We begin our study of Megillat Kohelet, one of the Five Megillot in the section of Ketuvim. The Megillah was composed by King Solomon through Ruach HaKodesh, as Chazal teach, and its theme is the ultimate purpose and objective of man in this world, particularly the negation of worldly pursuits and exposing the futility of materialism and earthly desires. The entire book builds toward its conclusion, which is its crowning jewel:
סוֹף דָּבָר הַכֹּל נִשְׁמָע, אֶת הָאֱלֹהִים יְרָא וְאֶת מִצְוֺתָיו שְׁמוֹר, כִּי זֶה כָּל הָאָדָם. - The end of the matter, all having been heard: fear God and keep His commandments, for this is the whole of man.
Not physical possessions, not what I had or what I bought, not the vast assets Solomon accumulated throughout his lifetime. The essence is: this is the whole of man.
Chazal state that Kohelet is one of King Solomon's names, and he chose this name for the Megillah rather than any of his other names. Why? One opinion explains that he assembled (kahal) and gathered many wisdoms - the Book of Kohelet gathers within itself vast wisdom. Another opinion explains that he assembled opposing viewpoints in order to refine and clarify the correct from the incorrect. Note this concept well, as we will return to it later in understanding the structure of the book.
Kohelet Rabbah offers an additional reason: because he delivered this Megillah at the Hakhel gathering. In the mitzvah of Hakhel, following the Shemittah year, the people were assembled and the king would read from the Torah, and on that occasion he taught the people mussar regarding these matters. From this concept, Torah scholars are also referred to as "masters of assemblies" (baalei asupot), because they would gather congregations and assemble the people to hear words of Torah, just as is written regarding Moshe, "Assemble for Me seventy men of the elders of Israel." The assemblies refer to the people gathered, and likewise here he is called "Kohelet" after the congregation he assembled to hear his words. The author of the Rokeach adds that this refers not merely to the general gathering of the people, but specifically to the mitzvah of Hakhel on the festival of Sukkot - it was on that occasion that he delivered these teachings, and therefore he was named Kohelet.
In connection with assembling wisdom: this also corresponds closely to another name of Solomon, "Agur ben Yakeh," mentioned in Mishlei, chapter 30. Although some commentators suggest this was a different sage, the accepted view in Chazal is that this refers to Solomon. Why was he called this? Because he would store up (oger) wisdom and emit it (meki'ah), meaning he taught it forth. Thus, the gathering of wisdom is described either as storing or assembling.
Chazal relate that when the Holy One, blessed be He, appeared to Solomon at Gibeon at the start of his reign and asked him, "What shall I give you?", Solomon reasoned: If I ask for silver, gold, and precious gems, He will give them to me, but I will have only that. Instead, I will ask for wisdom, which encompasses everything. Once I ask for wisdom, everything else is included within it. As it says, "Give Your servant an understanding heart." The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him: Because you asked for wisdom, and did not ask for wealth, honor, or the lives of your enemies, wisdom and knowledge are granted to you, and through them you will also receive wealth, possessions, and honor, and the lives of your enemies I will deliver to you as well.
"Then Solomon awoke, and behold, it was a dream." Rabbi Yitzchak said: What is the meaning of "and behold, it was a dream"? That the dream had become reality. Standing in his place, he heard a bird chirping and understood what it chirped, a donkey braying and understood what it brayed - for he knew the language of animals. He realized immediately that the dream he had dreamed was true, and then, "He came to Jerusalem and stood before the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord, offered up burnt offerings, prepared peace offerings, and made a feast for all his servants" - he gave thanks to Hashem for what He had granted him. Immediately, Ruach HaKodesh rested upon him, and he uttered these three books: Mishlei, Shir HaShirim, and Kohelet. Solomon had seven names, but his primary names are three: Yedidyah, Kohelet, and Shlomo.
Chazal state that King Chizkiyah and his colleagues wrote the Book of Kohelet; they recorded Yeshayahu, Mishlei, Shir HaShirim, and Kohelet. The author of the Akedat Yitzchak raises a difficulty: Does the text not say, "The words of Kohelet, son of David," the words of King Solomon - what, then, is meant by "wrote"? He explains: After Sancheriv arrived, Chizkiyahu plunged a sword at the entrance of the Beit Midrash and declared that anyone who does not engage in Torah study shall be pierced with the sword. The people then immersed themselves, probed deeply, and investigated the thousands upon thousands of Solomon's teachings - "and his songs were a thousand and five" - for Solomon had left behind an inexhaustible treasure of wisdom. From all those teachings, they selected those uttered through Ruach HaKodesh and codified them as part of the twenty-four books of Tanach. Thus, the teachings themselves are certainly Solomon's; however, those who compiled them, committed them to parchment, arranged them in the structured order before us, and determined what belonged in the canon and what did not, were King Chizkiyah and his colleagues.
