all the rivers flow to the sea, yet it is not that the sea thereby acquires perfection, for behold, the sea is not filled by the circulating of the rivers and their flowing into it; and the rivers themselves likewise do not acquire perfection by this. And this is for two reasons. The first: that to the place where the rivers go, there they return, for indeed in all its circuits it does not acquire a place more excellent than the first, and moreover it does not return to rest — as was said regarding the spirit of the righteous — but rather it returns only to go forth again, that is, to turn back and travel once more. Therefore a person could conclude and say that all things likewise are wearied without benefit or purpose, like the parable of the rivers, and that the nature of the world conducts itself this way of its own accord — and not that the cycles of the spirit of all flesh go in order to be perfected, reaching each time a place more excellent than the one before, until the third [cycle], when it attains its supernal foundation. For perhaps, just as it happens by chance with all the rivers and the sea, so too it might happen with it [the soul] — and this inference was not drawn from [what is written regarding] the sun, because the whole world needs it, and that is its purpose — unlike what he wrote regarding the rivers, for even though some rivers water some places, this is not true of all of them. And this is what he means by "all the rivers," etc. — for he used the word "all" to include them all. Therefore, to refute this inference, he says "no man is able to speak of it" — that is to say, no man is able to utter this evil notion — and the proof is: "for the eye is not satisfied," etc. That is: behold, the inquirers/philosophers have demonstrated and established the coming-into-being (chiddush) of the world, and that it exists for a purpose which its Creator wrought, and that it is not a matter of chance, for three reasons. The first, from the standpoint of its great vastness and the quantity of earth and heaven and all their hosts. The second, from the standpoint of the wisdom of its arrangement and the perfecting of its circuit and its unfolding order, which teaches that He, may He be blessed, made them all with wisdom. The third, because of its great constancy. And on the basis of these three [proofs] he concludes that the world is not a matter of chance and was created for a purpose. And this is what Kohelet says: behold, no man can say that all things are wearied without attaining perfection or purpose, for behold, the eye is not satisfied with seeing the world and its fullness — for who could see it all? There is the first reason. And regarding the second of the others, he said "nor is the ear filled with hearing" — that is, even if a person were told of the world's arrangement and the wisdom of its ordering, or of its great constancy since it was created — needless to say that he cannot attain it through his own knowledge — but even were it told to him, a person's ear would not be filled with hearing it. And how could it be possible that all this is without purpose and perfection? And this is why it does not say "ve-lo tisba" ("and it is not satisfied") with a conjunctive vav, but simply "lo" ("it is not") — since it marks the beginning of a new topic, to state the fitting matters as discussed.

"Go to the sea" — they [the rivers] are drawn to pour their waters into the sea, as if thinking to fill it up to its very banks. "Yet the sea is not full" — nevertheless, our eyes see that the sea is not full, and so they do not attain their expectation. "To the place" — the reason is that the place to which the rivers flow is the sea. "There they go again" — the rivers themselves burrow from there to travel beneath the earth to the place where the water originates, and it is they who return and well up again and go back to the sea. Thus they themselves undo the fruit of their own intent. And this refers back [to the earlier theme] to reinforce his words, disparaging the toil of gathering possessions, as if to say: behold, aside from the fact that there is no eternal benefit in them, there is also something bad found in them, for one cannot be assured of attaining them through toil — sometimes because of another's doing, as with the sun, whose [efforts] come to nothing because of the daily sphere; and sometimes because of itself, as with the rivers, which toil in vain because of themselves.

All things lead to weariness, etc., the eye is not satisfied [with seeing], nor the ear filled [with hearing]. This refers back to, “What profit [does man have],” if he exchanges the study of Torah to engage in idle talk? They are wearying, and he will not be able to acquire them all, and if he comes to indulge himself visually, his eyes will not be satisfied, and if he seeks aural satisfaction, his ears will not be gratified. — Notes: (32) Above, verse 3. (33) Rashi translates דברים as “words.” Alternatively, דברים means “things,” i.e., “all things lead to weariness.” (Metsudas Dovid)

"All things toil" — Some commentators explain "yege'im" (toiling/wearying) as meaning "full," but this cannot be, because "yege'im" is an intransitive verb (po'el omed, a stative form), like [the word] in "the one who is faint and weary" (Deuteronomy 25:18). And had it been according to their interpretation, it would have been "meyag'im" (a causative form), from the pattern of the doubled [Piel] verb-form — as in "al tiga shammah" (do not weary/touch there). Rather, "yege'im" refers back to the things themselves, and the point is that they are wearied and deficient — there is no strength in them, and therefore no man is able to speak [fully of them]. And after he made known the four elemental roots — that they remain in their fixed state, and even if motion occurs to them, in the end they return as they were — this is true; we understand the general category. But the particulars that are generated from them do not remain a single moment in one fixed condition; therefore man cannot count them, and the eye is not satisfied with seeing them — for the cause of the eye's seeing is the forms that take shape in the clear air, and these do not remain a single moment; and the ear is not filled with hearing the particulars, for the cause of hearing, too, is the entry of air that carries the forms of the sounds, and these too do not remain [fixed]. Therefore the eye cannot master their particulars, nor can the ear hear their number, for they have no end or number as far as human beings [can grasp]. Therefore the Creator alone knows the general and the particular, for they are all the work of His hands.

"All things are wearisome" — Behold, when a person toils and attains his hope, then he rests and wearies himself no more; but when he does not attain it, he toils and wearies himself without end. Therefore he said: behold, all the matters of the world are wearisome, for nothing attains its hope. "Man cannot utter it" — As if to say: if I wished to detail all the matters that do not attain their hope, it would be impossible, for a human being could not recount them all, for they are very many. "The eye is not satisfied with seeing" — He took hold of a parable from a person who is so full that it is impossible for him to eat any more. That is to say: if these matters were to be seen by the eyes, the eye would not be satisfied with what it had seen until then, to the point that it would become impossible to see more, since they had all been exhausted and there was nothing more to see. But that is not so — in truth there is still more to see. "Nor the ear filled with hearing" — He returned and took hold of a parable from a vessel that is filled until it is impossible to put anything more into it. That is to say: if these matters were to be heard by the ears, the ear would not be filled with what it had heard until then, to the point that it would become impossible to hear more, since they had all been exhausted and there was nothing more to hear. But that is not so — in truth there is still more to hear.

"Things" (ha-devarim) — matters, like "concerning the matter (dvar) of the money" (Genesis 43:18).

