Ecclesiastes · Chapter 5

To utter a word before God. To speak critically toward [God] above. — Notes: (1) Alternatively, “do not let your heart be hasty” to voice complaints before God, “for He is in heaven and you are on earth,” i.e., He alone knows what is good for you and whatever he does is for the best. See Maseches Berachos 61a and Maharsha there. For God is in heaven and you are on earth. And even if the weak one is above, and the strong one below, the fear of the weak one is upon the strong one, how much more so when it is the strong one [=God] Who is above and the weak one who is below.

"Be not rash" — Let your mouth not utter words before Him in His house in haste, and let your heart not be hasty — rather, understand it well, for the heart is like one lost and wandering amid the affairs of the world. Therefore Hashem's anointed said, "Your servant has found his heart" (2 Samuel 7:27). And know that God stands over you and sees you and hears your words, for He is in heaven, in the heights of the loftiest heights, and you are upon the earth, with nothing lower than you. Therefore let your words be few, so that you not endanger yourself — just as the High Priest on Yom Kippur would pray a short prayer and depart. Abraham the author said: behold, I have resolved to speak, for since the glory of the Omnipresent fills every place, and man cannot be careful in every place, a place was established for him, fixed for his prayer, and he is obligated to honor it. Man is also obligated to thank and praise his God every moment, for His kindness is with him in every part of every moment, in that He keeps him alive and lets him delight in sensation. But since man is occupied with the affairs of the world, a set time was appointed for him to pray in — known times, evening, morning, and noon; for anyone who has eyes knows the time the sun rises, the time it declines, and the time it sets. Therefore a person is obligated, when he prays, to guard the openings of his mouth and to think in his heart that he is standing before a King who has in His hand the power to give life and to bring death. Therefore it is forbidden for a person to pray and insert into his prayer piyyutim (liturgical poems) whose essential meaning he does not know, relying on the author's original intent — for there is no man who does not err, or the copyists erred. And I say, as a general rule, that there are four difficult things in the piyyutim of Rabbi Eliezer HaKallir, may his repose be honored. The first thing is that most of his piyyutim are riddles and parables. And I will cite one of his piyyutim: "Liyre'ei yaqpil, ve-chadashim yakhpil, le-yom zeh pur hipil, u-mi-Tzion yimloch" ("For those who fear Him He will fold up; and He will double the new; for this day He cast the pur; and from Zion He shall reign"). Some explain that "liyre'ei" is written with a yod, and its meaning is that the Messiah will fold up the earth before him and double the new — that he will double the months of the years and hasten his coming. And some say it is without a yod, and its meaning is "cause to pass away," like the word in "see (re'i) your way in the valley" (Jeremiah 2:23). "And he will double the new" means "conceal" — and these are the new idols that have recently come. And the sages of the generation explain: "liyre'ei yaqpil" means that He will remove these heavens, which are likened to a hard mirror. "Ve-chadashim yakhpil" refers to the new heavens. This too is not correct, for the sense of his language is only "he will remove a mirror and double [the] new" — perhaps they are thick cords, and he will double them, so that the blow struck with them will be harsh? Would it be conceivable for a person to say, "There is no wise man in all of life like an ayir (wild donkey)," and claim that its meaning is "man," because it is written, "a wild ass's colt (ayir) is born a man" (Job 11:12)? Or would he say, "Happy is the people who worship fire and bow down to the sun," and claim that "fire" (esh) is the honored and awesome Name, since it is said, "For Hashem your God is a devouring fire, a jealous God" (Deuteronomy 4:24), and that He is also "sun" (shemesh), since it is said, "for Hashem God is a sun and a shield" (Psalms 84:12)? — even though these are stated without the letter kaf of comparison, [merely described] like strong mirrors. And Scripture likened the skies to a mirror only with respect to hardness. Would a person pray, "Blessed are You, Lion," because it is found regarding the Omnipresent, "like a lion He shall roar" (Hosea 11:10)? Would this be good in the eyes of Hashem? And why do we not learn from Solomon, than whom there was no wiser man afterward? Behold, the prayer that he prayed is well known, and anyone who knows the Holy Tongue understands it, and it is not riddles and parables. So too the prayer of Daniel, who was a solver of difficult matters (Aramaic: mashare qitrin, "a loosener of knots," cf. Daniel 5:12). Behold, these men prayed only in clear words, for they were wise. How much more so one who prays on behalf of many people, not all of whom are wise! And likewise, every prayer, weekday and holy day, that the early sages instituted contains no riddles or parables. And what sense is there in doubling the new heavens — will there be two of them, and he doubles them? And to say, regarding the Omnipresent, "for this day He cast the pur" — this is not correct, for one who casts a lot does not know what will result. And he ought to have avoided the phrase "cast the pur," for it is found nowhere except regarding the adversary [Haman]. Furthermore, after He removes these heavens and this earth, how will He reign from Zion? For it is a part of the earth. One of the sages of the generation answered and said that the rhyme of "yaqpil" required him to say "pur hipil." I answered him that we do not find the prophets, in all their prayers, concerning themselves with rhyme. Furthermore, he could have composed it on a different rhyme; and why did he ride upon a pil (elephant)? He himself casts it down to the ground! And if he saw in a dream that he should make a rhyme on "pil," and needed upon waking to resolve his dream — he might have said: "Lochetz ya'pil, le-hitnase yapil, ve-ramei lev yashpil, u-mi-Tzion yimloch" ("He will bring low the presumption of the oppressor; He will cast down him who exalts himself; and He will humble the haughty of heart; and from Zion He shall reign"). The second matter is that his piyyutim are mixed with the language of the Talmud. And it is known that there are several dialects in the Talmud, which are not the Holy Tongue. Thus they said: "The language of Scripture is one thing, and the language of the Talmud is another" (Avodah Zarah 58b). And who has brought us into this trouble, to pray in foreign tongues? Did not Nehemiah rebuke those who spoke the language of Ashdod? And how much more so at the time of prayer! And why do we not learn from the fixed prayer, which is entirely composed of clear words in the Holy Tongue? And why should we pray in the language of Media, Persia, Edom, and Ishmael? The third matter is that even the words which are in the Holy Tongue contain great errors, such as "anasikha malki lefanav" ("I will pour out my king before Him"). And what is found on this matter is: "But I have set (nasakhti) my king" (Psalms 2:6), which is from the qal (light) conjugation, on the pattern of "nafalti" (I fell) and "nadarti" (I vowed), whose future is "asukh" or "anasukh," like "efol" (I will fall) and "ador" (I will vow). And from the heavy (causative) conjugation one says "hipil" (he cast down), whose future is "apil"; and likewise from "hesikh" one says "asikh," or "anasikh" with the nun made visible, like "ve-lanfil yarekh" (Numbers 5:22). And so the meaning of "anasikha malki" would be, "I will make of him a libation (nesekh)," as in: "I will not pour out (asikh) their libations of blood" (Psalms 16:4). And some explain "nasakhti malki" as equivalent to "I have anointed" — but even if this were the true interpretation, it would still be an error. Secondly, why did he not say "aromem malki" (I will exalt my king), or "ashabe'ach ve-odeh" (I will praise and give thanks), or "akadesh" (I will sanctify)? Rather, he sought a [difficult] word merely to display his cleverness to his listeners. And we are obligated to know the grammar of the language well, so that we not err — like those who recite the Grace after Meals and say "zoneinu" [with a certain vocalization], not knowing that "zoneinu" [so vocalized] is from "zanah" (to commit harlotry), just as "aneinu" is from "anah" (to answer); whereas from "zan" (to feed) one should say only "zuneinu" (sustain us), like "shuveinu Elohei yish'einu" ("restore us, O God of our salvation"). And sometimes he uses the imperative form ("tzav") where the past tense is called for, as many say on a fast day: "she-chal anav panecha" ("that the humble one entreated Your face"). And it is known that the letter shin stands in place of "asher" ("that/who"), as in "mah she-hayah hu she-yihyeh" ("what was is what will be"); and "chal" is an imperative form used for the future, as in "chal na et penei Hashem" ("please entreat the face of Hashem"). And the correct form to say would be "she-chilah," like "u-ve-hikkan'o chilah et penei Hashem" ("and when he humbled himself, he entreated the face of Hashem"). And furthermore, in the hands of Rabbi Eliezer, may his rest be in Eden, the Holy Tongue becomes "a breached city without a wall" (Proverbs 25:28), for he makes the masculine into feminine, and the reverse. He says: "shoshan emeq ayumah" ("lily of the valley, awesome"). And it is known that the heh of "shoshanah" is a feminine marker, and the heh reverts to a tav in the construct state: "shoshanat ha-amaqim" ("lily of the valleys"). And when the heh or the tav is removed, it becomes masculine, like "tzedakah" and "tzedeq." So how can he say of "shoshan" [masculine] "ayumah" [feminine]? And why did he depart from the verse and not say "shoshanat emeq ayumah"? And furthermore, what sense is there in describing a lily as "dreadful"? Does the lily feel fear? The only fitting descriptions of a lily are "plucked," or "fresh," or "withered." One of the sages of the generation said: he needed to say "ayumah" so that his rhyme would be rich. I answered him: if this is a rich rhyme, then there are in his piyyutim rhymes that are poor and destitute, wandering from door to door — for he rhymed "har" (mountain) with "nivchar" (chosen). If this is because both are letters of the throat, then he should likewise rhyme with them alef and ayin. And with bet and vav — since he also rhymes "Levi" with "navi" (prophet) — he should rhyme with them mem and peh as well, and then all the rhymes would number five, corresponding to the number of places of articulation of the letters. And if the reason for combining heh with chet is that their shapes are similar in writing, then he should combine resh with dalet as well. And indeed we do find [in Scripture] "Deuel" [and] "Reuel," "Dodanim" [and] "Rodanim." And likewise he should combine "mishpatim" with "petaim," since they share the same place of articulation, and we find tet used in place of tav in the words "nitztadeq," "hitztayadnu," "vayitztayru." He also combined "ve-yom" with "pidyon" and "elyon" — this too is not correct. Even though we find mem in place of nun, as in "chayin" and "chitin," how can he interchange the mem of "yom," which is a root letter, with the nun of "elyon" and "pidyon," which derive from "alah" and "padah," where the nun is not a root letter? And besides, what real purpose does rhyme serve except to be pleasant to the ear, so that one senses the end of this word is like the end of that word? Perhaps he had some sixth sense by which he felt that mem is like nun, though they are not from the same place of articulation. He also combined "osher" (wealth) with "aser te'aser" (you shall surely tithe) — this too is not correct, unless the one praying were an Ephraimite. Some say: "one does not answer the lion after his death" [one should not dispute a great sage once he has died]. The answer is: the spirit of God made us, all of us, and the ancients, like us, were pinched from clay, and the ear tests words. And we all know that Daniel was a prophet, and chief over all the magicians of Babylon and its sages; yet behold, our sages of blessed memory said: "Daniel erred in his calculation" — and calculation is a simple matter. Moreover, Jeremiah the prophet lived in the time of Daniel. And after our sages demonstrated the proof of his error, would the one who says this ["one does not answer the lion"] say to them: had Daniel been alive, would he have declared that those who deemed him mistaken were themselves mistaken? And others said: "Rachmana liba ba'i" ("The Merciful One desires the heart"). If so, why do we need words at all? Because He knows the hidden things of the heart. But did not the early sages institute, to say on the fast of Yom Kippur: "Be with the mouths of the emissaries of Your people, the house of Israel, and let them not stumble in their speech"? The fourth matter is that all his piyyutim are full of midrashim and aggadot; and our sages said: "a verse never departs from its plain sense." If so, it is not fitting to pray except according to the plain sense, and not by a way that has a hidden meaning (sod), or is by way of a parable, or is like a matter for which there is no accepted halachic ruling, or which may be interpreted in many ways. Do we not know, from the midrash on Song of Songs, that every [occurrence of] "Shlomo" mentioned there is sacred, and its meaning is "the King to whom peace belongs"? Would it be proper for a person to say in his prayer, "Save me, O King Shlomo"? And behold, we find in Scripture those who say, "What is the burden (massa) of Hashem?" and they knew that there is a "massa" that means "prophecy" — yet when those who spoke to Jeremiah the prophet said "What is the burden of Hashem?" the prophet did not know their hidden intent, for they meant nothing but the sense of "every man his own burden." And He who knows hidden things told the prophet to say to them that the "burden" would be for each man his own word, "and you have overturned the words of..." etc.: "rather you shall say, 'what has Hashem spoken,' and 'what has Hashem answered,'" so that there be no ambiguity of meaning in the word. And likewise, "you shall no longer call Me Ba'ali" — but is He not "the husband (ba'al) of one's youth," just as "ishi" (my husband) is used? Therefore, because the name "Ba'al" carries an ambiguity with "the Baal," which is an idol, the prophet said: even a word that carries an ambiguity, in the manner of an idol, you shall not say to Me, but only "ishi." And the Gaon, Rav Saadia, kept himself free of these four faults in his two Baqashot (supplicatory poems), such that no author has composed the like of them, for they are [written] in the language of Scripture and the grammar of the language, without riddles and parables, and without derash. There was also a sage in France who composed a Baqashah beginning "Imrei ha'azinah Hashem" ("Give ear, Hashem, to my words"), and it contains things that are not correct. Among them, he said: "You have widened worlds that have no boundary" — but that which has no boundary is not a created thing. And he said: "For Your Name is in You, and in You is Your Name" — but had he known the meaning of "Name," this statement would never have occurred to him. Furthermore, after he said "For Your Name is in You," is that not itself the same as "in You is Your Name"? For what difference is there between "peace be upon you" or "upon you be peace," "you are Reuben" or "Reuben, you are," "take them alive" or "alive, take them," "Hashem bless you and keep you," [or] "Hashem keep you from all evil"? This is not the manner of prayer but the manner of jesting. And there was a certain sage who joined two words together and made them into one in his mouth, such as "Avarmal" — meaning "avaer milah" ("I will explain a word") or "avarer milah" ("I will clarify a word"). But behold, he did the opposite of what he said, for he neither explained the word nor spoke clearly, but only confused the Holy Tongue in his speech. And I am not able to explain even one part in a thousand of the errors of the paytanim (liturgical poets). And it seems good to me that a person should not pray using them, but only the fixed prayer, so that our words may be few, and we not be punished in judgment.