Our Sages debate the chronological order in which Shlomo composed his three books. Kohelet Rabbah records: Rabbi Chiyya the Great says that he wrote Mishlei first, then Shir HaShirim, and then Kohelet. In the baraita of Rabbi Chiyya the Great, it is stated in his name that he wrote all three together in his old age: Mishlei, Kohelet, and Shir HaShirim. Rabbi Yonatan says that he wrote Shir HaShirim first, then Mishlei, and then Kohelet. The common denominator among all opinions is that Kohelet was written last. This is also evident from within the book itself, as we will later see expressions where Shlomo speaks of what he once possessed, clearly speaking from the perspective of old age rather than his youth.
The three books address three distinct themes. Mishlei deals with character traits (middot), following the middle path in every trait, and loving wisdom - as we have already studied following the approach of the Malbim. Shir HaShirim is the most sublime of songs, depicting the bond between the Jewish people and the Holy One, Blessed is He. And Kohelet deals with how a person should conduct his physical life, the secrets of creation, and man's ultimate purpose.
The Midrash relates: Rabbi Shmuel bar Rabbi Yitzchak said that the Sages sought to suppress the Book of Kohelet because they found statements in it that tend toward heresy - that is, statements that seemingly incline toward disbelief. They said: Is this Shlomo's wisdom, to say, "Rejoice, young man, in your youth, and let your heart cheer you in the days of your youth; walk in the ways of your heart and in the sight of your eyes"? Is that how one ought to act? Moshe Rabbeinu said, "Do not follow after your heart and after your eyes" - how could Shlomo state something that contradicts the Torah of Moshe? Has all restraint been cast aside, with neither law nor judge? But once Shlomo concluded, "Yet know that for all these things God will bring you to judgment" - they said: Shlomo has spoken well.
What, then, did our Sages mean when they said his words tend toward heresy? They found a flaw in the presentation: Why did Shlomo phrase things this way? He should have said from the outset, "Choose the good." Instead, he opens as if telling the person to do whatever he pleases, and only afterward adds that God will bring him to judgment for it all. The language here can be misleading. He should have said from the start: If you do whatever you please, know that you will be punished! This was the Sages' objection to the phrasing, for surely no one truly thought Shlomo permitted everything - did they not read the verse to its end? Rather, as the Akeidat Yitzchak explains, they believed it would have been better not to frame matters in such an ambiguous way, but rather to state clearly and unequivocally a total rejection of worldly desires and physical pursuits, rather than initially saying "enjoy" and only afterward reminding the reader that there is a reckoning.
After all, in the end they did not suppress it, so what do we gain by knowing they considered doing so? The author of Machzei Yehudah explains that this comes to teach us how refined, pure, and uncompromising the Sages' Torah study was. Even when dealing with Shlomo's book, had they found a genuine flaw, they would have shown no favoritism and would have suppressed it. Consider this: they were prepared to shelve the book, and the only reason they did not was that they found resolutions to these difficulties.
One might also add, based on an idea cited from the Ben Ish Chai, that this was recorded so no one could challenge the Book of Kohelet and claim the Sages gave Shlomo special leeway, admitting unworthy material simply because he was the son of David. Therefore, you are told: know that this is not so. There was a formal deliberation among the Sages with the intention of suppressing Kohelet because they found difficulties in it, and had they not resolved those issues, they truly would have hidden it away. No favoritism was shown to anyone. There were serious challenges, but satisfactory answers were found, and therefore they did not suppress it. Furthermore, Shlomo was extraordinarily wise; when reading what he wrote, one must delve deeply and reflect, never reading superficially, for these are the words of the wisest of all men.
Our Sages also teach us: when you encounter a difficulty, do not panic; search for an answer. The Sages found difficulties, but they did not suppress the book on account of them; instead, they sought to resolve them. A story is told of a student who came to the Rogatchover Gaon and said he had an enormous difficulty in the Talmudic topic he was studying, which brought him to a halt, leaving him unable to continue. The Rogatchover asked him what his question was, and then said: Look in such-and-such tractate, in Tosafot starting with such-and-such words, and that will set your mind at ease. The student opened the Gemara, looked up the passage, and saw that the two matters had nothing in common - one dealt with the laws of precedence in blessings, and the other was an entirely different subject. He returned and said, "Rebbe, I studied that Tosafot forward and backward, delved into it, and I do not understand." The Rogatchover asked, "What did you learn?" He replied, "Tosafot ask such-and-such a question." The Rogatchover asked, "And what do they answer?" He answered, "Tosafot remain without an answer." The Rogatchover asked, "And what does the next Tosafot ask?" He told him. The Rogatchover said, "Do you see? Even when Tosafot had an unresolved question, it did not prevent them from moving on to write the next Tosafot. That is what I wanted to teach you. When you have a difficulty - keep going. Note it down, remember what you do not yet understand, and move forward. Perhaps the next time you review the sugya you will understand, or in the next cycle, but it is no reason to stop." Here, too: there are questions on Shlomo's words, but there is no reason to panic; one must simply try to resolve and understand them.