That which has been is what will be, etc. In whatever he learns, in a matter that is an exchange for the sun, there is nothing new. He will see only that which already was, which was created in the six days of creation. But one who engages in the study of Torah constantly finds new insights therein, as the matter is stated, “her breasts will satisfy you at all times.” Just as this breast, whenever the infant feels it, he finds a taste in it, so are the words of Torah, and likewise we find in Maseches Chagigah, that Rabbi Eliezer son of Horkenos said things that the ear had not heard, concerning the account of the “Celestial Chariot.” — Notes: (34) It is interesting to note that the Tiferes Yehonasan explains the verse dealing with the generation of separation in Bereishis 11:3, “ונלבנה לבנים [let us make bricks],” that the people attempted to build rocket ships [moon=לבנה] and venture into outer space. (35) Mishlei 5:19. (36) See Maseches Eiruvin 54b where the foregoing is discussed. However, the account of Rabbi Eliezer son of Horkenos does not appear in Maseches Chagigah.

"That which has been" — The Psalmist spoke, concerning the upper/heavenly creations, that He commanded and they were created, and He established them forever, for all time (Psalm 148:5-6); and concerning the creations below, he said that His name alone is exalted (Psalm 148:13) — the point being that all of them are tohu (emptiness/nothingness). And the meaning of "that which has been" refers to the [celestial] spheres and their hosts, for they are like circles revolving again and again (chalilah), their beginning being like their end and their end like their beginning. "And that which has been done is that which shall be done" — [This refers] to the general categories that are preserved, such as the species of man, the species of horse, every species of living creature, and every species of plant; and the generation of these follows from the motions of the upper [heavenly bodies]. And if the upper bodies remain constant, the general categories — which follow the pattern of the arrangement of the hosts — will remain constant as well. And the point is: even though I cannot count the particulars, their general categories are preserved, known, and finite/countable. And in this manner you will find that the world above and the world below stand in the very same way, and there is nothing new.

"That which has been," etc. — After he said that there is an ultimate good in store for the world, provided that its creatures are rectified, and that, moreover, they repeat [their sojourn in a body] two or three times (cf. Job 33:29), until the righteousness of the righteous person goes forth like the dawn (Isaiah 62:1) — that is, [speaking of] the righteous person, peace be upon him, who sets his aim upon life, in that he devotes his labor to Torah and mitzvot and does not turn to the vanities (hevel) of this world — [in light of all this, one must ask:] the return of the soul after death is regarded as something foreign in the eyes of those who follow [only] nature — namely, that it should be made fit here to return in the future within a body. And how much more so [does this seem strange] regarding the body itself, now, seeing that it is dust — how can it be rectified after it has returned to the earth, as it had been? Now, [there is] the statement of our Rabbis of blessed memory in the Gemara, concerning the difficulty of believing in the resurrection: "That which never was, came to be — how much more so that which already was!" And the Midrash Chazit (i.e., Kohelet Rabbah / Ecclesiastes Rabbah), on the verse "that which has been is that which already is" (Ecclesiastes 3:15), [teaches]: if a person should say to you [that the dead cannot live again], etc., say to him: this has indeed already occurred in the world, for behold, Elijah, Elisha, and Ezekiel revived the dead. And in the same way he speaks here, according to our approach, to say: do not be astonished at my statement that the soul will return to be rectified, and likewise the body of the righteous person, for it is not [merely a repetition of] "that which was," etc. This is because "that which has been" is the soul, which is called havayah (being/existence), as it is written, "and man became a living soul" (Genesis 2:7) — it is this very [soul] that will return to exist in the future. And "that which has been made" is the body, as it is written, "Let us make man" (Genesis 1:26) — it is this very [body] that will be made [again]. And so, this matter should not seem astonishing to you, for behold, we have seen its like in the world, before the eyes of all. And lest you say: if "that which has been is that which shall be," etc. — would it not have been far better had the matter simply remained as it was from the start, without going forth and returning several times? — therefore he said, "and there is nothing new under the sun," meaning: the fact that there is nothing new applies [only] "under the sun," that is, in the lower world; but above, there indeed is [something new] — there is! For everything that a person gathers of Torah and mitzvot in this world produces additional lights, canopies (chuppot), and rectifications above, beyond number. And therefore the soul is sent here in order to renew those great lights, as is known to those who possess understanding [the initiated]. And also, since correspondingly sins and transgressions are not lacking, these are purged in Gehinnom [and] through reincarnations (gilgulim) until their memory is lost, while the lights of Torah and mitzvot live on and endure forever, above the sun, in the upper world that is above the daily [celestial] sphere. Alternatively, the verse may be understood as follows: after he said, "the sun rises," etc., "and goes around," etc. (Ecclesiastes 1:5–6), and rejected the opposite view by saying, "no man is able to speak of it," etc. (Ecclesiastes 1:8), he now says: should you say, O Israel, what is the gain for a man in his soul's coming here two or three times, after its final return to be clothed in a body in this land — for our dead shall live [again] — is this not to be reckoned a descent for it, seeing that it had already ascended and cleaved to its Maker after the completion of the reincarnations (gilgulim)? — [the answer is:] behold, it is that "that which has been" — the spirit — "is that which shall be," meaning: [it shall be] pure of all dross and impurity, just as it was pure and clear when it first came [into being]. And this is [the meaning of] "that which has been is that which shall be." And "that which has been made," referring to His saying, may He be blessed, "Let us make man" — [means] that the substance [of the body] was very pure and luminous, resembling that which an angel dons when it comes here. This is why they said that the heel of Adam's foot used to dim the orb of the sun — meaning that even the murkiest part of his bodily substance was purer than the orb of the sun — to say that it resembled the garment of the angel who is above the world of the [celestial] spheres, which is brighter than the sun. And therefore he said that "that which has been made is that which shall be made" afterward, into a pure substance, just as it was made in Adam. It is not to be wondered at that the soul, too — just as it was with Adam — will come into a pure substance that will be made, resembling what was made in Adam. And should you say: if so, what has the whole created being gained, if all its perfection consists only in returning to that which was at the beginning, and it cannot be that the mere removal and rectification of the defect should suffice [to account for this]? — to this he answered, "and there is nothing new," etc. For what we said — that there is nothing new — applies [only] "under the sun"; but above, there are renewals of lofty and exalted lights that are acquired through Torah and mitzvot, beyond the mere rectification of what had been perverted.

"That which has been" — As if to say: lest a person's heart be tempted to say, "Indeed it is true that in the earlier days no matter at all attained its hope through the toil of weariness, but that is not so in these present days" — therefore he said: know that what has been from of old is alone what will be even now, and what has been done from of old is alone what will be done even now. This is a doubling of the same matter in different words. "And there is nothing new" — There is nothing new under the sun, that is, in the world entirely. As if to say: just as nothing has changed so as to become new in the world, so too has this not changed — for forever, no matter attains its hope through the toil of weariness, just as it did not attain it from of old.

