Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament · Ecclesiastes Chapter 5

“Keep thy foot when thou goest to the house of God, and to go to hear is better than that fools give a sacrifice; for the want of knowledge leads them to do evil.” The “house of God” is like the “house of Jahve,” 2 Samuel 12:20; Isaiah 37:1, the temple; אל , altogether like אל־מ־אל , Psalms 73:17. The Chethı̂b רגליך is admissible, for elsewhere also this plur. (“thy feet”) occurs in a moral connection and with a spiritual reference, e.g., Psalms 119:59; but more frequently, however, the comprehensive sing. occurs. Psalms 119:105; Proverbs 1:15; Proverbs 4:26., and the Kerı̂ thus follows the right note. The correct understanding of what follows depends on רע ... כּי־ . Interpreters have here adopted all manner of impossible views. Hitzig's translation: “for they know not how to be sorrowful,” has even found in Stuart at least one imitator; but עשׂות רע would, as the contrast of 'asoth tov , Ecclesiastes 3:12, mean nothing else than, “to do that which is unpleasant, disagreeable, bad,” like 'asah ra'ah , 2 Samuel 12:18. Gesen., Ewald (§336 b), Elster, Heiligst., Burger, Zöckl., Dale, and Bullock translate: “they know not that they do evil;” but for such a rendering the words ought to have been עשׂותם רע (cf. Jeremiah 15:15); the only example for the translation of לעשׂות after the manner of the acc. c. inf. = se facere malum - viz. at 1 Kings 19:4 - is incongruous, for למות does not here mean se mori , but ut moreretur . Yet more incorrect is the translation of Jerome, which is followed by Luther: nesciunt quid faciant mali . It lies near, as at Ecclesiastes 2:24 so also here, to suppose an injury done to the text. Aben Ezra introduced רק before לעשׂ , but Koheleth never uses this limiting particle; we would have to write כי אם־לעשׂות , after Ezra 3:12; Ezra 8:15. Anything thus attained, however, is not worth the violent means thus used; for the ratifying clause is not ratifying, and also in itself, affirmed of the כסילים , who, however, are not the same as the resha'im and the hattaim , is inappropriate. Rather it might be said: they know not to do good (thus the Syr.); or: they know not whether it be good or bad to do, i.e., they have no moral feeling, and act not from moral motives (so the Targ.). Not less violent than this remodelling of the text is the expedient of Herzberg, Philippson, and Ginsburg, who from לשׁמע derive the subject-conception of the obedient ( השּׂמעים ): “For those understand not at all to do evil;” the subj. ought to have been expressed if it must be something different from the immediately preceding כסילים . We may thus render enam yod'im , after Psalms 82:5; Isaiah 56:10, as complete in itself: they (the fools) are devoid of knowledge to do evil = so that they do evil; i.e., want of knowledge brings them to this, that they do evil. Similarly also Knobel: they concern themselves not, - are unconcerned (viz., about the right mode of worshipping God), - so that they do evil, with the correct remark that the consequence of their perverse conduct is here represented as their intention. But ידע לא , absol., does not mean to be unconcerned (wanton), but to be without knowledge. Rashbam, in substance correctly: they are predisposed by their ignorance to do evil; and thus also Hahn; Mendelssohn translates directly: “they sin because they are ignorant.” If this interpretation is correct, then for לשׁמע it follows that it does not mean “to obey” (thus e.g., Zöckler), which in general it never means without some words being added to it (cf. on the contrary, 1 Samuel 15:22), but “to hear,” - viz. the word of God, which is to be heard in the house of God, - whereby, it is true, a hearing is meant which leads to obedience.