"Be not rash with your mouth" — Do not hasten to speak with your mouth, and let not even your heart hasten to entice you to bring forth from your mouth a word of complaint against Heaven, protesting against His attributes. "for God is in heaven" — The Omnipresent, blessed be He, is in heaven above, and you are on the earth below; and even if the weak one were above and the strong one below, the fear of the weak one would be upon the strong one — how much more so when the strong one is above and the weak one below. "therefore," etc. — For through a multitude of words you will come to complain and protest against the decree of the Omnipresent.

"Be rash" (tibbahel) — from the language of alarm/haste and speed. "With your mouth" (al pikha) — the word "al" comes in place of "bet," like "and they shall be shut up in prison (al misgar)" (Isaiah 24:22).

For a dream comes with many subjects. For it is usual for a dream to come because of the many thoughts upon which a person ponders and thinks during the day, and it is usual for the speech of a fool to come with excessive words, because by increasing his words, he utters foolishness from his mouth, for transgression is inevitable; therefore I say, “let your words be few.” — Notes: (2) Scripture in Mishlei [17:28] states, “even a fool who is silent will be considered wise, [and] when he seals his lips [he will be considered] understanding.”

"A dream comes" — When a dream is mixed together from many matters, it is known that this is from a mixture of foods, and one of the four elements (roots) has overpowered [the others]; such a dream has no interpretation, and it does not indicate good or bad, for it is hevel (vanity/breath). So too the fool resembles this, multiplying words, and whoever multiplies words in any place brings on sin — all the more so in a place set aside for constantly mentioning the exalted Name.

"for it comes" — For just as it is the way of a dream to come to one who ponders many matters, so too the voice of foolishness — arising from complaint and protest — comes upon one who multiplies words.

He has no desire in fools. The Holy One, Blessed Is He, has no pleasure in the wicked who vow and do not pay.

"When you vow" — Just as I commanded you to be careful with your words in the house of God, so too you are obligated to be careful in every place and at every time; whenever you mention Hashem's Name, or vow a vow to Him, you must keep what has come out of your lips, and not be among the fools, for He has no pleasure in them.