"Anything new" (kol chadash) — any new thing at all; and similarly, "you shall not do any (kol) work" (Exodus 20:10).

Sometimes there is a thing. That comes to your hand under the sun about which the speaker will tell you, “See, this is a new thing!” But it is not new, for it has already been so for ages that have passed before us, only “there is no remembrance of earlier generations.” Therefore, it appears to be new. — Notes: (37) Below, verse 11.

"Is there a thing" — The word "yesh" (there is) is mostly found in the holy tongue [used] of something that occurs only at rare intervals, as in "and there were times [yesh asher] the cloud would remain" (Numbers 9:21); "there is one who scatters, and yet increases" (Proverbs 11:24); "there is a wicked man who prolongs [his days] in his wickedness" (Ecclesiastes 7:15) — for in most cases, "the years of the wicked shall be shortened" (Proverbs 10:27). And if a new thing appears to a person, it has already existed in [past] ages (olamim). And the interpretation of "olamim" is like "times, eras" — as in "Rock of Ages" (Isaiah 26:4), "Your kingdom is a kingdom of all ages" (Psalms 145:13), "everlasting salvation" (Isaiah 45:17) — meaning salvation of eternity — and many eras.

"Is there a thing..." etc. — Did you not say that "there is nothing new under the sun"? But is there not a thing that the man mentioned above will say in the time to come, "See, this is new"? [The verse answers:] It is not [new], for it has already been, etc. This is the point of our Sages' statement, of blessed memory, in the Midrash on the verse "that which has been, it is that which shall be" — that if a person should ask, "How will there be in the future a man who lives forever in body and soul?" — do not wonder at it, for behold, Elijah lives and endures forever. And this is stated here in terms of our own time: behold, there is a thing of which it will be said, "See, this is new" — namely, that in the future a man will be seen who lives forever, and this indeed is new, for nothing like this has ever been seen; for even the four who did not sin died through the conspiracy of the serpent [i.e., not for their own sin]. So how can you say that there is nothing new under the sun? [The verse answers:] Do not say such a thing, for behold, it has already existed for ages, etc. — this is Elijah, for he has lived forever. And should you say, perhaps he will not live forever [any longer] — to this it answers, "which was before us," meaning from a long time before these generations of ours, and he still exists and has not changed; for behold, he remains in the very state of being he had before us — had he changed on account of old age, this would be noticeable — but since he remains as he was before us, without change, this shows that he will remain so forever, by the blessing of the King of the world. Or, [the verse] may be saying: there is a thing of which the man mentioned will say, "See, this is new" — namely, the future Temple, which will be spiritual, from heaven, unlike the two former Houses. [The verse answers:] Behold, it has already existed for ages, for it was created, and it exists above, in the upper world, having been created for two worlds — for the upper world, in which it exists now, and for this world, in which it is destined to be — as Scripture states, "The sanctuary, Hashem, which Your hands have established" (Exodus 15:17), as will be explained shortly. And when did its existence begin? Behold, "which was before us" — that is, before all existing things, for it is one of the seven things that preceded the world: the Torah, and the Throne of Glory, and the Temple, etc. "There is no remembrance..." etc. — Did you not say that "that which has been is that which will be" — for the resurrection of the dead is not to be wondered at, since it already occurred in the days of Elijah, Elisha, and Ezekiel? And should you say: but there is an objection — that the world is not established to remain eternally in existence, for behold, even in those [earlier] resurrections, [the people revived] did not endure forever — to this [the verse] answers: Do not equate these to those. For behold, "there is no remembrance of the former" — these are the ones whom Elijah and Elisha brought back to life — "nor also of the latter" who will be [revived] through Ezekiel — together with those who will arise last, in the resurrection of the dead, for they will endure forever, as stated in Tanna DeVei Eliyahu, that the Holy One, blessed be He, will make wings for them, etc. — meaning that even their bodily substance will be so refined that they will resemble the ministering angels who possess wings, as will be explained in its place, with God's help.

"Is there a thing" — Granted that there is a thing found in the world about which someone says, "See and understand, this is a new thing" — as if to say: lest through this you think that just as this thing changed so as to become new, so too has this other matter changed, so that from now on a person will be able to attain his hope through the toil of weariness. "It has been already" — As if to say: do not believe the one who says that this is new, for in truth the like of it has already been throughout the long ages, each of which existed in the days that were before us, before we were born.

"Le-olamim" (in the ages) — like "be-olamim," the lamed standing in place of the bet; and so it is written, "you have chosen (bocher atah) le-ven Yishai" (to/for the son of Jesse) (1 Samuel 20:30), whose sense is "be-ven Yishai" (in/with the son of Jesse). And the word "olamim" indicates many periods of time, like "and he shall serve him le-olam [forever]" (Exodus 21:6).

Also of the later generations that are to come. After us, will have no recollection in the generations that will be after them. And the Midrash Aggadah expounds this as referring to the obliteration of Amaleik’s remembrance, [whose remembrance] will ultimately be obliterated, as it is stated, “and the house of Eisav will have no survivor.” — Notes: (38) Ovadyah 1:18.

"There is no remembrance" — If you should say: had there been something like this new thing in former days, we would have heard report of it — [the answer is:] there is no remembrance of the former ones; and likewise, even should it happen again to the latter ones, [it will be forgotten] along with the very last of the last [generations]. Up to this point, the words of Solomon have proceeded in a general manner, and now he begins to explain all the matters that come to mind.

"There is no remembrance" — rather, there is no remembrance of the deeds done in the earlier days, for they have been forgotten from the hearts of people. "Neither shall there be any remembrance of them of latter times that are to come" — And so too, regarding the deeds that will be done in the latter days, no remembrance of them at all will remain, so as to liken them to the deeds that will be done after that time — to say that then, the deeds being done now resemble the deeds done long ago, for forgetfulness keeps growing stronger. But in truth there is nothing new in the world.

I, Koheles, have been king. Over the whole world, and later, over Yisroel, and then, over Yerusholayim alone, and finally, over my staff, for it says, “[I] have been king ... in Yerusholayim,” but now, I am no longer king. — Notes: (39) See Maseches Sanhedrin 20b. (40) Koheles exemplifies the absurdity of being proud, regardless of one’s position in society. For time gives rise to many changes; Koheles went from reigning over the whole world to being dethroned.