In the word הורות , priests are not perhaps thought of, although the comparison of Ecclesiastes 5:5 ( המלאך ) with Malachi 2:7 makes it certainly natural; priestly instruction limited itself to information regarding the performance of the law already given in Scripture, Leviticus 10:11; Deuteronomy 33:9., and to deciding on questions arising in the region of legal praxis, Deuteronomy 24:8; Haggai 2:11. The priesthood did not belong to the teaching class in the sense of preaching. Preaching was never a part of the temple cultus, but, for the first time, after the exile became a part of the synagogue worship. The preachers under the O.T. were the prophets, - preachers by a supernatural divine call, and by the immediate impulse of the Spirit; we know from the Book of Jeremiah that they sometimes went into the temple, or there caused their books of prophecy to be read; yet the author, by the word לשׁמע of the foregoing proverb, scarcely thinks of them. But apart from the teaching of the priests, which referred to the realization of the letter of the law, and the teaching of the prophets to the realization of the spirit of the law, the word formed an essential part of the sacred worship of the temple: the Tefilla, the Beracha, the singing of psalms, and certainly, at the time of Koheleth, the reading of certain sections of the Bible. When thou goest to the house of God, says Koheleth, take heed to thy step, well reflecting whither thou goest and how thou hast there to appear; and (with this ו he connects with this first nota bene a second) drawing near to hear exceeds the sacrifice-offering of fools, for they are ignorant (just because they hear not), which leads to this result, that they do evil. מן , prae, expresses also, without an adj., precedence in number, Isaiah 10:10, or activity, Isaiah 9:17, or worth, Ezekiel 15:2. קרוב is inf. absol. Böttcher seeks to subordinate it as such to שׁמר : take heed to thy foot ... and to the coming near to hear more than to ... . But these obj. to שמר would be incongruous, and מתת וגו clumsy and even distorted in expression; it ought rather to be מתּתּך כּכסי־לים זבח . As the inf. absol. can take the place of the obj., Isaiah 7:15; Isaiah 42:24; Lamentations 3:45, so also the place of the subj. (Ewald, §240 a), although Proverbs 25:27 is a doubtful example of this. That the use of the inf. absol. has a wide application with the author of this book, we have already seen under Ecclesiastes 4:2. Regarding the sequence of ideas in זבח ... מתּת (first the subj., then the obj.), vid., Gesen. §133. 3, and cf. above at Ecclesiastes 3:18. זבח ( זבחים ), along with its general signification comprehending all animal sacrifices, according to which the altar bears the name מזבּח , early acquired also a more special signification: it denotes, in contradistinction to עולה , such sacrifices as are only partly laid on the altar, and for the most part are devoted to a sacrificial festival, Exodus 18:12 (cf. Exodus 12:27), the so-called shelamim , or also zivhhe shelamim , Proverbs 7:14. The expression זבח נתן makes it probable that here, particularly, is intended the festival (1 Kings 1:41) connected with this kind of sacrifice, and easily degenerating to worldly merriment ( vid., under Proverbs 7:14); for the more common word for תּת would have been הקריב or שׁחוט ; in תּת it seems to be indicated that it means not only to present something to God, but also to give at the same time something to man. The most recent canonical Chokma-book agrees with Proverbs 21:3 in this depreciation of sacrifice. But the Chokma does not in this stand alone. The great word of Samuel, 1 Samuel 15:22., that self-denying obedience to God is better than all sacrifices, echoes through the whole of the Psalms. And the prophets go to the utmost in depreciating the sacrificial cultus.

The second rule relates to prayer.

return to '

“If thou seest the oppression of the poor and the robbery of right and of justice in the state, marvel not at the matter: for one higher watches over him who is high; and others are high above both.” Like rash , mishpat vatsěděq are also the gen. of the obj.; “robbery of the right and of justice” is an expression not found elsewhere, but not on that account, as Grätz supposes, impossible: mishpat is right, rectitude, and conformity to law; and ק]ד]סת , judicial administration, or also social deportment according to these norms; גּזל , a wicked, shameless depriving of a just claim, and withholding of the showing of right which is due. If one gets a sight of such things as these in a medinah , i.e., in a territorial district under a common government, he ought not to wonder at the matter.

תּמהּ means to be startled, astonished, and, in the sense of “to wonder,” is the word commonly used in modern Heb. But חפץ has here the colourless general signification of res, according to which the Syr. translates it ( vid., under Ecclesiastes 3:1); every attempt in passages such as this to retain the unweakened primary meaning of the word runs out into groundless and fruitless subtlety. Cf. Berachoth 5 a, חפץ לח ... אדם , “a man who buys a thing from another.” On the other hand, there is doubt about the meaning of the clause assigning the reason. It seems to be intended, that over him who is high, who oppresses those under him, there stands one who is higher, who in turn oppresses him, and thereby becomes the executor of punishment upon him; and that these, the high and the higher, have over them a Most High, viz., God, who will bring them to an account (Knobel, Ew., Elst., Vaih., Hengst., Zöckl.). None of the old translators and expositors rises, it is true, to the knowledge that גּבהים may be pl. majestatis,