Behold, it seems strange that Solomon should come to teach us something already written in the Torah — that one who makes a vow must not delay in paying it. And not only that, but he repeats himself and says, "that which you vow, pay." Moreover, what novelty is there in saying that it is better for a person not to vow at all than to vow and not pay — since by not paying he has, in any case, transgressed a negative commandment? For this reason Rabbi Meir needed to explain that this [second half of the verse] is connected to the end of the preceding verse, "that which you vow, pay" — meaning: even granting that you will pay, it is still better that you not vow at all, as is explained in the first chapter of tractate Nedarim. Also, his statement "for He has no pleasure in fools," and the two verses that follow these, are devoid of clear sense: how can this be said of one who sees the attribute of strict judgment (middat ha-din) coming to strike him, and sees afflictions imminent and approaching (yissurin mimashmeshin u-va'in), and who, in response, vows such-and-such to charity? The answer is this: when you vow a vow to God — that is, when it is the attribute of strict judgment that has come upon you — do not say, "I will wait until a time when I actually see myself delivered from that trouble, and only then will I pay my vow." Rather, immediately — before you actually witness the deliverance — you must pay. And do not say, "Is it not my desire to fulfill it? It is enough for me that the desire is in my heart, and I will fulfill it after the deliverance comes" — for it stands to plain reason that this is precisely what is meant by "for He has no pleasure in fools." Had the vow arisen for a reason unrelated to sin, you would be permitted to delay it until the passing of three pilgrimage festivals (regalim). But this vow comes because you were a foolish sinner, into whom a spirit of folly had entered — so that, since it is the attribute of judgment come to strike you in order to remove the divine wrath, it is not enough for you merely to hold the good intention of fulfilling the vow until after the deliverance actually occurs. This is the meaning of "for He has no pleasure in fools" — rather, immediately, "that which you vow, pay." And should you say, "Surely I cannot be without some merit in what I vowed, since my desire is to fulfill it after I see the remedy of my trouble" — know that it would have been better for you not to have vowed at all than to vow and then fail to pay once you had vowed. Therefore I warn you: "do not let your mouth" — through what you vow with your mouth — "bring guilt upon your flesh." For behold, it is the way of the Blessed One to strike gently at first — as with the metzora (leper), whose affliction begins with his property, then his house, then his garment, and only afterward his flesh; and as with the afflictions of Job, which began with his livestock, then his children, and only afterward himself, in his own flesh. In just this way, when a person fears that afflictions may come upon him, he need not fear that they will come first upon anything but his property; and to be saved from this he vows to God. But when he fails to fulfill the vow, he adds sin upon sin, and so it happens to him just as with one who is struck first in his money — and when he does not repent, he is struck in his body. So too when he repeats the sin, and all the more so if he transgresses the prohibition that applies because "the poor are readily at hand," or if three pilgrimage festivals have already passed — for then, instead of what would have been fitting, namely that he be struck in his money, he is struck immediately in his body. And regarding this it says, "do not let your mouth bring guilt upon your flesh" — meaning that through failing to fulfill a vow you will bring loss and harm upon your flesh, so that you will be struck in your body. And the word lehachati ("to bring guilt") is used here in the sense of loss or deficiency, as in the phrase "I and my son Solomon shall be counted offenders" (I Kings 1:21) and "does not miss the mark" (Judges 20:16) — according to the view of the commentators. And when you see yourself struck in the flesh first, you might be tempted to say, in the presence of the angel who chastises you, something in your own defense — for it is known that a transgression becomes a destroying angel, and it is this angel that inflicts the punishment, as it is said, "You have made us melt away by the hand of our iniquities" (Isaiah 64:6) — or one may be struck by angels specially appointed to destroy in anger and wrath, and so on; and such a being is called a malach (angel), as is written concerning David, "when he saw the angel that was destroying among the people" (II Samuel 24:16-17). Now, it is known that once permission has been granted to the destroyer, it no longer distinguishes precisely between the deserving and the undeserving — whereas when the punishment comes directly by His own hand, it does discriminate; but once permission has been given to the destroyer, it does not discriminate, and so on. So likewise here: do not say, before the angel who chastises you, "This is an error at the hand of the angel who strikes the flesh first, for I do not deserve this" — but rather ask yourself: why should God be angry at your voice, and also destroy the work of your hands — that is, your possessions — so that you find yourself struck in both ways at once? And if you should say: "Please — Israel — what shall I do? You have advised me not to vow a vow in my time of trouble unless I pay it immediately. But if I dream a dream that terrifies me, or receive the pronouncement of astrologers (hovrei shamayim, literally "dividers of the heavens," cf. Isaiah 47:13) that are unfavorable, or many things of this kind — and I know no way to remedy this except through vows — yet you protest against this practice?" — the answer is: rather, if you must vow, resolve to pay immediately; do not set your heart upon delaying such vows. For despite the multitude of dreams that you see set against you, and the vanities (hevel) of those astrologers who are called by the prophet "the vanities of the nations" (Jeremiah 14:22), and also the many other things like these — "fear God" — meaning, that you should repent of all your deeds; or, out of fear of Hashem, whatever you vow, pay quickly.

"a vow to God" — To perform an act of charity. "for He has no pleasure in fools" — The will does not remain constant in fools, for at one time he desires a certain thing, and after a while he no longer desires it; and one who makes a vow is indeed regarded as a fool, for it is better to give charity without a vow. And since this is so, do not delay to pay it, for as time drags on, lest you no longer desire the vow and refrain from paying it. Therefore, "that which you vow, pay" — meaning, pay immediately, without delay.

"Better" — Similar to the matter of "but if you refrain from vowing..." (Deuteronomy 23:23).

"Better" — It is better that you not vow at all than that you vow and not pay — meaning, and not pay immediately — for lest, as time drags on, you come to regret it.

Do not permit your mouth. [By uttering] a vow. To bring guilt on your flesh. That He should visit the iniquity upon your children. — Notes: (3) According to Rashi, בשרך means children, as in, “and do not hide yourself from your kin [ומבשרך],” in Yeshayahu 58:7. Alternatively, it can be understood literally, i.e., do not let the vain vows made by your mouth to bring punishment upon your flesh [=yourself=בשרך]. See Maseches Shavuos 39a. Nor say before the angel. The representative who comes to demand of you the charity that you publicly pledged. — Notes: (4) Alternatively, “an angel of God” who keeps and records all of man’s utterances (Ibn Ezra); or מלאך refers to “a Torah scholar” who is called upon to annul vows. (Sforno) That it was an error. I pledged it in error, I thought that I would have the ability to give. And destroy the work of your hands. [I.e.,] the commandments that were in your hands, that you had already performed, will cause them to be lost [=destroyed]. It is expounded in this manner in the Midrash. — Notes: (5) Alternatively, מעשה ידיך refers to the “children” of one who fails to fulfill his vows, who die as a result. By your voice. Because of your voice.

"Suffer not [your mouth]" — Why should your mouth cause your flesh — which is your body — to bring forth sin and evil, if you do not pay what you spoke with your mouth? And know that before the eyes of Hashem are the ways of a man (cf. Proverbs 5:21), and He counts all his steps (cf. Job 31:4), and an angel from among His ministering angels is appointed to write in a book all the words that go out of a person's mouth; and do not say before the angel [messenger] that the vow you vowed was a mistake. "And destroy the work of your hands" — like "ve-hishchit" ("and he ruined"); and similar to it is "that spoil (mechabelim) the vineyards" (Song of Songs 2:15). And there is also a sense of chevel from the language of childbirth, as in "he conceives (yechabel) iniquity" (Psalms 7:15), "there your mother was in labor with you (chibbelatcha), there she that bore you was in labor (chiblah)" (Song of Songs 8:5). And it is possible that it is related to tzirim ("pangs") and chavalim ("pains"), on account of chevlei yoledah ("the pangs of a woman in labor"). And there is a third [sense of] chevel, as in "and lies at the top of the mast (chibbel)" (Proverbs 23:34) — that is the mast that is in a ship, on which all the ropes (chavalim) hang; it is a descriptive noun, like "a man restricted in his right hand" (ish itter yad yemino) (Judges 3:15).

"Suffer not" — Do not abandon your mouth to vowing a vow, for this will be a cause to remove your children from the world; for lest you not pay, and your children die on account of this sin — so did our Sages, of blessed memory, expound in [Tractate] Shabbat. "the messenger" — The treasurer of the consecrated funds [of the Temple], who comes to demand of you the charity that you vowed and pledged in public. "that it was an error" — [Meaning:] the pledge was made unintentionally, as if to say, "I thought I would be able to pay, and now I have nothing [with which to pay]." "why should God be angry" — Why should you do this thing in the first place, so that God's anger will be kindled over the sound of the vow that you vowed in public, and He will destroy the work of your hands and you will not succeed in them? For it is on account of charity that a person is blessed in the work of his hands; therefore, when he vows in public and does not pay, the work of his hands is destroyed, for such is the measure [of justice].

"Suffer not" (al titten) — do not allow, like "and Sihon did not allow (natan)" (Numbers 21:23). "To bring into guilt" (lachati) — an expression of lacking/missing, like "and would not miss (yachati)" (Judges 20:16). "Your flesh" (besarkha) — thus children are called, as it is said, "and they shall become one flesh" (Genesis 3:24), meaning that the flesh of the father and the mother becomes one in the children. "The messenger" (ha-malakh) — an emissary. "And destroy" (ve-chibbel) — an expression of ruin, like "and the yoke shall be destroyed (ve-chubbal) because of fatness" (Isaiah 10:27).

For in the multitude of dreams, etc. For all that they tell you — dreams, false prophets, and idle chatter — to separate from the Omnipresent. Man should fear God. [The word] כִּי is an expression of “rather,” [i.e.,] do not obey the dreams, rather, “fear God.”

"For through the multitude" — Like "for a dream comes through a multitude of business" (Ecclesiastes 5:2); rather, fear God in every matter. Or its meaning is: you have seen many dreams and many words of vanity (hevel), and you have spoken excessively — only fear God. And the point is that every word is permitted to you, except if it contained mention of the Name.

"for through the multitude of dreams" — That with a multitude of dreams, and with vain words, and with a multitude of other matters, you should not be anxious over them, but rather fear God, and He will guard you from all harm. And this is an elliptical verse, and the missing [element] is understood on its own.

"And words" (u-devarim) — matters, like "al devar ha-kesef" (concerning the matter of the money) (Genesis 43:18). "But" (ki) — [meaning] "rather" (ela).