"I Koheleth" — The contents of the book indicate that he composed it in the last days of his life, as if he were saying to future generations: "Thus and so have I experienced in the days of my life, and I was able to test everything, because I was king." And the phrase "over Israel" is because they all had among them prophets and men of wise heart, like the "sons of Zerah" (1 Chronicles 2:6) [renowned for wisdom], and not like the "sons of Kedar," who dwell in tents (Psalm 120:5) [i.e., unlettered nomads]. And the point is that I was king over a wise and understanding people. And he said "in Jerusalem" because its location is fitting to receive wisdom, for it is known that the inhabited world is divided into seven parts, and it is not possible for people of upright heart to receive wisdom except in the three middle parts, because in the first and last parts, the abundance of heat or cold prevents human nature from being properly balanced. And it is known that the latitude of Jerusalem is thirty-three degrees, which is the middle of the inhabited world, for habitation is not possible except within [a certain range of] the degrees of the sun's declination to the north or to the south.

"I, Kohelet," etc. — Have I not told you that all the good things of this world are hevel (vanity/breath)? Behold, you shall see this from me: for behold, I am Kohelet, one who gathers assemblies (mak'hil kehalot) of all the many nations, for I once ruled over the whole dome of the earth, and now I am only king over Israel in Jerusalem alone, and not over the rest of the world. And so it appears from the words of our Rabbis of blessed memory in the Gemara, that when Ashmedai pushed him from his place and he went down to the gates [as a beggar], he went about from door to door saying, "I, Kohelet, was king over Israel in Jerusalem." It appears that at the time of his greatness, when he ruled with great dominion over the nations and the kingdoms — but after they restored him only as king over Israel in Jerusalem, as our Rabbis of blessed memory said, "a king, then a commoner, then a king" — regarding this, his final state, he says, according to our approach: "I was [only] king over Israel in Jerusalem." And should you ask: Did you not say, "What profit has man in all his toil in that which is under the sun" — meaning, the affairs of this world? But that is not so for one who makes Torah and mitzvot his primary concern! And did you not occupy yourself with them, and were you one who gathered assemblies to guide them and bring them merit — why then did you go down to the gates, with all the evil that befell you? Know, then: behold, I set my heart to inquire from others, from men of wisdom, and also to search myself with wisdom, seeking like this traveler (tayar), to understand from it concerning everything that is done under the heavens — whether it stems from providence (hashgachah) or from fortune (mazal), and the like. And as I said I would inquire from people, so I did, to see what they would answer. And behold, their statement is: "It is an evil matter" — that which God has given to mankind, to occupy themselves with and respond to in this inquiry; and this is [the meaning of] "given... to be occupied with it." This is because they cannot grasp the sight of unfitting things — such as the matter of the wicked man who prospers and the righteous man to whom it goes badly; or, "as this one's death, so that one's death" — the righteous like the wicked; and by analogy in the rest of the evil things visible to the eye of any observer — rather, they simply say, "It is an evil matter," meaning: there is no doubt that it is an evil matter that causes the righteous man that evil, or the wicked man that good, regarding the evil that befalls those crushed beneath it, and the like — but to pinpoint the specific detail that causes each and every thing, that they do not know and do not understand. And as for my having set my heart to search and investigate with wisdom, like this traveler who goes out of his city to another city, to see whether it will be good for him — this is because I saw all the deeds done under the sun without regard to the hidden secret that is above the sun, His glory, for none sees Him. And behold, I see two evils that confound my understanding. The first: that everything is hevel, and it perishes and does not endure — and what profit is there in such a world? The second: "and a vexation of spirit" (re'ut ruach) — for if all mankind were to perfect their soul and spirit here, before their death, I would keep silent, for they would receive their reward afterward in the upper world, and it would not have been for nothing that one who came in hevel came. But I see a vexation of spirit in that, on the contrary, they harm and break their own spirit by not doing good — and how can we say that people come into the world to rectify what was twisted [in a former state]? And behold, the vexation of spirit that I see is this: that the twisted thing cannot be rectified, for he dies without ever desiring rectification; and one who did not come to rectify some twisted thing, but only to complete a deficiency, by doing the good that his soul required, in order to be counted among the thirty righteous ones of every generation by whom the world is sustained — him I see failing to be completed, in such a way that he cannot be counted, and he departs deficient from the world just as he came. Or, the sense of the matter is this: behold, all is hevel, as said, and "a vexation of spirit" refers to the sight of the world's evil conduct, as it appears to one who has only eyes of flesh — such as the matter of "the tears of the oppressed, and they have no comforter" (Ecclesiastes 4:1), or "a righteous man to whom it goes badly," or its opposite — in such a way that one who is twisted and comes here to rectify what he twisted cannot rectify it, for he will be maddened by what his eyes see, and will grow angry and doubt providence (hashgachah), and add further sin. And also the deficient one, as said, cannot be counted, for even though he is not among the sinners, he will be kept from completing himself on account of his doubting providence. Therefore, what did I do? Like this traveler who goes out to a city other than his own, to see whether it will be pleasing in his eyes — so I said: "Let me go to external wisdom" (chochmah chitzonit), inquiring into what the reach of human intellect can attain, to find some reason [for the world's conduct]. And I said this because it is proper to approach it only if one has first filled his belly with the wisdom of the Torah and made it his primary concern, and also conducts himself with piety (chassidut), making a fence for the fence of the Torah, lest the outside matters cause him to sin — and even so, it remains only "perhaps and maybe." Therefore he says: behold, I first spoke to my heart, saying: behold, I have filled my belly with Torah, for behold, "I grew great, and increased in wisdom," etc. (Ecclesiastes 1:16) — for I filled my belly with it, and not only with what my teachers taught me, but I myself increased in wisdom beyond having been full of the wisdom of the Torah; I also added to it several fences and safeguards, as our Rabbis of blessed memory said regarding [Kohelet], "he weighed, and sought out," etc. (Ecclesiastes 12:9) — that he made the Torah like a basket that has handles (kefifah with oznayim/ears), that he made a fence for the fence of the Torah so that people should not sin — in such a way that I am not afraid that the foreign wisdom might draw me away from attachment to the Torah. Therefore, after these preparations, and also my heart, with which I took counsel, itself having on its own seen much wisdom and knowledge — through this, "I gave my heart to know wisdom" (Ecclesiastes 1:17) — that is, the wisdom of the Torah, to make it my primary, foundational concern, "from it a corner-stone, from it a peg" (cf. Zechariah 10:4) — and only in addition to it did I also join "the knowledge of madness (holelot) and folly (sichlut)" — that is, external wisdom, which is "madness," namely its false opinions, and which is also "intellectual" (sikhlit), for its subject is matters of the intellect (sekhel) according