(Note: That is surprising, since the Talm. interpretation, Menachoth 110 a, even brings it about that לב , Ecclesiastes 5:10, is to be understood of God.)

but the first גּבהּ the Targ. renders by אל אדּיר . This was natural to the Jewish usus loq., for gbwh in the post-bibl. Heb. is a favourite name for God, e.g., Beza 20 b, Jebamoth 87 a, Kamma 13 a: “from the table of God” ( משלחן גבוה ), i.e., the altar (cf. Hebrews 13:10; 1 Corinthians 10:21).

(Note: חלק גבוה is also a common Rabbin. name for the tithes and offerings (cf. e.g., Nachmani under Genesis 14:20). Along with חלק הגבוה , the sacrifices are also called (in Hurwitz' work on the Heb. rites, known by the abbreviated title ש '' לה ) לגבוה ; vid., 85 b of the ed. 1764, and 23 b of the Amsterdam ed. 1707 of the abridgment.)

The interpretation of גב , however, as the pl. majest., has in the Book of Koheleth itself a support in בּוראיך , Ecclesiastes 12:1; and the thought in which Ecclesiastes 5:7 climactically terminates accords essentially with Ecclesiastes 3:17. This explanation, however, of Ecclesiastes 5:7 does not stand the test. For if an unrighteous administration of justice, if violence is in vogue instead of right, that is an actual proof that over him who is high no human higher one watches who may put a check upon him, and to whom he feels that he is responsible. And that above them both one who is Most High stands, who will punish injustice and avenge it, is a consolatory argument against vexation, but is no explanatory reason of the phenomenon, such as we expect after the noli mirari ; for אל־תתמה does not signify “be not offended” (John 16:1), or, “think it not strange” (1 Peter 4:12), which would be otherwise expressed (cf. under Psalms 37:1), but μή θαυμάσης (lxx). Also the contrast, Ecclesiastes 5:8, warrants the conclusion that in Ecclesiastes 5:7 the author seeks to explain the want of legal order from the constitution of a despotic state as distinguished from patriarchal government. For this reason שׁמר will not be meant of over-watching, which has its aim in the execution of legal justice and official duty, but of egoistic watching, - not, however, as Hitzig understands it: “they mutually protect each other's advantage; one crow does not peck out the eyes of another,” - but, on the contrary, in the sense of hostile watching, as at 1 Samuel 19:11; 2 Samuel 11:16, as B. Bardach understands it: “he watches for the time when he may gain the advantage over him who is high, who is yet lower than himself, and may strengthen and enrich himself with his flesh or his goods.” Over the one who is high, who oppresses the poor and is a robber in respect of right and justice, there stands a higher, who on his part watches how he can plunder him to his own aggrandisement; and over both there are again other high ones, who in their own interest oppress these, as these do such as are under them. This was the state of matters in the Persian Empire in the time of the author. The satrap stood at the head of state officers. In many cases he fleeced the province to fatten himself. But over the satrap stood inspectors, who often enough built up their own fortunes by fatal denunciations; and over all stood the king, or rather the court, with its rivalry of intrigues among courtiers and royal women. The cruel death-punishments to which disagreeable officials were subjected were fearful. There was a gradation of bad government and arbitrary domination from high to low and from low to high, and no word is more fitting for this state of things in Persia than שׁמר ; for watching, artfully lurking as spies for an opportunity to accomplish the downfall of each other, was prevalent in the Persian Empire, especially when falling into decay.

return to '

The author, on the other hand, now praises the patriarchal form of government based on agriculture, whose king takes pride, not in bloody conquests and tyrannical caprice, but in the peaceful promotion of the welfare of his people: “But the advantage of a country consists always in a king given to the arable land.” What impossibilities have been found here, even by the most recent expositors! Ewald, Heiligst., Elster, Zצckl. translate: rex agro factus = terrae praefectus ; but, in the language of this book, not עבד but מלך עשׁה is the expression used for “to make a king.” Gesen., Win., de Wette, Knobel, Vaih. translate: rex qui colitur a terra ( civibus ). But could a country, in the sense of its population in subjection to the king, be more inappropriately designated than by שׂדה ? Besides, עבד certainly gains the meaning of colere where God is the object; but with a human ruler as the object it means servire and nothing more, and נעבּד