Oppression of the poor, perversion of justice and righteousness, etc. If you see in the province that they oppress the poor and deprive justice and righteousness. Do not be astonished. About the will of the Omnipresent, when He exacts retribution upon them. For One higher than the high watches. And sees their deeds, and there are higher ones over them who carry out the mission of the Omnipresent, and their hand is strong to punish them. — Notes: (6) I.e., angels. Perversion of justice. Deprivation of justice. Since it is in the construct [i.e., possessive] state, גֵּזֶל is vowelized with a small patach [=segol], for were it not possessive, גָּזֵל would be vowelized with a kametz. Another explanation: If you see that they oppress the poor and deprive [them of] justice, and you see charity coming toward the city, [i.e.,] that the Holy One, Blessed Is He, lavishes goodness upon them and does not mete out retribution upon them, do not wonder about the will of the Omnipresent, for so is His custom, to be slow to anger. — Notes: (7) Apparently Rashi’s text is not like our edition where גזל is vowelized with a tzeireh. For One higher than the high watches. He waits until their measure is filled. And there are high ones. He has [many agents] over them to punish them when their time of visitation arrives, as in, “you do not wait תִּשְׁמוֹר for my sin,” [and as in,] “awaiting שֹׁמֵר the realization,” [and as in,] “awaited שָׁמַר the matter.” — Notes: (8) Iyov 14:16. (9) Yeshayahu 26:2. (10) Bereishis 37:11. God waits, but ultimately He will punish them in the proper time.

"If oppression" — Lest you think that there is no watcher over your speech, because you see violence done openly and no one saves [the victim]. "And it mentions the poor (rash)" — because a person is obligated to help him, and behold, he is being oppressed. "And the perverting (gezel) of justice" — [gezel is] in construct form, like "the wall of its stones" (geder avanav) (Proverbs 24:31); and in common usage, it is like [the phrase] "greater (gadol) than this" or [as if written with a prefix] "through robbery" (be-gezel). "And it mentions 'in the state'" — in view of everyone, and not in the wilderness. "Marvel not at the matter (chefetz)" — that you should say, "What desire does the Omnipresent have, that He does not save?" Know that there is a watcher who sees this violence, and it is not one alone — rather, they are many, and each one is higher than the one above it; and there are many watchers whose number no man knows, for they are higher than these others whose rank is not equal. And one who knows the secret of Hashem's Name knows that "[one] higher than the high" — they are fifty-five, and I am not able to explain [this further].

He says: "if you see" the oppression of the poor, and the perverting of judgment and righteousness "you see in the state" — "marvel not" at the matter, [namely] how the God of the world can desire this, and how He sustains the world in a manner contrary to the very things that sustain the world — namely justice, truth, and peace — for through oppression there is no peace, and through the perverting of judgment and justice there is no judgment and no truth. And the reason you should not marvel is [the verse's own words] "for the high one..." etc. And it is this: behold, there is the attribute of God (Elokim), which is judgment (din), and there is the attribute of Hashem, which is mercy (rachamim). And the sustaining of the world, while we are unworthy, comes about through His mercy subduing His anger, or through His attribute of chesed (kindness) subduing the attribute of rogez (wrath) — according to the view of the sages of truth on the verse "and God is indignant every day" (Psalms 7:12), that there is the attribute of "El zo'em" (the wrathful God), and it is subdued by the attribute of mercy over the attribute of judgment. And this is what it means: know why the world endures while oppression is within it — is it not that "the high one who is above the high" is the Guardian in mercy, that is, the attribute of mercy which stands over the attribute of judgment, so that His mercy subdues His anger. And do not err in his saying "high above high," thinking that the two things that are high are the two attributes mentioned, in accordance with the nature of anything high, which is far from the low thing, like the heavens high above the earth. But it is not so with these two Names of His, blessed be He; rather, even though they are high, they are actually directly over the oppression and the poverty themselves, for "the whole earth is full of His glory" (Isaiah 6:3), and He is the One who sees and the Judge, and it is not that, by virtue of His separation from the earth, He would fail to take note of oppression and poverty, etc. And the reason that He, blessed be He, has mercy despite there being oppression, poverty, and the perverting of judgment, is [the verse] "for the profit of the earth," etc. And it is this: behold, the Sages said, in Genesis Rabbah, on the verse "man and beast," etc. — this is what is told of Alexander of Macedon, who went to Africa and came into the palace of the king of India, and wished to see how the king there judged the people of the land. And he saw, and behold, two men were quarreling, crying out to the king. This one said: "I sold my field to this man, and he found in it a treasure, and he refuses to take it for himself, though I sold him everything." And that one said: "I did not wish to take it, for I bought a field, not a treasure." Then the king asked the one: "Do you have a son?" And he said, "Yes." And he asked the other: "Do you have a daughter?" And he said, "Yes." "Let the son and the daughter marry, and let them take the treasure." And when Alexander heard the king's judgment, he laughed. The king of India said to him: "Why do you laugh?" He said to him: "If this case had come before me in my land, I would have killed both the buyer and the seller and taken the treasure for the king's treasury." He said to him: "Does grass grow in your land?" He said to him: "Yes." He said to him: "It is not by your merit, but by the merit of the cattle." And of this the Sages said — that is the meaning of "man and beast You save, Hashem" (Psalms 36:7): "man, for the sake of the merit of beast, You save, Hashem." Behold, from their words, that when there is no justice, for the sake of the merit of the beast Hashem saves — in that He sends rain upon the earth to bring forth grass for the cattle, and along with it, grain for mankind. And this is possibly what the verse intends: "He makes grass grow for the cattle, and herb for the service of man" (Psalms 104:14), in order to bring forth, along with them, bread from the earth. And let us come to the matter at hand. He says: "if" there is "the oppression of the poor," etc. — this is a corruption of justice — "marvel not," etc., for Hashem, the Master of Mercy, watches over [the world], as has been said. And also joined to this is [the phrase] "the profit of the earth is for all." And it is this: behold, the Sages said, even mosquitoes and fleas, which seem superfluous in the world, are included in the creation of the world; and in like manner one may say of the cattle, that they too seem superfluous in the earth relative to the human race in general — yet "God saw all that He had made," etc. (Genesis 1:31), and this is [the meaning of] "is for all," in that they too are significant before Him, blessed be He. And therefore, a king who oppresses the poor and does not execute justice, for the sake of the field that grows [produce] for the cattle — such a king is excluded from the members of My kingdom; for were it not so, he would be stricken, his kingdom would be annulled, and it would not be tilled. And this is [the meaning of] "the profit," etc., and by means of it, "the king himself is served by the field."

"If you see the oppression of the poor" — If there is, in the province, openly, the oppression of the poor and the robbery of justice — for they do not render judgment — and yet you see that justice does come there [in the end], meaning that the Holy One, blessed be He, deals righteously with them: do not marvel at the will of the Omnipresent in that He is slow to anger and does not [yet] repay the recompense of the deed. "for one higher" — For the Omnipresent, blessed be He, is the One high above all the high ones, to rule over them at all times; He waits until the measure [of sin] becomes full, and then He repays the recompense. "and there are higher ones over them" — He has many agents who are higher than the people of that province, to rule over them, and through them He repays them the recompense of the deed.

"Oppression" (oshek) — robbery. "Watches" (shomer) — waits, like "and his father waited (shamar) for the matter" (ibid. 37:11).

The profit of the earth is desired by all. And the loftiness of the earth’s dwellers, who are haughty and provoke the Omnipresent; “is desired by all,” in everything, he performs His mission to punish them, even through gnats, as He did to Titus. — Notes: (11) See Maseches Gittin 56b for details of Titus’ punishment. When God created His world, He did not create a single thing without a purpose, according to the Gemara in Maseches Shabbos 77b. The king himself is subject to the soil. The Holy One, Blessed Is He, became subservient to Tzion to demand from her destroyers for [their] mistreatment [of Tzion], and to reward her builders.

"And the profit" — After he finished commanding concerning the fear of God, he returned to instruct him in worldly matters — what good occupation he might live by without sinning through it. And he said that the profit of working the land applies in every respect: even the king, than whom there is none higher, is made a servant to the field for his own need, for from it comes his sustenance.

"but the profit of a land" — The abundance of good that was among all the people of the land — not a single person lacking, even among the lowly and the low. When the measure becomes full, they will then receive the recompense in full, and the matter will be overturned from one extreme to the other, such that even the king will lack his bread, to the point that he will become a servant to the master of a field, doing his work, so that they may sustain themselves from the produce of his field.

He who loves money will never be satisfied with money. Whoever loves [to perform God’s] commandments never has his fill of them. — Notes: (12) See the Gemara in Maseches Makkos 10a which interprets that this verse is referring to Moshe. And he who loves abundance. Of many commandments Will have no produce. And among them none has a specific and distinguishable commandment, e.g., the building of the Beis Hamikdosh or a synagogue, or [writing] a beautiful Torah scroll. This too is vanity. So are these two verses expounded upon in the Midrash, and there are other suitable interpretations, but I stated this one first because it is related to the matter of, “and there are higher ones over them,” which Scripture juxtaposed to them. Another explanation: The profit of the earth is desired by all. The reward for tilling the soil is most important of all, for even the king must be subservient to the field; if the earth produces fruits, he will eat, otherwise, he dies from hunger. He who loves money will never be satisfied with money. He will not eat money. And he who loves abundance. Of money. Will have no produce. That he does not gather for himself produce, this too is vanity. — Notes: (13) Alternatively, “one who loves [an] abundance” of slaves, maidservants and other household members, “will have no produce,” i.e., he will be unable to sustain his household staff, for they will consume everything (Metsudas Dovid). Another explanation: The profit of the earth is desired by all. The reward of Yisroel is in all aspects of Torah, be it in Scripture, in Mishnah, or in Gemara. The king himself is subject to the soil. If the king is well versed in Scripture and Mishnah, he must still be subservient to the one well-versed in Gemara, because he arranges before him the practical decisions regarding prohibition and permissibility, ritual impurity and purity, and practical laws. He who loves money. Whoever loves Torah [study], never has his fill with it. And he who loves abundance. Torah [study]. Will have no produce. One who has [knowledge of] Scripture and Mishnah, but has no [knowledge of] Gemara, what benefit does he have? All these are [expounded] in Vayikra Rabbah.