to human reason; therefore it is called holelut ve-sikhlut (הוללות ושכלות), spelled with a shin. But because it is not divine wisdom — which is the true intellect, infinitely above human intellect — he therefore used the term sikhlut (with a shin, שכלות, sounding “intellectual”), which, when the shin is exchanged for a samekh, becomes sikhlut (סכלות, “folly”) — relative to the wisdom of His Torah, may He be blessed. And he says, "I spoke, I, with my heart" — that is, with [my heart], not to say it to another. This is because it is not the way of the peaceable and faithful (sholmei emunei) among the sages to speak and say, "I have grown great and increased in wisdom beyond all who were before me," for this is an exceedingly unbecoming and evil trait. Therefore he says: had I said these words in the presence of people, it would have been an unbecoming thing; but it is only with my heart, to say between it and myself, [that is,] within my heart — for with it, it is fitting to say, "I have grown great and increased in wisdom," something I would not say in front of another person. Now let us return to the matter he set his heart to — that while making the Torah his primary concern, he also grasped some of the "madness and folly" of external wisdom, to investigate whether he might find some reason for the world's conduct; but I knew that this too is re'ayon ruach (a vexation of spirit) — meaning, needless to say [this applies] to one who abandons the straight paths of divine wisdom to walk in the dark ways of the external [wisdom]; but even this — that it is in the path I chose, that even though I grew great and increased in the wisdom of Torah, and even now made it my primary concern — despite all this, I saw that this too is re'ayon ruach: it is an unsteadiness and a breaking of spirit and soul. For behold, "in much wisdom" like mine in Torah there is "much vexation" (ka'as) directed at me from Him, may He be blessed, in that I joined myself to the foreign [wisdom] and brought the rival-wife of the Torah into her house; on account of having angered Him, being the object of His anger, my soul is shattered — for according to the abundance of my holy wisdom, it would have been fitting for me to distance myself from the foreign [wisdom]. And furthermore, behold, "he who increases knowledge" like myself "increases pain" (Ecclesiastes 1:18) — for his inquiry grows great and descends into the depths of many evil speculations, for the more deeply he probes, the more destruction he causes, more than any inquirer who does not increase knowledge. Or it may be said that "in much wisdom" there is "much vexation" in his inquiry, in that he will grow vexed at not finding a resolution — according to the foreign [wisdom] — for the Torah of Hashem, and endless contradictions will appear to him. And this is [the meaning of]: "in much wisdom," that is, the wisdom of Torah, there is "much vexation" over the objections that multiply from the foreign [wisdom]. And then, if he is determined to deepen the proof according to his own intellect in order to resolve them: if he "increases knowledge" like myself, he "increases pain." For one whose intellect is not very great will rejoice when he finds some answer resolving every contradiction, and then it will content him; but one who increases knowledge greatly, beyond every answer, will increase pain all the more, in difficulty — for the more incisive [the mind], the more the contradictions, difficulties, and pains multiply, and his life is no life, and he finds himself walking in darkness. All the more so since the aforementioned vexation blocks the paths before him, for "a legal matter requires a clear mind" (shema'ta ba'ya tzelota) [cf. Eruvin 65a]. Therefore I said to my heart: "Come now" (Ecclesiastes 2:1), and separate yourself from the external [wisdom]; and as for that which you cannot attain through the wisdom of truth alone, to know things in their truth — this is because attainment requires a clear mind, and I am lacking in joy, for I am saddened upon seeing the difficulty of [divine] conduct and finding no answer; therefore it is hidden from me all the more. Therefore, "let me test" (Ecclesiastes 2:1) and mix the sorrow with joy, through which I will attain [understanding]. And you, my heart, through this, do not fear to pursue the attainment of joy, but rather "see the good" (Ecclesiastes 2:1) that follows from the clarity [of mind] — that is, the attainment which is the goal — in order to descend to the depth of the truth of these inquiries. But behold, this too is hevel; for how shall I bring about joy, seeing that with me is the sorrow of hevel and the vexation of spirit in which my spirit clings to the evil things I see under the sun? If I take hold of the other extreme, occupying myself with laughter and jesting, bringing before me jesters to offset my sorrow, in order to come from the two extremes to a middle path of joy — this is not possible; for behold, of laughter I said, "it is mad" (Ecclesiastes 2:2), and revelers will not stand before my eyes. And if I do nothing but grant myself the aspect of joy alone — behold, of joy I said, "what does this accomplish?" (Ecclesiastes 2:2) — meaning, what would this thing accomplish; meaning, there is nothing that this aforementioned joy suffices to bring joy into my heart, given the aforementioned sorrow within me, except through the laughter that I have rejected. Another approach is possible, in the flow of the verses, [regarding] "I, Kohelet," etc. This is that after declaring all the affairs of this world to be hevel, he says: "I, Kohelet" — I who gather assemblies of all the many nations — when I was king over Israel in Jerusalem, none of the other nations refrained from coming to Jerusalem to hear my teachings; and then, to establish it upon the truth, "I gave my heart to inquire and search out with wisdom," through investigation and inquiry, concerning everything that is done under the sun — whether it is hevel, or whether there is substance in it, [enough] to make it one's primary concern. And behold, it is "an evil matter" in itself, for it is not good to make it one's primary concern, but only a preparation for the world to come, treating it as incidental. And if [it be] that God has given mankind everything that is under the sun not to make it primary, but only "to be occupied with it" — which is merely some occupation, according to the view of the commentators who say that la'anot refers to commerce and some sort of occupation — then behold, I would not have wished to proclaim this publicly, for it would not have been heeded from me. But what shall I do, seeing that it is "an evil matter," for God has given and set it upon mankind to be occupied with and speak of it, and I cannot evade it. And also, behold, I saw all that is done under the sun, and behold, all is hevel and a vexation of spirit, for all the affairs of this world are hevel, and people harm and destroy their spirit and soul over it, by making the life of the moment their primary concern and abandoning eternal life; therefore I was compelled to save them from within this upheaval and darkness. But I said, what shall I do to rebuke and chastise everyone in order to correct them, seeing that "that which is crooked cannot be made straight" (Ecclesiastes 1:15) — for behold, I too am not upright in this matter, in that I multiplied silver and gold and wives, and I cannot correct another lest they say to him, "first remove the beam [from between your eyes]," etc. And if I say, perhaps Heaven has appointed me to rebuke the people and guide them — this too is not possible; for behold, "that which is lacking cannot be numbered" (Ecclesiastes 1:15) — one lacking in perfection, like myself, cannot be appointed by Heaven over others, for how would his listeners heed and accept the words of one who is imperfect? Therefore [this cannot be].

"I, Koheleth" — As if to say: I am the one called Koheleth, on account of having gathered (kibbatzti) differing opinions in order to combine, refine, and clarify the truth. "over Israel" — and they are a wise and understanding people. "in Jerusalem" — which is the city of wisdom. As if to say: since this is so, much wisdom did my heart see.