(Note: Thus pointed rightly in J., with Sheva quiesc. and Dagesh in Beth; vid., Kimchi in Michlol 63 a, and under עבד .)

can mean nothing else than “ dienstbar gemacht ” made subject to, not “honoured.” Along with this signification, related denom. to עבד , נעבד , referred from its primary signification to שׂדה , the open fields (from שׂדה , to go out in length and breadth), may also, after the phrase עבד האדמה , signify cultivated, wrought, tilled; and while the phrase “made subject to” must be certainly held as possible (Rashi, Aben Ezra, and others assume it without hesitation), but is without example, the Niph. occurs, e.g., at Ezekiel 36:9, in the latter signification, of the mountains of Israel: “ye shall be tilled.” Under Ecclesiastes 5:8, Hitzig, and with him Stuart and Zöckler, makes the misleading remark that the Chethı̂b is בּכל־היא , and that it is = בּכל־זאת , according to which the explanation is then given: the protection and security which an earthly ruler secures is, notwithstanding this, not to be disparaged. But היא is Chethı̂b , for which the Kerı̂ substitutes הוּא ; בּכּל is Chethı̂b without Kerı̂ ; and that בּכל is thus a modification of the text, and that, too, an objectionable one, since בכל־היא , in the sense of “in all this,” is unheard of. The Kerı̂ seeks, without any necessity, to make the pred. and subj. like one another in gender; without necessity, for היא may also be neut.: the advantage of a land is this, viz., what follows. And how בּכּל is to be understood is seen from Ezra 10:17, where it is to be explained: And they prepared

(Note: That כלה ב may mean “to be ready with anything,” Keil erroneously points to Genesis 44:12; and Philippi, St. Const. p. 49, thinks that vǎkol ǎnāshim can be taken together in the sense of vakol haanashim .)

the sum of the men, i.e., the list of the men, of such as had married strange wives; cf. 1 Chronicles 7:5. Accordingly בכל here means, as the author generally uses הכל mostly in the impersonal sense of omnia : in omnibus , in all things = by all means; or: in universum , in general. Were the words accentuated מלך לשדה נעבד , the adject. connection of לשׂ נע would thereby be shown; according to which the lxx and Theod. translate τοῦ αγροῦ εἰργασμένου ; Symm., with the Syr., τῇ χώρα εἰργασμένη : “a king for the cultivated land,” i.e., one who regards this as a chief object. Luzz. thus indeed accentuates; but the best established accentuation is מלך לשדה נעבד . This separation of נעבד from לש can only be intended to denote that נעבד is to be referred not to it, but to מלך , according to which the Targ. paraphrases. The meaning remains the same: a king subject (who has become a servus ) to the cultivated land, rex agro addictus , as Dathe, Rosenm., and others translate, is a still more distinct expression of that which “a king for the well-cultivated field” would denote: an agriculture-king, - one who is addicted, not to wars, lawsuits, and sovereign stubbornness in his opinions, but who delights in the peaceful advancement of the prosperity of his country, and especially takes a lively interest in husbandry and the cultivation of the land. The order of the words in Ecclesiastes 5:8 is like that at Ecclesiastes 9:2; cf. Isaiah 8:22; Isaiah 22:2. The author thus praises, in contrast to a despotic state, a patriarchal kingdom based on agriculture.

return to '

“He who loveth silver is not satisfied with silver; and he whose love cleaveth to abundance, hath nothing of it: also this is vain.” The transition in this series of proverbs is not unmediated; for the injustice which, according to Ecclesiastes 5:7, prevails in the state as it now is becomes subservient to covetousness, in the very nature of which there lies insatiableness: semper avarus eget, hunc nulla pecunia replet . That the author speaks of the “ sacra fames argenti ” (not auri ) arises from this, that not זהב , but כסף , is the specific word for coin.

(Note: A Jewish fancy supposes that כסף is chosen because it consists of letters rising in value (20, 60, 80); while, on the contrary, זהב consists of letters decreasing in value (7, 5, 2).)