"He who loves silver" — his soul shall not be satisfied. "Nor he who loves abundance, with increase" — There is one who loves to gather wealth in garments and various kinds of merchandise, and does not love produce (tevu'ah); this too is hevel (vanity). And it also refers back to "he who loves silver" — that is, one who gathers only silver and gold. And some say: "he who loves abundance (hamon)" has no increase of his own, and they explain hamon as the acquiring of many menservants, maidservants, and attendants — meaning that he loves to have a multitude (hamon) before him.

He said: See the diminishment involved in "the oppression of the poor" mentioned [earlier], and the diminishment of a king who does not execute justice for the oppressed, which is to flatter the chiefs of his populace. For behold, the oppressor is one "who loves silver" — out of his love of silver he will surely not be satisfied with silver, for the silver does not satisfy him, since he does not eat the silver. And the king who "loves abundance" — it is not grain that is the "abundance" which gladdens him to eat from it; and if grain is lacking for him to eat, of what use to him are his silver and his multitude? This is because the absence of justice starves the land, as it is written, "And it came to pass in the days when the judges judged, that there was a famine in the land" (Ruth 1:1) — the opposite of the matter of "Justice, justice shall you pursue, that you may live" (Deuteronomy 16:20). Or the sense of the verse is: "See now the advantage that livestock has over you" — for behold, one who loves silver in order to oppress will lack his bread, and likewise one who loves abundance/multitude has no produce of his own; whereas through livestock there will be produce, and man too will be satisfied, for man is saved for the sake of the merit of beast, [as it is written], "man and beast You save, Hashem" (Psalms 36:7). "When goods increase" etc. (5:10) — Behold, it says that "when goods increase, those who consume them increase," which seems a matter devoid of wisdom. Further it says, "and what advantage has the owner thereof, save the beholding of them with his eyes?" (5:10) — but does he not also eat from it? Further, how difficult it is that it says "sweet is the sleep of the laborer" (5:11) — this too is a bland matter, without salt, for what is the point of stating it? And it says "but the fullness of the rich man" (5:11) — it would have been fitting to say "and the riches," yet instead it is the "fullness" that brings him sleep. Further it says "riches kept" etc. (5:12) — kept with whom? It should have said, "there is wealth kept for its owner to his hurt." Further, if this matter is as our Rabbis of blessed memory said regarding Korah and Haman, how can it say that "the riches perished" (5:13) — for behold, its owner perished as well! Further, what is "its evil" (5:13), seeing that he fathered a son who is better than the money? And also in saying "sick" (5:16) — what is its sickness? And it says "and there is nothing in his hand" (5:13), which is superfluous after it has already said that "the riches perished" — and moreover it should have said "and he has nothing," so what is intended by saying "in his hand"? Further it says "as he came forth from his mother's womb" (5:14) — but does not one who has not lost his riches also go naked, just as he came forth from his mother's womb? And what is meant by saying that he shall carry it away "in his hand," seeing that even one who dies possessed of his riches does not carry them away in his hand — and indeed it says "and there is nothing in his hand"! Further it says, "and this also is a grievous evil, that in all points as he came" etc. (5:15) — but is this not the very statement already made before? Further it says, "and what profit has he that he labors for the wind?" (5:15) — it should have said "and what profit has he in his labor," for who labors "for the wind"? And also its saying "also all his days" etc. (5:16) is devoid of sense and connection to what precedes. Further it says, "behold that which I have seen" etc. (5:17) — this appears, God forbid, like bad counsel, teaching us that it is good to eat and to drink; and not only that, but it says at the end that "this is his portion" (5:17–18), which is not in accordance with the law of Moses and Israel. However, I would say that Solomon in his wisdom came to bring us to the truth regarding the inquiry into man's felicity after his death, and what advantage there is to the body that toiled and labored all the days of its years in the service of Hashem, when in the end, under it the maggot is spread and the worm covers it. Now, the Baal HaIkkarim (Sefer HaIkkarim), Discourse 4, chapter 29, brought four opinions, of which — since it is not necessary to mention all but only the latter two, the better of them — the first is that the essence of the reward is for the soul alone, and the body has nothing at all in its death, except that the dead will [eventually] live and enjoy, and afterward they will die and the corporeal matter will be lost entirely, so that all survival and felicity will belong to the soul alone. And the second, that even though at death the body does not enjoy, nevertheless at the resurrection of the dead it will live together with the soul an eternal life. He concluded that even according to this latter view there is no enjoyment for the body until the resurrection. However, we must praise the Master of all, who commanded us not to turn right or left from whatever our Sages of blessed memory tell us; and behold, they teach me that there is indeed also for the body of the righteous a doubled and redoubled good, for every righteous person according to his righteousness. And behold, in addition to the latter view of the Baal HaIkkarim — that all the good of the body comes only after the resurrection — there is in the words of our Rabbis of blessed memory yet another matter: that while the soul is still in the body, before the righteous one expires, they show him the reward that will be given him, and this is [the meaning of] "and she laughs at the last day" (Proverbs 31:25), as they showed Rabbi Abbahu thirteen rivers [of balsam oil]. Now, it would have been possible to say that this is the first good belonging to the body — that it enjoys before its departure, so that body and soul together rejoice and are glad in the future felicity, and this stands as a hope for the body after the resurrection — but that in the meantime the good and enjoyment of the body ceases. Therefore Solomon came, disputing and rejecting this notion, in saying "when goods increase" etc. He does so by first citing the teaching of Midrash Shocher Tov on the verse "according to Your lovingkindness remember me, You" (Psalms 25:7) — a parable of a king who made a very great feast and sent to bring his invited guests, saying: "Bring only very great men." They came, but brought nothing [i.e., no one fit came]. The king said, "Where are the invited guests?" They said to him, "If you wish that your great feast not go to waste, do not seek only very great men, but ordinary men as well." So too David said before the Holy One, blessed be He: "Behold the abundance of Your good that You have hidden away for the righteous — if You seek only the wholly perfect, what will You do with Your abundant good, for it will be wasted? Rather, 'according to Your lovingkindness remember me,' and regard me as an ordinary person, so that Your abundant good not be wasted." Let us come to the matter. He said: behold, even the soul would not merit reward except that "when goods increase, those who consume them increase" (5:10) — that is, the reason for the increase, so that it not be wasted, is that those who consume it are increased; for otherwise it would be [reserved] only for the wholly perfect. But in this way a remedy is found for the completeness of the ordinary person. But for the body, which is the possessor of it all and which toiled and labored, what advantage is there to the owner except "the beholding of his eyes" (5:10), shown to him before he dies — while after his death there is nothing at all in his hand? To this he responded and said, "sweet is the sleep" etc. This is the matter taught by our Rabbis of blessed memory in Bereishit Rabbah on "And Abraham died, old and satisfied" (Genesis 25:8), and this is their language: it is written, "Strength and honor are her clothing" etc., "and she laughs at the last day" (Proverbs 31:25) — all the reward given to the righteous is prepared for them for the world to come, and the Holy One, blessed be He, shows them, while they are still in this world, the reward He is destined to give them in the future to come, and their soul is satisfied and they sleep. A parable: to a feast a king made, who invited guests and showed them what they were [about] to eat and drink, so that their soul was satisfied and they fell asleep. So too the Holy One, blessed be He, shows the righteous, while they are still in this world, the reward He is destined to give them in the future to come, and they sleep — as it is said, "for now I would have lain still and been quiet" etc. (Job 3:13) — as is explained by us in its place. For behold, the distress of death reaches both soul and body: the soul is pained over the fact that it will no longer acquire commandments with which to be satisfied by the good of the world to come, and the body [is pained] over the fact that it will decay in the grave and will have no pleasure from all that it toiled. Therefore, to dispel the distress of both, He shows them, while the soul is still in the body, the reward given them; and through this their soul is satisfied — whereas it had been pained that its reward was small, and worried over what it would no longer acquire — but now, seeing all the good shown to it, it is satisfied, for its good appears abundant in its eyes. This is like the incident of Rabbi Abbahu that the author of the teaching immediately cites, that they showed him thirteen rivers of balsam oil, and he said, "all these are for his father" etc. — behold, his soul was satisfied. And also the body, through that same pleasantness it receives by means of what is revealed to the soul while it is still joined to it, likewise receives in some measure. For just as the soul is not depleted by what it enjoyed in that vision, since it comes through an addition and advantage granted it to behold — as stated in the Zohar on the verse (read homiletically), "You add to their spirit, they labor" (Psalms 104:29) — so too the body, which enjoys in her company, is not emptied of that same influence, because some power of the soul remains within it, as happens to a sleeping man, whose body is not entirely emptied of his soul even while it ascends. So too at the departure of the righteous — and therefore they are called "those who sleep in the dust," for they do not die