"I have been" (hayiti) — a matter that is habitual/ongoing may be expressed with the past tense as well as with the future tense, as it is said, "and his sons would go... thus Job would do (ya'aseh)" (Job 1:5).

And I applied my heart to search. In the Torah, which is wisdom, and to ponder over it concerning all the evil deeds mentioned above, which are committed under the sun, and I pondered over it that it is a sore task that the Holy One, Blessed Is He, set before mankind. “The life and the good, and the death and the evil.” — Notes: (41) Devarim 30:15. An evil thing. They have evil behavior. To be afflicted with. To behave with it. “עִנְיָן” may be interpreted as an expression of an abode [=מָעוֹן and a dwelling, and it may also be interpreted as an expression of study [=עִיּוּן and thought, and the same applies [for the interpretation of] ‘לַעֲנוֹת בּוֹ.’ — Notes: (42) Alternatively ‘לענות בו’ means “to be afflicted with.” (Metsudas Tzion) God has given. Has placed before them. — Notes: (43) And they have been given the freedom to choose [=בחירה].

"And I applied [my heart]" — It is possible that the topic of this verse is joined to the verse that follows it, namely, that he investigated by means of wisdom. And so too the meaning of "latur" (to search out) is like "mi-tur ha-aretz" ("from searching out the land," Numbers 13:25) — to see matters of purpose and the fundamentals of all the deeds, even though this is a bad matter, because a person occupies himself with something that will not profit. And the interpretation of "la'anot bo" ("to busy himself with it") — regarding its root: some say it is from the language of "inui" (affliction), and would say that similarly "I am greatly afflicted" (aniti me'od) (Psalms 116:10), and "the pride of Israel is humbled" (Hosea 5:5). But it is more correct that "ve-anah" is from [the root of] "you shall not testify against your neighbor" (Exodus 20:13), and likewise "aniti" is like "va-ya'an Iyov" ("and Job answered," Job 3:2); and proof of this is what follows it, "I said in my haste" (Psalms 116:11), and likewise "God will hear and will answer/humble them" (Psalms 55:20) — meaning He will respond concerning them, or He will return an answer to them. And when he occupied himself with seeing the roots of the deeds, he found that they are hevel (vanity) and a striving after wind. And the meaning of "under the heavens" is like "under the sun." And it is possible that by the phrase "under the heavens" — like "under the sun" — he alluded to the uppermost sphere, where all the host of heaven is, and the wisdom of the secret of the constellations, numbering forty-eight configurations of the sphere. And after he looked, by way of wisdom, to know the root of all the deeds that are generated by the power of the heavens, he saw that it is a bad and harmful matter, because of the limitation of human understanding to count the generating [bodies], let alone all the generated [events] — for there is no number to the hosts of heaven, and the ancients were only able to identify one thousand and twenty-two [stars]. And this is proven by the fact that he says, "under the heavens... a time for every season" (Ecclesiastes 3:1), and likewise the second [occurrence of this root], which is in the verse "I searched (tarti) in my heart" (2:3).

"And I applied my heart" — I set my heart to seek out and examine, not by the sight of the eyes, but rather with wisdom and understanding of the mind I investigated all the things that are done under heaven, in this world. "it is a sore task" — meaning: I understood that this is an evil matter, in that God set aside and left all deeds to human beings, giving them the freedom to act as they wish, in order to afflict them with recompense for their deeds on account of the freedom of choice — for were it not for free choice, there would be no punishment.

"And I gave" (ve-natati) — and I set/placed; in the words of our Rabbis of blessed memory, "he set (natan) his eyes upon him" (Shabbat 34a). "And to search out" (ve-latur) — an expression of searching and investigating, like "to scout out (latur) the land" (Numbers 14:36). "A sore task" (inyan ra) — an evil matter; and in the words of our Rabbis of blessed memory there are many [instances of this usage]. "Gave" (natan) — its meaning is [also] "relinquished/allowed," like "and Sihon did not allow (natan)" (ibid. 21:23). "To be exercised with it" (la'anot) — from the language of affliction and suffering.

And vexation of spirit. The breaking [=וּרְעוּת of the spirit, as in, “Shatter רֹעוּ, O peoples, and be devastated.” “רוּחַ” is talent in O.F. At the end of the deed it becomes heartache. — Notes: (44) Alternatively, ורעות רוח means, “and a grasping [from רעה] after wind,” i.e., man’s effort is as hopeless as trying to catch the wind. (45) Yeshayahu 8:9.

"I have seen" — the meaning of "u-re'ut ru'ach" ("and a striving after wind") is like "Ephraim feeds on wind and pursues the east wind" (Hosea 12:2) — something that does not profit and does not satisfy. And the meaning of "ru'ach" (wind) is like "hevel" (vanity), because of its constant motion, such that a person cannot grasp it in hand, as in the matter of "for they sow the wind" (Hosea 8:7), and likewise "for a wind has passed over it" (Psalms 103:16). And it is possible that "re'ut" is like "machshevet" (a thought), and this is proven by "re'ayon ru'ach" ("a frustration of wind/spirit"); and their pattern is like "demut" (likeness) and "dimyon" (similarity/imagination), from verbs whose final root-letter is not complete [i.e., weak lamed-heh verbs].

"I have seen" — with the sight of the eyes I saw all the deeds that are done, in the matter given under the dominion of the sun — that is, the gathering of possessions, entrusted to the workings of the heavens; and he mentions the sun because it does much of the work among the lower creatures, etc., as was said above at the beginning of the book. Or: in this world, in the place of the sun's shining, I saw, etc. "and, behold, all is vanity" — with my own eyes I saw that they are all hevel (vanity/emptiness), without benefit; moreover, in them there is the frustration of their makers' will, for one does not attain his desire and his hope is disappointed.

"And a striving" (u-re'ut) — an expression of breaking, like "you shall break them (tero'em) with a rod of iron" (Psalms 2:9). "Wind" (ruach) — will/desire.

That which is crooked. During his lifetime, will not be able to be straightened after he dies. Whoever toiled on the eve of Shabbos will eat on Shabbos. And our Sages explained this as referring to one who had illicit relations with a woman and begot a mamzer, or to a Torah scholar who abandoned the Torah, [i.e.,] he was originally straight, and became crooked. or Tefillah in their respective required time periods; in Maseches Berachos 26a. — Notes: (46) See Maseches Avodah Zarah 3a. (47) See Mishnayos Chagigah 1:7. Another application of this verse is in reference to a person who failed to recite Shema And that which is wanting cannot be counted. The one who excluded himself from the group, cannot be counted with them to share their reward. — Notes: (48) I.e., that was formed to perform a mitzvah; see Maseches Berachos 26a.