Mendelssohn-Friedländer also explains: “He who loveth silver is not satisfied with silver,” i.e., it does not make him full; that might perhaps be linguistically possible (cf. e.g., Proverbs 12:11), although the author would in that case probably have written the words מן־הכּסף , after Ecclesiastes 6:3; but “to be not full of money” is, after Ecclesiastes 1:8, and especially Ecclesiastes 4:8, Habakkuk 2:5, cf. Proverbs 27:20 = never to have enough of money, but always to desire more.

That which follows, Ecclesiastes 5:9, is, according to Hitz., a question: And who hath joy in abundance, which bringeth nothing in? But such questions, with the answer to be supplied, are not in Koheleth's style; and what would then be understood by capital without interest? Others, as Zöckler, supply ישׂבּע : and he that loveth abundance of possessions (is) not (full) of income; but that which is gained by these hard ellipses is only a tautology. With right, the Targ., Syr., Jerome, the Venet., and Luther take lo tevuah as the answer or conclusion; and who clings to abundance of possessions with his love? - he has no fruit thereof; or, with a weakening of the interrog. pronoun into the relative (as at Ecclesiastes 1:9; cf. under Psalms 34:13): he who ... clings has nothing of it. Hamon signifies a tumult, a noisy multitude, particularly of earthly goods, as at Psalms 37:16; 1 Chronicles 29:16; Isaiah 60:5. The connection of אהב with ב , occurring only here, follows the analogy of חפץ בּ and the like. The conclusion is synon. with levilti ho'il ; e.g., Isaiah 44:10; Jeremiah 7:8. All the Codd. read לא ; לו in this sense would be meaningless.

(Note: In Maccoth 10 a, לו is read three times in succession; the Midrash Wajikra, c. 22, reads לא , and thus it is always found without Kerı̂ and without variation.)

The designation of advantage by tevuah , the farmer enjoys the fruit of his labour; but he who hangs his heart on the continual tumult, noise, pomp of more numerous and greater possessions is possible, to him all real profit - i.e., all pleasant, peaceful enjoyment - is lost. With the increase of the possessions there is an increase also of unrest, and the possessor has in reality nothing but the sight of them.

return to '

“When property and goods increase, they become many who consume them; and what advantage hath the owner thereof but the sight of them with his eyes?” The verb רבה signifies to increase, the רבב , to be many; but also (which Böttch. denies) inchoatively: to become many, Genesis 6:1; rightly, the lxx, ἐπληθύνθησαν . The author has not a miser in view, who shuts up his money in chests, and only feeds himself in looking at it with closed doors; but a covetous man, of the sort spoken of in Psalms 49:12; Isaiah 5:8. If the hattovah , the possession of such an one, increases, in like manner the number of people whom he must maintain increases also, and thus the number of those who eat of it along with him, and at the same time also his disquiet and care, increase; and what advantage, what useful result ( vid., regarding Kishron , above, p. 638, and under Ecclesiastes 2:21) has the owner of these good things from them but the beholding of them ( reith ; Kerı̂ , reuth ; cf. the reverse case, Psalms 126:4)? - the possession does not in itself bring happiness, for it is never great enough to satisfy him, but is yet great enough to fill him with great care as to whether he may be able to support the demands of so great a household: the fortune which it brings to him consists finally only in this, that he can look on all he has accumulated with proud self-complacency.

return to '