entirely. This is the point of the statement, "and they sleep" — and moreover, that it is a sleep of pleasantness, not merely the absence of death. This is what is meant by the parable of the king who invited guests etc. — the pleasantness of the feast is what put them to sleep. And this is what Solomon says in his wisdom: do not be astonished that the body — the possessor of all the felicity of the commandments, which performed them — decays and perishes in the grave, and [ask] what benefit is there to it in the beholding of his eyes shown to him before his departure, if it is then to be emptied of it until the resurrection. For it is not so; rather, "sweet is the sleep of the laborer" (5:11) — the laborer is the body, which labored and toiled in the commandments, for it has pleasantness and delights in its sleep. Two goods are thereby found for it: one, that it does not perish but is rather like one asleep, similar to the matter of Rabbi Elazar the son of Rabbi Shimon and of Rabbi Achai the son of Rabbi Yoshiah [whose bodies did not decay]; and second, that it does not merely sleep, but delights within itself, as in "my sleep was pleasant to me" (cf. Jeremiah 31:25). But you might object: surely this applies only to one whose felicity is very great, such as the Patriarchs, Moses, Aaron, Samuel and their like, whose abundance of felicity produces so great a pleasure in what is shown to him that his sleep is sweetened — but not for the rest of the righteous! To this it is said, "whether he eats little or much" (5:11) — for whether what he eats and enjoys is much or little, [it will be sweet] — and this is what we have written concerning "and their soul is satisfied": what is shown to the soul is so that its felicity not appear diminished in its own eyes and cause it distress, and it is shown to it so that it may be satisfied, for whatever it sees has enough in it to satisfy, so abundant is the good hidden away for it. And so, once its soul is satisfied, certainly the body will be asleep, and this is [the meaning of] "whether he eats little or much" — meaning, the little will be to him as much, and he will be satisfied with it. But you might say: how did I say "sweet is the sleep of the laborer," implying that the righteous one is like one asleep — which is not devoid of a soul, but is devoid of all movement — when did I not myself say, "causing the lips of the sleeping to speak" (Song of Songs 7:9), namely that one whose teaching of Torah is repeated in his name, his lips move in the grave? To this it is said, "but the fullness of the rich" etc. (5:11) — meaning: what I said about being asleep applies to one who eats and enjoys, but after the eating he is not further satisfied afterward. But the rich man, possessor of many teachings that he taught, is fed again and again, satisfied anew every time his teachings are mentioned — for then benefit is given him and an abundance of light from above is poured out upon him, and then he is not left to sleep, and his lips move in the grave, through what is conveyed to the soul from above, since a portion of it is in him [the body] as well. Or the sense of the matter is: I said there are two benefits — sleep and sweetness — and there is furthermore a third for the rich man, namely a satisfaction whereby they satisfy him and mention his teachings, so that he is not left merely to sleep but his lips move [in speech]. After laying down this premise, he raises an objection, as it were: "behold, there is a grievous evil I have seen" etc. (5:12) — that is, an evil that is stirring and sick, without remedy, arising from this very premise. It is this: there is one who performs a meritorious commandment, somewhat similar to the riches mentioned in the preceding verse, and it is kept for him with Him, blessed be He, "to the hurt of its owner" — that is, it is deducted on account of an evil destined for him, the lamed [prefix, "to his hurt"] meaning "on account of," that is, because of his coming evil, such as a danger of death from which he is to be saved, and they deduct that merit of his. The reason is comparable to a case where he was destined to father a son: they deduct the merit from him so that he may live and merit to father a son. This is [the meaning of] "and those riches perish" (5:13) — through some evil decreed upon him they deduct it. And why did they do so? So that, through his living, he would father a son, which is preferable to his dying by his decree. Now, the "grievous evil" is that behold, he remains "with nothing in his hand" — meaning: granted, if the body had no pleasantness at all in the grave besides the mere beholding of his eyes, the body would have no loss at all in this; but if the body, in addition to the beholding of his eyes, has as part of its reward that it acquires sleep and great pleasantness in the grave, why should this now be lost? For behold, had they not deducted from him that wealth and that merit, and had he died by that decree, the eyes of his flesh would have beheld the riches hidden away for him, and he would have carried away in his hand that sweetness and pleasantness. But now that they have deducted them, he remains empty, for nothing is shown to him, since he will die [only] after fathering the child, and "there is nothing in his hand" — meaning, the "hand" refers to his corporeal being, for the soul has no "hand," and it is not possible that He, blessed be He, would cause the body a loss beyond what is fitting for it. For even granting that it is said that by the merits the son will perform, [the father] too will benefit afterward to some degree, why should he lose, from now until forever, the certain pleasantness, merely because of the doubt whether the son will merit or not? And what is more, even when he does merit, [the father] will benefit only regarding the soul, while this body has lost its good entirely — and this is [the meaning of] "and there is nothing in his hand": for even granting that if the son merits, benefit will reach the body as well, still, now he loses the certain [benefit], for "there is nothing in his hand." Therefore I would conclude and say that the body has nothing at all, except that "as he came forth from his mother's womb, naked shall he return, to go as he came" (5:15) — for everything returns to its own nature: the soul alone, whose source is from above, is what ascends, but the body, "as it came forth" etc., "he shall take nothing for his labor which he may carry away in his hand" (5:14) — meaning, in his corporeal hand, for the body has no reward — this by force of the difficulty just raised, namely the "grievous evil" mentioned. Therefore Solomon in his wisdom returned to uphold his premise, that the body will enjoy everything stated in the verse "sweet" etc.; and regarding the difficulty mentioned, he also said, "and this too is a grievous evil" (5:15) — meaning: you decreed and said that the body has nothing, because of the difficulty mentioned — namely, why should the body lose out through the evil matter mentioned, if it was otherwise destined to enjoy — and so you decree that nothing at all was destined for it. But behold, do you not see that this too is a grievous evil, that your remedy is not truly elevated in the reasoning you gave, when you said that "in all points as he came, so shall he go" (5:15) — that the soul, which is from above, ascends higher and higher, while the body returns to its dust, naked as it came? Behold, you have a grievous evil according to this very opinion of yours! For behold, "what profit has he that he labors for the wind" (5:15) — that is, for his own spirit and soul — for why should [the body] labor, and it not be for its own benefit? And not only that, but it is said that the body will suffer afflictions in this world — "and all his days he eats in darkness" (5:16) — that in the darkness of afflictions he eats his bread; or, according to its plain sense, that all his days the body afflicted itself with fasts, not eating except at night, and this is [the meaning of] "all his days he eats only in darkness," which is the night, for darkness is called "night." And if he becomes ill on account of this, it is the body that feels it, and not the soul, and this is [the meaning of] "and his sickness" — and afterward, "and vexation" (5:16), for his reward will be vexation, that he will go without enjoyment; "under him is spread the maggot, and the worm covers him," while the soul rejoices in it. Therefore he stated as the conclusion of the matter: "behold that which I have seen" (5:17) is good — that a man should not grieve over the loss of his body, so he eats and drinks and rejoices; but he should not cast away his soul behind his body, but rather act in such a way that he sees good in both body and soul from his labor — this being the future good destined for him for the sake of his labor in Torah and commandments, [given] at the time of his departure. And the good is [measured] by the number of the days of his life, and this is the statement of our Rabbis of blessed memory from the Zohar on "and the days of Israel drew near [to die]" (Genesis 47:29) — that the very days in which he labored in Torah and commandments acquired holiness and became living and enduring, and it is they that appear in the light of the giving of reward at the time of death, to testify and to be shown. This is [the meaning of] "and to see good in his labor" (5:18) — that the good will be [measured] by the number of the days of his life, which are called "gathered in" — "for it is his portion" (5:18) — meaning, that which will be [shown] at his departure, as mentioned, is his portion, prepared for him for the world to come, which is shown to him already from now. And he intended by this statement to say: do not grieve over the pain of the body, which remains devoid of enjoyment at its death for all its labor, but rather eat and rejoice and see the good etc., for what you will see is not the portion of the soul alone — rather, it is her portion, and not the portion of the soul alone, but the portion of the whole of man, which encompasses everything.

"he who loves silver" — One who loves to gather silver will not be satisfied with it, for he never has enough of what he has amassed, and always wants to increase it further. "nor he who loves abundance" — One who loves to increase a multitude — of menservants and maidservants and members of the household — will not have enough produce to sustain himself, for the needs of the multitude are many, and they consume it all. "this also is vanity" — Even though he does good for others by giving them their sufficient need, nevertheless it is considered vanity, for it is not proper to squander excessively.

"be-hamon" (in abundance) — from the language of "hemyah" (roaring/tumult), meaning a multitude of people whose sound of tumult has grown great. Similarly, "against this multitude" (II Chronicles 14:10).