"That which is crooked" — is a pu'al [passive] form, like "medubar" (spoken); and there are two possible roots, though the meaning is one: [one] complete [a sound verb] and [one] that is not complete [a weak verb]. And the word "le-taken" ("to be made straight") is an intransitive verb, and its sense, following the first interpretation of the two verses that precede this one, is: after he saw that everything is hevel (vanity), the hevel cannot be restored to a state of standing/permanence, for that which is crooked cannot be made straight, since its very nature is crookedness, and one who possesses a deficiency has no capacity to be counted among the whole. And this is the interpretation of "be-chesron" ("that which is wanting") — "one who possesses a lack" (ba'al mechsaron); or it may be a descriptive noun, like "rishon" (first) and "acharon" (last); or it refers back to "the crooked thing" (me'uvat), such that "me'uvat" alone describes something crooked in its own nature, and "me'uvat chesron" means lacking on account of its own deficiency. And according to the second interpretation — that which was born under a deficient astral configuration has no power to perfect its soul. Thus it turns out that one who occupies himself with investigating the root of generated things from the workings of the heavens is occupying himself with tohu (emptiness), and this is true of most of mankind and most of their deeds.

"crooked" — if something crooked and flawed occurs in his deeds, it is not in his power to repair the flaw. "and that which is wanting" — a thing that is lacking in his deeds, it is not in his power to complete it so that it be counted among the things that are not lacking.

"Crooked" (me'uvat) — an expression of distortion and corruption, like "but the way of the wicked He makes crooked (ye'avet)" (ibid. 146:9). "Numbered" (le-himanot) — from the language of counting and number.

I said to myself. Now that I have sunk from my greatness, I speak to myself, saying, “Who would have said about me that I would come to such a state?” Behold, I have grown, etc.

"I spoke" — because the heart is the dwelling-place of the spirit, and it is the [organ] created in the body first, for it is like a king, while the brain is like the commander of the army — the heart became an epithet for wisdom, for intellect, for reason, and for the thoughts of understanding, because it is the first vehicle for man's higher soul. And likewise speech is termed by the language of "lip" (safah), because speech emerges from it. Therefore it says, "a wise and understanding heart" (1 Kings 3:12), [and] "one who acquires a heart [i.e., wisdom] loves his own soul" (Proverbs 19:8). And the meaning of "higdalti" ("I have gotten great [wisdom]") and "ve-hosafti" ("I increased") wisdom is that he compiled and studied the wisdom of the ancients and added to it. "and my heart has had great experience of wisdom" — [meaning] that he did not compile it himself [as opposed to what he studied from others]. And the word "harbeh" ("much"/"great") is a noun that is found used for both singular and plural, like "for they shall be many" (harbeh yihyu); and so too the word "reikam" (empty-handed); and the infinitive form with a qamatz is "harbeh arbeh" ("I will greatly increase").

"I spoke with my own heart" — first, in order to reckon the accounts of my own soul with it, so that through my own atonement for myself first, my words would afterward be accepted by others. This is the meaning of "I spoke with my own heart, saying" — that is, in order to say afterward to others the wisdom that I learned from my teachers and to which I added, and also what my own heart had seen of much wisdom and knowledge. Yet all of this did not avail to keep me from being defiled by the vanities (hevel, i.e. vapor/breath) of the world. For as to "and I gave my heart to know wisdom," I did not make wisdom alone my main concern, but joined with it the intent to know the folly (hollelut, i.e. revelry/folly) of wealth — sending for gold from Ophir and the like — and the folly of honor, in multiplying horses, and the pleasures of man, and also foolishness (sichlut), which is the multiplying of wives who turn the heart and the mind away. For with the wisdom I had acquired beforehand, I thought it would stand by me so that I would not go wrong by making the vanities of the world my main concern. This is the meaning of "to know wisdom" — and trusting in it, I relied upon it also "to know folly and foolishness." Now, my guilt is far greater than that of other men who do not have knowledge as I do, for it — wisdom — will prove bitter in the end. And this I already knew, that this too is "a striving after wind" (re'ayon ruach) — that is, even from the outset I knew that this too was a striving after wind, for even to begin pursuing such things is itself like walking into a net (cherem), a breaking of the soul. For it was not for nothing that He, blessed be He, withheld from the king all of these — horses, wives, and silver and gold — but rather because desire pressed upon me to set myself apart from others, for my own heart would not turn away from it. Therefore, on account of my own request, I knew from the start that this too was a striving after wind, and yet I did not restrain myself against my inclination (yetzer); my guilt is great. And there is no way to lessen my guilt by saying that it was my abundance of wisdom that brought this upon me, that I trusted it would keep me from sinning — for is it not, rather, the opposite? Is it not that "in much wisdom is much vexation," His, blessed be He, vexation with me? For I ought to have clung more closely to Him, blessed be He, so as not to transgress His commandments under any pretext whatsoever; for relying on the fact that my understanding is greater than that of others is no guarantee that my heart will not go astray. For is it not that "he who increases knowledge increases pain," since one who is greater than his fellow has a greater inclination than his fellow? Or, "he who increases knowledge" comes to grasp how far the damage of sin reaches, and so it is fitting that this increase worry and pain, so that he be careful and guard himself with the utmost care, keeping very far away from sin. Or, alternatively, it means that even when I repented and felt remorse, comfort was hidden from me, for my heart aches within me over the fact that I did not act well; for "he who increases knowledge" — like myself, who said, "and I increased wisdom," etc. — "increases pain," that is, sorrow, and how can I offer reproof while I am still in pain and distress, since effective reproof requires a sober, clear mind (tzilluta, an Aramaic term for the clarity of mind needed to render right judgment)? Therefore I said, "let me test the pain with mirth" — mixing joy into it in such a way that the joy would not be excessive, but only a tempering of the pain. And in saying this to my own heart, I said to it: "and you, my heart, look upon what is good" — let your inclination toward joy not be for its own sake, but only for the good that follows from it, namely, to serve your Maker. And behold, this too is hevel. For behold, it cannot be avoided: either the joy will not cause me to sin but will merely draw me after laughter and mockery, or it will bring me to the various kinds of sin that are stirred up by it. If it leads to laughter, then "of laughter I said, it is mad"; and if to joy — that is, to be joyful continually, such that its fruit is not laughter but simply that I am joyful in essence — then "of joy, [I said,] what does this accomplish?" meaning, how much great harm this does! And the word "what" (mah) here is used as in the verse "how great (mah) is Your goodness," etc., for excessive joy brings pride and every kind of evil, since wherever there is excessive joy, Satan comes to prosecute, to bring about sin and to bring punishment, God forbid. "I explored (tarti) with my heart," etc. — have I not seen that I went to great lengths to declare the affairs of this world hevel, and that I raised a protest against joy, that it is evil in the eyes of the Master of the world? And behold, your own eyes see that I proclaimed much (chazon, i.e. gave much exhortation), yet I did not act accordingly — for I multiplied the food of my table, as is known from the feasts of Solomon, and our Sages, of blessed memory, said that he would do so for each one of his wives every day; and I built myself houses the like of which are not found in all the land, on whose construction I spent thirteen years; and vineyards and orchards lacking nothing, as our Sages, of blessed memory, said — not even the delicacy called mantaksah, and pepper, were lacking; and menservants and maidservants, princes and princesses, and the pleasures of man. So how could I now abhor joy, and yet also declare the affairs of this world hevel? Therefore he said: know, then, that it was not for the sake of the pleasures — of wine, of foods, or of feasting my eyes on houses and vineyards and orchards — that I did these things, but rather that "I explored with my heart" like a scout (tayar), to see, to search, and to test all these matters, how far their reach extends, until I would see by direct experience what good there is for the sons of man, etc., so as to teach them knowledge as to how they should spend the number of the days of their lives. And this is the same idea as what our Sages, of blessed memory, said in Devarim Rabbah: if any other person were to say "vanity of vanities," people would say, "he has never seen any good in his life" — that is why he says everything is hevel. To whom is it fitting to say "vanity of vanities"? To Solomon, etc. In the same way it is said here: that he did great things with the good things and affairs of this world, so that he would be able to teach and to say: behold, I have tried all the good things of the world, and they are hevel; therefore take care not to make them your main concern, for they are hevel. And this is the meaning of "I explored with my heart," etc. — for the fact that the comfort of my table was full of rich fare, which is not good, and how much more so with wine, which betrays and misleads, and also that I took hold of the folly and simplicity of the world's vanities, its good things and its pleasures — this was only so that I would see, by direct experience, what good there is for the sons of man to do, etc., so that I might give word and counsel to them as to what they should occupy themselves with and what they should regard as hevel. For behold, it is I who have tried everything, declaring hevel all the good things of this world. And so that people should not say of him, "is this not bad advice that you have given, to be drawn after wine? For you have destroyed yourself, placing yourself in danger of falling under the power of wine, which betrays, since wine and new wine take away the heart — and is this not the very statement of his mother, 'It is not for kings... to drink wine'?" — therefore he said: "to draw my flesh with wine," etc. — meaning: behold, the whole purpose of what I explored with my heart, to inquire and to search, was to find a way to draw my flesh with wine while keeping my heart under control, and not to draw my heart itself. On the contrary, my heart continued to conduct itself with wisdom, for the wine did not have the power to take hold of my heart, but only to draw my flesh, so that it would not be lost through the pain mentioned above. And as for my engaging with the vanities of the world called folly, this was only "to take hold of folly" to some degree, and not to make it my main concern, God forbid. This is the meaning of "and my heart conducted itself" — essentially and continually — "with wisdom," while "taking hold" to some degree "of folly." Or, the meaning of the verse is: "I explored with my heart, to draw with wine" — my heart drew my flesh after it, by means of my heart's conducting itself with wisdom, to draw my flesh as well, so that it would not be held back by what would satiate it through the pain mentioned above.