He can also eat that which is good, and can eat much; but he does not on that account sleep more quietly than the labourer who lives from hand to mouth: “Sweet is the sleep of the labourer, whether he eats little or much; but, on the contrary, the abundance of the rich does not permit him to sleep.” The lxx, instead of “labourer,” uses the word “slave” ( δούλου ), as if the original were העבד . But, as a rule, sound sleep is the reward of earnest labour; and since there are idle servants as well as active masters, there is no privilege to servants. The Venet. renders rightly by “of the husbandman” ( ἐργάτου ), the האדמה עבד ; the “labourer” in general is called עמל , Ecclesiastes 4:8 and Judges 5:26, post-bibl. פּעל . The labourer enjoys sweet, i.e., refreshing, sound sleep, whether his fare be abundant of scanty - the labour rewards him by sweet sleep, notwithstanding his poverty; while, on the contrary, the sleep of the rich is hindered and disturbed by his abundance, not: by his satiety, viz., repletion, as Jerome remarks: incocto cibo in stomachi angustiis aestuante ; for the labourer also, if he eats much, eats his fill; and why should sufficiency have a different result in the one from what is has in the other? As שׂבע means satiety, not over-satiety; so, on the other hand, it means, objectively, sufficient and plentifully existing fulness to meet the wants of man, Proverbs 3:10, and the word is meant thus objectively here: the fulness of possession which the rich has at his disposal does not permit him to sleep, for all kinds of projects, cares, anxieties regarding it rise within him, which follow him into the night, and do not suffer his mind to be at rest, which is a condition of sleep. The expression השּׂ לע is the circumlocutio of the genit. relation, like לב ... חל , Ruth 2:3; נע ... אם (lxx Αμνὼν τῆσ ̓Αχινόαμ ), 2 Samuel 3:2. Heiligstedt remarks that it stands for שׂבע העשׁיר ; but the nouns צמא , רעב ,צמא snuon , שׂבע form no const., for which reason the circumloc. was necessary; שׂבע is the constr. of שׂבע . Falsely, Ginsburg: “ aber der Ueberfluss den Reichen - er lässt ihn nicht schlafen ” but superabundance the rich - it doth not suffer him to sleep; but this construction is neither in accordance with the genius of the German nor of the Heb. language. Only the subject is resumed in איננּוּ (as in Ecclesiastes 1:7); the construction of הניח is as at 1 Chronicles 16:21; cf. Psalms 105:14. Of the two Hiphil forms, the properly Heb. הניח and the Aramaizing הנּיח , the latter is used in the weakened meaning of ἐᾶν , sinere.

After showing that riches bring to their possessor no real gain, but, instead of that, dispeace, care, and unrest, the author records as a great evil the loss, sometimes suddenly, of wealth carefully amassed.

return to '

“As he came forth from his mother's womb, naked shall he again depart as he came, and not the least will he carry away for his labour, which he could take with him in his hand.” In 13 a the author has the case of Job in his mind; this verse before us is a reminiscence from Job 1:21, with the setting aside of the difficult word שׁמּה found there, which Sirach 40:1 exhibits. With “naked” begins emphatically the main subject; כּשׁבּא = בא כּאשׁר is the intensifying resumption of the comparison; the contrast of לכת f , going away, excedere vitâ , is בּיא of the entrance on life, coming into the world. מאוּמה (according to the root meaning and use, corresponding to the French point, Olsh. §205 a) emphatically precedes the negation, as at Judges 14:6 (cf. the emphasis reached in a different way, Psalms 49:18). נשׂא signifies here, as at Ecclesiastes 5:18, Psalms 24:5, to take hence, to take forth, to carry away. The ב of בּע is not partitive (Aben Ezra compares Leviticus 8:32), according to which Jerome and Luther translate de labore suo , but is the Beth pretii , as e.g., at 1 Kings 16:34, as the Chald. understands it; Nolde cites for this Beth pretii passages such as Ecclesiastes 2:24, but incorrectly. Regarding the subjunctive שׁיּלך , quod auferat . We might also with the lxx and Symm. punctuate שׁיּלך : which might accompany him in his hand, but which could by no means denote, as Hitzig thinks: (for his trouble), which goes through his hand. Such an expression is not used; and Hitzig's supposition, that here the rich man who has lost his wealth is the subject, does not approve itself.

return to '

A transition is now made to rich men as such, and the registering formula which should go before Ecclesiastes 5:14 here follows: “And this also is a sore evil: altogether exactly as he came, thus shall he depart: and what gain hath he that laboureth in the wind?” Regarding זה ; and regarding כּל־ע שׁ ,

(Note: I n H. written as one word: כּלעמת . Parchon ( Lex. under עמת ) had this form before him. In his Lex. Kimchi bears evidence in favour of the correct writing as two words.)