As goods increase. When the [Bnei] Yisroel improve their deeds. So do those who consume them. The giving of the reward for [fulfilling] the commandments. And what advantage has the owner. [I.e.,] to the Holy One , Blessed Is He, with all the improvement of their deeds. — Notes: (14) Alternatively, “and what good is the owner’s skill [=כשרון],” as in 2:21 above. Except beholding them with his eyes. That He sees that they are subservient to Him, and He has satisfaction, that He commanded and His will was done, and so is the matter concerning the sacrifices. As goods increase so do those who consume them. When they bring many freewill offerings, the kohanim who eat it increase. And what advantage has the owner. Before the Holy One, Blessed Is He. Except beholding them with his eyes. That He commanded, and His will was done.

"When goods increase, they that eat them increase" — [rabu, "they increased"] is from the geminate verbs (pa'alei ha-kefel, roots with a doubled letter), and it is a verb in the past tense. And it is said [by others that it is] from the verbs whose lamed [third root-letter] is not complete (weak, final-heh verbs), in the plural imperative, like "increase (rabbah) your army" and "go forth (tze'ah)." "Advantage (kishron)" — like "good," and the thing is fitting (kasher). Since his goods are eaten by many in his presence, what good does he have from the goods, except the sight of his eyes?

"When goods increase" — At the time when a person's good increases and his success is great, the way of it is that many come to partake of that good, so that he is left lacking good, just as he was [before]. "and what advantage is there to its owner" — And what is the benefit that comes to the owner of the successful good fortune? Only the sight of his eyes, that he saw the good — and no more — since none of it remains in his possession.

"kishron" — from the language of "kasher" (fit/proper) and "good."

Sweet is the sleep of the laborer. One who tills the soil sleeps, and he enjoys his sleep, whether he eats little or a lot, for he is already used to it. — Notes: (15) The Midrash relates that when Rabbi Boon died, Rabbi Zeira incorporated this verse, “sweet is the sleep of the laborer,” in his eulogy for Rabbi Boon who was only twenty-eight years old at his death. He said that Rabbi Boon accomplished in his life what would normally take one hundred years. But the satiety of the rich will not permit him to sleep. But the satiety of possessions of the rich man, who owns much merchandise, does not allow him to sleep because he thinks about it all night. Another explanation: The year שָׁנָה שֶׁל=[שְׁנַת of the one who serves God is sweet; whether he has a short life or a long life, he will partake of his reward, the one [who lives few years] like the one who [lives] many [years]. [E.g.,] Moshe led Yisroel forty years, and Shmuel the prophet led them ten years, and Scripture equates them one to another, as it is stated, “Moshe and Aharon among His kohanim, and Shmuel among those who invoke His name, etc.” So is it expounded upon in Tanchuma. — Notes: (16) The same idea is expressed in Mishnayos Avos 2:7, “the more possessions, the more worry.” (17) Tehillim 99:6. But the satiety of the rich. The one with many traditions. Will not permit him to sleep. In the grave, as it is stated, “causing the lips of the sleeping to murmur.” Every Torah scholar, in whose name a traditional law is recited, his lips murmur in the grave. — Notes: (18) Shir Hashirim 7:10. (19) See Maseches Yevamos 97a.

"Sweet" — It is known that the rich man fears, day and night, for his wealth — from the king, and from robbers, and from thieves. And the meaning of "satiety (sova)" is abundance of wealth, which he ponders at night, thinking how his soul might be satisfied with riches; or "satiety" refers back to food, as in the matter of "lest you be filled with it (tisbe'enu) and vomit it up" (Proverbs 25:16). And "the sleep (shenat) of the laborer" has the open vowel [patach], as is the way of every true construct form (semikhut); but the "shenat" in "if I give sleep to my eyes" (Psalms 132:4) is with the kamatz vowel, for the lamed [prefix] severed the construct relation. And from Rabbi Moshe HaKohen of Spain (may his repose be in Eden): that the meaning of "shenat" with the kamatz is "my sleep" (shenati); and similarly "even the heritage (nachalat) that is pleasant for me" (Psalms 16:6) and "my strength and song is Yah" (Exodus 15:2; Psalms 118:14) — these too are pointed with the kamatz.

"Sweet is the sleep of the laboring man" — The tiller of the soil sleeps, and his sleep is pleasant to him, whether he eats little or eats much; meaning, even if he eats little, he sleeps as though he had eaten much, which naturally brings on sleep. And this is because he has nothing but the work of the field, and no more; therefore he has nothing to think about or ponder that would drive sleep from his eyes. "but the satiety [of the rich]" — Meaning, the satiety of great wealth does not allow its owner to sleep, for his affairs are many, and at all times he thinks and ponders about them, and his sleep is stolen from him.

Wealth preserved by its owner to his own detriment. Like the wealth of Korach, because of which he became haughty and descended into the grave. — Notes: (20) Alternatively, a person’s wealth jeopardizes his personal safety by exposing him to robbery, kidnap, or even death. (Sforno). Or, “wealth stored by its owner,” i.e., he stores his wealth and does not spend it to aid the needy, “to his own detriment,” i.e., resulting in the visitation of punishment upon him.

"There is a grievous (cholah) evil" — It is possible that cholah is from nachlah ("incurable, grievous" — as in makkati, "my wound") — among the verbs whose lamed [third root-letter] is not complete (weak, final-heh verbs); and the meaning is "an evil with a grievous sickness (choli ra)," similar to the matter of "and it is a grievous sickness" (Ecclesiastes 6:2). Or the word cholah might be on the pattern of tovah ("good"), from the verbs whose ayin [middle root-letter] is not complete (hollow verbs), from "it shall whirl (yachul) upon the head of the wicked" (Jeremiah 23:19) — [and] it still belongs to the first theme, that working the land is better than any wealth.

"There is a grievous evil" — it is found to be a most painful evil that I have seen in the world. "Riches," etc. — the riches were kept for their owner and did not leave his possession; however, they were not kept for his benefit, to enjoy them in his later days and to bequeath them to his sons after him, but rather they were kept to his harm, because on account of his abundant riches informers brought false accusations against him, and he was afflicted with sufferings.

He will have nothing in his hand. Not even the merit of his ancestors.

"And those riches perish by evil adventure" — which he brought upon their owner. And the meaning is: had it been lost by itself alone, and not begotten [further] evil, the harm would have been but half the evil.

"And [those riches] perish" — the riches were also lost from him then, through the evil matter that came upon their owner, namely the false accusation, for he squandered his wealth in giving bribes to save himself from the evil that had attached itself to him. "And has begotten a son" — while the riches were still in his possession he had no son to benefit from the riches; and after the loss of the riches he begot a son, and then there was nothing in his hand to benefit him or for him to inherit.

He will take nothing for his labor. When he dies, he will not take with him any merit of charity that he did with his money during his lifetime.

"As" — the bet in be-amalo ("for his labor") stands in place of a mem [i.e., "from his labor"], like "and that which remains of (ba-basar) the flesh and of (u-va-lechem) the bread" (Leviticus 8:32).

"As" — just as he came forth naked from his mother's womb, so shall he go back to the known place, namely the grave, just as he came from the womb. "And nothing," etc. — with this he explains, to say that he will not return literally naked exactly as he came, but rather that he will take nothing at all of the riches that he gathered through toil, to carry away with him in his hand.

"lo yisa" (he shall not take) — "he shall not take," as in "and houses they take away [nasu]" (Micah 2:2). "be-amalo" (with/from his labor) — the letter bet stands in place of a mem [i.e., it means "from his labor"], as in "and what remains from the flesh and from the bread" (Leviticus 8:32).

As he came. That money, so will it go.

"And this also is a grievous evil" — it applies to all who come into the world, for naked they came and naked they shall all go; and what profit has he that he labored for the wind?

"And this also," etc. — above he said that this is a grievous evil, what he saw, that the riches were kept for their owner to his harm; and here he says "and this also is a grievous evil," that the riches did not remain in his hand, corresponding to "as he came, so shall he go" — just as the one who acquired it gathered it through toil, so it departed from him through toil and through an evil matter. "And what profit" — what, then, is the profit that comes to him from that for which he toiled for the wind, without any benefit?

"kol umat" — its meaning is like "corresponding to," that is, equal and similar; likewise, "corresponding to the hangings of the courtyard" (Exodus 38:21).

[He has] illness. וְחָלְיוֹ means] the same as ‘וְחֹלִי,’ and the vav is superfluous, just as the vav of, “beast חַיְתוֹ of the forest.” — Notes: (21) Tehillim 104:20.

"Also" — during the day, which is light, he does not eat, but only in darkness; and the meaning is that from the abundance of his affairs and his labor to gather wealth, he does not eat until night falls, and he is full of vexation (ka'as) and sickness of the soul, which is fear.

"All his days also" — this too befell him: that all his days he was preoccupied with his affairs and had no leisure to eat during the day, and he did not eat until the darkness of night came. "And much vexation" — he was full of much vexation that came from his great preoccupation [with business], for it is impossible that everything should go according to his will, since his affairs were so numerous. "And sickness" — he was full of the sickness that came from much vexation, and through this the wrath broke out and was displayed to many.

"ve-ketzef" (and wrath) — this is the outward display of anger.

For one to eat and drink and to enjoy the good. To engage in Torah [study], which is a good doctrine; but he should not accumulate much wealth, rather he should rejoice with the portion given him, for that is his portion. — Notes: (22) Rashi is consistent with the Midrash Aggadah he cited in 8:15 below, “that all mention of ‘eating and drinking’ in Koheles refers only to the study of Torah.”