"I spoke, etc." — meaning: I thought within myself and did not speak to another. "I have gotten great" — I was in great greatness, and this leads to the sharpening of the mind through the broadening of the heart. "wisdom, more also than all... over Jerusalem" — I labored greatly to gather wisdom in far greater measure than all the kings who were before me over Jerusalem (and it is possible he meant the kings of the nations, for David his father alone reigned in Jerusalem, and no one else besides him). "indeed, my heart has had great experience" — meaning: with the understanding of my heart I beheld much wisdom and knowledge.

"See" (ra'ah) — this is borrowed [figuratively] for the understanding of a matter; and similarly, "see (re'eh), your words are good" (2 Samuel 15:3).

And I applied my heart, now, to know the nature of wisdom, what its end is, and the nature of madness and folly. Madness. Dullness and confusion of thoughts, an expression of mixing, as in, “diluted מָהוּל with water.” — Notes: (49) Yeshayahu 1:22. And folly. Foolishness. — Notes: (50) שׂכלות has the same meaning as if it were spelled סכלות [=foolishness], as in, “and to grasp foolishness [סכלות]” in 2:3 and as in, “and madness and foolishness [סכלות]” in 2:12 below. I understand now, that also wisdom has frustration in it, for in great wisdom, a person relies on his great wisdom and does not distance himself from the prohibition, and much vexation comes to the Holy One, Blessed Is He. I said, “I will get many horses, but I will not return the people to Egypt,” but ultimately, I returned. I said, “I will take many wives, but they will not turn my heart away,” but it is written about me, “his wives swayed his heart.” And similarly it states that he relied on his great wisdom and did many things, as it is stated, “the words of this man to Isieil, because God is with me, I will be able.” — Notes: (51) I Melachim 11:4. (52) Mishlei 30:1.

After I had studied the wisdoms and increased [them], I applied my heart to know the essence of madness (holelut), as in "and he feigned madness in their hands" (va-yithollel be-yadam) (1 Samuel 21:14), and the essence of folly (sichlut), which is the opposite of madness — even though this too is a thought of hevel (vanity).

"And I applied my heart to know" — I set my heart to know, so as to discern the value of wisdom, and to know the matter of madness and folly, to weigh one against the other, in order to discern the superiority of wisdom over folly. "I perceived" — indeed I recognized that even wisdom is a breaking of the spirit.

"Madness" (holelut) — an expression of confusion and derangement of the mind, like "and He makes judges mad (yeholel)" (Job 12:17). "And sichlut" (ve-sichlut) — like "ve-sakhlut" with a samekh, and it is an expression of foolishness. "Striving" (ra'ayon) — an expression of breaking, as was said above, "u-re'ut ruach" (a striving after wind).

"For" — when he sought to know folly, he saw that the wise man (ha-maskil) who understands the affairs of the world through his abundance of wisdom will always have vexation and pain, and will not rejoice in [his] children, because he knows that their end is to die, whether in his lifetime or after him; nor [will he rejoice] in wealth, which flies away like a bird, and which also will not profit or save on the day of calamity — and the day of death is ever set before his eyes.

"For in much wisdom" — in one who possesses much wisdom, much vexation is found, for he perceives the deeds of people very intelligently as they truly are, and when he sees that they are not good, he becomes angry within himself, since those matters are not in accordance with his will, and at this he becomes angry — and how greatly anger causes harm! "and he who increases knowledge" — one who increases knowledge, understanding one thing from another — behold, in this he increases pain for himself, for through understanding one thing from another he comes to perceive even the outcomes that arise from corrupted deeds, and this brings pain to his heart.