The writing of these first two as one word [ vid. note below] accords with Ibn-Giat's view, accidentally quoted by Kimchi, that the word is compounded of כ of comparison, and the frequently occurring לעמּת always retaining its ל , and ought properly to be pointed כּלע (cf. מלּ , 1 Kings 7:20). עמּה signifies combination, society, one thing along with or parallel to another; and thus לעמת bears no כ , since it is itself a word of comparison, כּל־עמּת “altogether parallel,” “altogether the same.” The question: what kind of advantage ( vid., Ecclesiastes 1:3) is to him (has he) of this that ... , carries its answer in itself. Labouring for the wind or in the wind, his labour is רוּח ( רעיון ) רעוּת , and thus fruitless. And, moreover, how miserable an existence is this life of labour leading to nothing!

return to '

“Also all his life long he eateth in darkness and grieveth himself much, and oh for his sorrow and hatred!” We might place Ecclesiastes 5:16 under the regimen of the שׁ of שׁיע of Ecclesiastes 5:15; but the Heb. style prefers the self-dependent form of sentences to that which is governed. The expression Ecclesiastes 5:16 has something strange. This strangeness disappears if, with Ewald and Heiligst., after the lxx and Jerome, for יאכל we read ואכל : καὶ ἐν πένθει ; Böttch. prefers ואפל , “and in darkness.” Or also, if we read ילך for יאכל ; thus the Midrash here, and several codd. by Kennicott; but the Targ., Syr., and Masora read יאכל . Hitzig gets rid of that which is strange in this passage by taking כּל־ימיו as accus. of the obj., not of the time: all his days, his whole life he consumes in darkness; but in Heb. as in Lat. we say: consumere dies vitae , Job 21:13; Job 36:11, but not comedere ; and why should the expression, “to eat in darkness,” not be a figurative expression for a faithless, gloomy life, as elsewhere “to sit in darkness” (Micah 7:8), and “to walk in darkness”? It is meant that all his life long he ate אונים לחם , the bread of sorrow, or לחץ לחם , prison fare; he did not allow himself pleasant table comforts in a room comfortably or splendidly lighted, for it is unnecessary to understand חשׁך subjectively and figuratively (Hitz., Zöck.).

In 16 b the traditional punctuation is וכעס .

(Note: Thus in correct texts, in H. with the note: כ מלרע , viz., here and at Psalms 112:10, only there ע has, according to tradition, the Kametz. Cf. Mas. fin. 52 b, and Baer's Ed. of Psalter, under Psalms 112:10.)

The perf. ruled by the preceding fut. is syntactically correct, and the verb כּעס is common with the author, Ecclesiastes 7:9. Hitzig regards the text as corrupt, and reads כּחליו and כּעס , and explains: and (he consumes or swallows) much grief in his, etc.; the phrase, “to eat sorrow,” may be allowed (cf. Proverbs 26:6, cf. Job 15:16); but יאכל , as the representative of two so bold and essentially different metaphors, would be in point of style in bad taste. If the text is corrupt, it may be more easily rectified by reading וק לו וחלי הרבה וכּעס : and grief in abundance, and sorrow has he, and wrath. We merely suggest this. Ewald, Burger, and Böttch. read only וכעס הרבה וחלי ; but לו is not to be dispensed with, and can easily be reduced to a mere vav. Elster retains וכעס , and reads, like Hitzig, בחליו : he grieves himself much in his sorrow and wrath; but in that case the word וקצפו was to be expected; also in this way the ideas do not psychologically accord with each other. However the text is taken, we must interpret וחליו וקצף as an exclamation, like הף , Isaiah 29:16; תּף , Jeremiah 49:16; Ewald, §328 a, as we have done above. That וח of itself is a subst. clause = וחלי לו is untenable; the rendering of the noun as forming a clause, spoken of under Ecclesiastes 2:21, is of a different character.

(Note: Rashi regards וחליו as a form like חיתו . This o everywhere appears only in a gen. connection.)

He who by his labour and care aims at becoming rich, will not only lay upon himself unnecessary privations, but also have many sorrows; for many of his plans fail, and the greater success of others awakens his envy, and neither he himself nor others satisfy him; he is morbidly disposed, and as he is diseased in mind, so also in body, and his constantly increasing dissatisfaction becomes at last קצף , he grumbles at himself, at God, and all the world. From observing such persons, Paul says of them (1 Timothy 6:6.): “They have pierced themselves through ( transfoderunt) with many sorrows.”