"Behold" — this is the third statement; and the meaning is: because man is born to correspond to how he came [into the world] — corresponding to how he came — "I have seen" that there is no good for a man who occupies himself with gathering wealth, except that he eat and rejoice.

"Behold that which I have seen" — with the understanding of my heart I have seen that it is good for man, and to add further clarity he said moreover, "that it is comely," etc. "And to enjoy pleasure" (lit. and to see good) — meaning, to do charity and kindness. "For all his labor" — with all the riches that he gathered through toil under the sun. "All the days of his life" — so shall he do throughout the whole number of the days of his life which God has granted him to live. "For this is his portion" — for all the riches are his portion which God has allotted to him from above; and if so, it is fitting that he should enjoy it and that he should do with it charity and kindness.

And the power to enjoy them. In his life. To take his share. After his death, that he merited to engage in Torah [study] and in [the performance of] commandments during his life, which enabled him to receive reward.

"And to take his portion" — this is the portion that he shall carry with him.

Behold, in the Midrash, following the teaching we have mentioned, it brings [the story] that when Rabbi Abbahu passed away, they showed him thirteen rivers of balsam oil, and he said, "All this for Abbahu? And I said, 'I have labored in vain,'" etc. Now this is difficult: how could it occur to him, heaven forbid, that he had labored in vain? It is possible that this was on account of the wealth, possessions, and honor that he had, as is made explicit in the Gemara, and that he feared lest his merits be deducted on their account, and the good things of this world — which are called "vanity" (riq) — together with all his labor, go for nothing. Yet [he consoled himself:] my judgment is with Hashem, the Master of mercy. Or, he may mean that it was not concerning the well-being of the soul that it occurred to him to say he had labored in vain, but rather this resembles the matter of the preceding teaching — that by showing him that their soul is sated while they sleep, the body is sweetened and lulled to sleep by being shown that there is well-being for the body as well; and he cited the teaching about Rabbi Abbahu, that they showed him thirteen rivers, etc. This is because it would have been possible to say that one who has wealth and possessions and takes pleasure in this material world — that this is the body's portion, corresponding to its own quality, while the spiritual reward of his mitzvot belongs to the soul alone, in the World to Come. Therefore he cited the teaching about Rabbi Abbahu: that upon seeing this well-being in body and soul, he concluded that it resembled what is fitting for body and soul in the future to come. And he said, "All this for Abbahu" — meaning, for the one called Abbahu, who is comprised of body and soul — "and I said, I have labored in vain" refers to the body, which labors and expends its strength — unlike the soul — [fearing] that the goodness of this world would be deducted, for nothing, from the body's reward. And this will be the point of the verse: after stating that there is well-being also for the body, it says that there is no need to speak of one who did not even enjoy pleasure in this world; rather, even "a man to whom God has given riches and wealth, and given him power to eat" and delight from it — unlike wealthy men who deprive themselves — "and also to take his portion" in the World to Come, "and to rejoice in his labor" — that is, at the time of his departure, for that is when true rejoicing occurs, as our Sages of blessed memory said, that this is [the meaning of] "and she laughs at the last day" (Proverbs 31:25). Do not say that the goodness of the body is thereby diminished, for behold, this is "a gift of God" — given as a genuine gift, and not as a deduction from the reward. And the reason I attribute these to a "gift" and not to a "deduction" is this: a man will not, on account of the wealth mentioned, remember much the true days of his life belonging to the World to Come, so as to act accordingly — for behold, God is a Judge, and it is in anger that He answers his mouth for the joy of his heart in his wealth, since he grew haughty, for "the rich man answers impudently" (Proverbs 18:23). Therefore, one who, despite all this, still sets his deeds in order fittingly — his well-being through his wealth will not be deducted from him. Or, he may mean: "also every man," etc., continues from the preceding verse, which said that it is good for a man to eat and to drink and to see good — that being the goodness of the giving of his reward at the time of his departure, namely, to rejoice in this world and thereby acquire the life of the World to Come with joy. Now he says: do not say in your heart that it would be good for man's perfection that He, may He be blessed, enrich him, so that he may eat and drink and serve Hashem with joy, rather than being in want of money — for behold, the opposite is true: wealth deludes a man until he rebels and is lost. For behold, also "every man to whom God has given riches and wealth, and given him power to eat from it" — that is, the pleasure of this world — "and to carry his portion" to the World to Come, through charity and acts of kindness, "and to rejoice in his labor" at his departure, over the giving of their reward that is shown to him — this is not a natural matter, that through money one secures the World to Come. For behold, it is "a gift of God" that wealth not destroy him, causing his heart to grow haughty and rebel; for behold, a man will not merit much from his wealth during the days of his life, for his days are allotted and his death draws near, when he should set his deeds in order — yet wealth causes him to forget this. And that which is "a gift of God" is that God answers and assists that man in the joy of his heart, so that the joy of his heart not be lost through wealth — and not every man merits this. And this is what we have said in many places: that the trial of wealth is harder for a man than the trial of poverty.

"Every man also" — this refers back to the end of the verse, "this is the gift of God," meaning that the power to eat, etc., is likewise considered a gift from the Omnipresent, just like the riches themselves. "And has given him power" — He gave dominion to his heart and his will, to enjoy the riches. "And to take" — to take with him to the grave the portion that God has allotted to him from above; meaning, to do with the riches charity and kindness, so as to take this merit with him to the grave. "And to rejoice in his labor" — meaning, that his heart should not be grieved when he gives from the riches that he gathered through toil.

"u-nechasim" (and wealth) — included in this term are gold, silver, vessels, livestock, and so forth; similarly, "with great wealth, return [nechasim rabim shuvu]" (Joshua 22:8). "ve-hishlito" (and given him power) — an expression of dominion and capability. "ve-la-set" (and to take) — meaning "and to take." "mattat" (gift) — from the language of "giving" (netinah), as in "on the day that Hashem gave [tet]" (Joshua 10:12).

For there are not many. For there is no longevity in this world. Let him remember the days of his life. For they are few and not many; so why then should he bother to accumulate wealth? Let him labor with something that endures for him in the World to Come during his lifetime. While God answers [provides] him, etc. The Holy One, Blessed Is He, bears a permanent testimony about this eternally. — Notes: (23) According to Rashi מענה means, “bears testimony” as in, “you shall not bear false testimony [לא תענה] in Shemos 20:13. Alternatively, מענה means “answers” as in “may Hashem answer [יענך] you,” in Tehillim 20:2. (Ibn Ezra) With the joy of his heart. That he rejoiced to do good in his lifetime, and I saw in the Midrash, that this refers to Elkanah, who led Yisroel up to Shiloh on the festivals, and on the route that he brought them up on one year he did not bring them back the following year, in order to publicize the matter and to accustom them. Therefore, Scripture praises him, “This man would go up from his city, etc.” I believe that this Midrash is at the end of the verse, “for God answers [provides] him with the joy of his heart.” This is Elkanah, whom the Holy One, Blessed Is He, established in Scripture, and testifies about him, “this man would go up from his city.” — Notes: (24) I Shmuel 1:3. (25) Ibid. Answers [provides] him. This is vowelized with a small pasach [=segol].. Therefore, I explain it as a noun, as in, “for there was no answer מַעֲנֶה in the mouth[s] of the three men.” — Notes: (26) Iyov 32:5. With the joy of his heart. That he was happy on the festival.

"For not" — Some explain: if the good does not remain with him in abundance, he shall remember the days of his life in which he took pleasure, and in remembering them he has joy of heart. But what is correct in my eyes is that thus he shall remember that the days of his life are not many; and the word et is superfluous (extra), like "and the lion came, and the bear" (1 Samuel 17:34). "For God answers (ma'aneh)" — its meaning is "provides" (brings forth), like "I will answer (e'eneh) the heavens, and they shall answer (ya'anu) the earth" (Hosea 2:23). And some say it is from the term ana ("to answer"), and its meaning is that He answers the one who asks and seeks, according to his request, and likewise He answers everyone; and ma'aneh is from the heavy, augmented conjugation (the Hifil), on the pattern of ma'aleh nesi'im ("who causes the clouds to rise") (Jeremiah 10:13; Psalms 135:7). And the sense is that the Omnipresent assists him in his joy, for He gave to him and empowered him to eat from it; and the meaning of "from it" is that it is not fitting that he eat from it more than is proper.

"For [he shall not much remember] the days," etc. — this is an inverted verse (mikra mesorass, a verse whose word order is transposed), and the proper reading should be, "he shall remember the days of his life, that they are not many" — meaning, he should consider in his heart that the days of his life are not many; therefore let him hasten to enjoy the riches and to do charity and kindness with joy of heart while he is still alive. "For God" — as if to say, lest someone think, "who knows the secrets of the heart, to know whether I acted with joy of heart?" — to this he says that God, who knows thoughts, is a witness for him as to whether he acted with joy of his heart.

"ma'aneh" (answers) — an expression of "testimony" (edut), as in "you shall not testify/answer [ta'aneh]" (Exodus 21:14).