In view of these great evils, with which the possession of riches also is connected: of their deceitful instability, and their merely belonging to this present life, Koheleth returns to his ceterum censeo .

return to '

“Behold then what I have seen as good, what as beautiful (is this): that one eat and drink and see good in all his labour with which he wearieth himself, under the sun, throughout the number of the days of his life which God hath given him; for that is his portion.” Toward this seeing, i.e., knowing from his own experience, his effort went forth, according to Ecclesiastes 2:3; and what he here, Ecclesiastes 5:17, Ecclesiastes 5:18, expresses as his resultat, he has already acknowledged at Ecclesiastes 2:24 and Ecclesiastes 3:12. With “behold” he here returns to it; for he says, that from the observations just spoken of, as from others, no other resultat befell him. Instead of ר טובה (here and at Ecclesiastes 6:6), he as often uses the words טוב ראה , Ecclesiastes 3:13; Ecclesiastes 2:24, or בּטוב , Ecclesiastes 2:1. In רא , the seeing is meant of that of mental apperception; in לרא , of immediate perception, experience. Our translation above does not correspond with the accentuation of the verse, which belongs to the class of disproportionably long verses without Athnach; cf. Genesis 21:9; Numbers 9:1; Isaiah 36:1; Jeremiah 13:13; Jeremiah 51:37; Ezekiel 42:10; Amos 5:1; 1 Chronicles 26:26; 1 Chronicles 28:1; 2 Chronicles 23:1. The sentence אני ... הנה (with pausal āni with Rebîa) constitutes the beginning of the verse, in the form, as it were, of a superscription; and then its second part, the main proposition, is divided by the disjunctives following each other: Telisha Gedhola, Geresh, Legarmeh, Rebîa, Tebir, Tifcha, Silluk (cf. Jeremiah 8:1, where Pazer instead of Telisha Bedhola; but as for the rest, the sequence of the accents is the same). Among the moderns, Hengst. holds to the accents, for he translates in strict accordance therewith, as Tremmelius does: “Behold what I have seen: that it is fine and good (Trem. bonum pulchrum ) to eat ... .” The asher in the phrase, tov asher - yapheh , then connects it together: good which is at the same time beautiful; Grätz sees here the Greek καλὸν κάγαθόν . But the only passage to which, since Kimchi, reference is made for this use of asher, viz., Hosea 12:8, does not prove it; for we are not, with Drusius, to translate there by: iniquitas quae sit peccatum , but by quae poenam mereat . The accentuation here is not correct. The second asher is without doubt the resumption of the first; and the translation - as already Dachselt in his Biblia Accentuata indicated: ecce itaque quod vidi bonum, quod pulchrum ( hoc est ut quis edat ) - presents the true relation of the component parts of the sentence. The suffix of עמלו refers to the general subj. contained in the inf.; cf. Ecclesiastes 8:15. The period of time denoted by מספּר is as at Ecclesiastes 2:3; Ecclesiastes 6:12. Also we read חל ... כּי־ , Ecclesiastes 3:22, in the same connection.

return to '

This verse, expressing the same, is constructed anakolouthistically, altogether like Ecclesiastes 3:13: “Also for every man to whom God hath given riches and treasures, and hath given him power to eat thereof, and to take his portion, and to rejoice in his labour; just this is a gift of God.” The anakolouthon can be rendered into English here as little as it can at Ecclesiastes 3:13; for if we allow the phrase, “also every man,” the “also” remains fixed to the nearest conception, while in the Heb it governs the whole long sentence, and, at the nearest, belongs to זה . Cheerful enjoyment is in this life that which is most advisable; but also it is not made possible in itself by the possession of earthly treasures, - it is yet a special gift of God added thereto. Nechasim , besides here, occurs also in Joshua 22:8; 2 Chronicles 1:11.; and in the Chald. of the Book of Ezra; Ezra 6:8; Ezra 7:26. Also hishlit , to empower, to make possible, is Aram., Daniel 2:38, Daniel 2:48, as well as Heb., Psalms 119:133; the prevalence of the verbal stem שלט is characteristic of the Book of Koheleth. Helqo , “his portion,” is just the cheerful enjoyment as that which man has here below of life, if he has any of it at all.

return to '