The Gemara in Shabbat states: The Sages sought to suppress the Book of Kohelet because its words contradict one another. Besides passages that appeared to lean toward heresy, they also found internal contradictions within the book itself. And why did they not suppress it? Because its beginning is words of Torah and its ending is words of Torah. As it is written, "What profit does a person have for all his toil that he toils under the sun?" and the school of Rabbi Yannai said: Under the sun he has no profit, but prior to the sun he does have profit - and this is the Torah, which preceded the creation of the world by 974 generations. And its end is words of Torah, as it is written, "The end of the matter, everything having been heard: fear God and keep His commandments, for this is the whole of man." And if its beginning is words of Torah and its end is words of Torah, then its middle must also be words of Torah; surely there is no contradiction here, but rather it is upon you to reconcile the matters.
Let us mention a few examples of these contradictions. In one verse Shlomo says, "Anger is better than laughter," yet in another, "Anger rests in the bosom of fools" - is it good or not good? In one verse, "It is good and fitting to eat and drink," and later, "It is better to go to a house of mourning than to go to a house of feasting." "And I praised joy," yet conversely, "and of joy, what does it accomplish?" "And I praise the dead who have already died," yet in another verse, "A living dog is better than a dead lion." In one place, "It shall not be well with the wicked, nor shall he prolong his days," and on the other hand, "There is a wicked man who prolongs his life in his wickedness." We will not delve into all of these right now; each matter will be explained, God willing, in its proper place when we reach it, and we will see how these contradictions are resolved. But let us understand that for the Sages, studying the Book of Kohelet was by no means straightforward; they probed it deeply to reconcile its contradictions and to comprehend statements that seemed heretical. The Book of Kohelet demands depth and contemplation.
Why did the Sages ultimately decide not to suppress the Book of Kohelet? The Akeidat Yitzchak and the Meiri explain: because the book itself embodies a debate between those who oppose the Torah, divine service, and clinging to Hashem, and those who encourage and speak in praise of them. Shlomo's book is to a large extent a philosophical work, a book of questioning: he presents the views of the challengers and questioners, and afterward provides the answers. Yet he introduces the questions as if he himself were stating them - "And I saw," "I said in my heart" - even though his intent is not to express his own inner feelings, but rather what the adversaries argue, what the critics say. Therefore, even if you see contradictions, what is really presented here are the claims of the skeptics, and opposite them, Shlomo's rebuttals to all those arguments.
And why was it necessary to do it this way? Why not present solely the Torah's perspective from the outset? Rabbeinu Bachya explains that through this, Shlomo wished to teach us about human free will. On the one hand, man can choose evil, as Shlomo says, "and follow the ways of your heart," "rejoice, young man, in your youth" - which represent, as it were, the arguments of the skeptics: you have free will, and if you wish, you can pursue the desires of your heart. "Yet know that for all these things God will bring you to judgment" - ultimately, Shlomo presents the true argument that refutes the critics: know that you will pay a heavy price. You are capable of doing so, the Holy One, blessed be He, grants you the ability, but take courage and choose the good, for the reward is destined to come.
The Yaavetz similarly writes: King Shlomo, peace be upon him, authored the Book of Kohelet, set forth within it the claims of the fools, and then rejected them. First he explains what the fools argue, and then he demonstrates why their words are vanity, saying of each one, "this too is vanity." And he clarified the true from the untrue by declaring, "The end of the matter, everything having been heard: fear God and keep His commandments." The conclusion of the book reveals that Shlomo did not come to provide a platform for the arguments of the skeptics; rather, on the contrary, he raised their claims in order to refute them, and to prove that man's sole purpose and duty in this world is "fear God and keep His commandments, for this is the whole of man."
An interesting point: throughout Kohelet, the four-letter Name of Hashem does not appear once. This is unlike Megillat Esther, where there was a specific reason not to mention God's Name: because they were still subject to the gentile kingdom, and had they mentioned it, the Persians would have erased it and inscribed the name of their idol in its place, as the Ibn Ezra explains. Furthermore, they were subjugated by foreign nations and did not have the authority to act as they pleased. But here, Kohelet the son of David was a king, and as a king he could do as he wished; moreover, he does mention the Name Elokim, so why does he not mention the four-letter Name?
The Chemdat Yisrael cites in the name of Rabbi Yaakov Abuhatzeira, and it is likewise noted in the Me'am Lo'ez: when the Holy One, blessed be He, revealed Himself to Shlomo in Giv'on and told him, "Ask what I shall give you," the four-letter Name is mentioned only at the very beginning, whereas the entire dialogue there is conducted using the Name Elokim. And since Shlomo merited his wisdom and received it from Hashem there in Giv'on in that dream, where the Name Elokim was used, it is for this reason that in this book, which reflects the wisdom of Shlomo, he mentions only the Name Elokim.
There is also a deeper explanation, following the path of Kabbalah: Shlomo authored three books corresponding to Chochmah, Binah, and Da'at. Shir HaShirim corresponds to Chochmah, Kohelet corresponds to Binah, and Mishlei corresponds to Da'at. Therefore, in Kohelet he mentions only the Name Elokim, which corresponds to Binah. To explain: Chochmah is on the side of Chesed; the right axis of Chesed is Ch-Ch-N - Chochmah, beneath it Chesed, and beneath it Netzach. The left axis is the side of Gevurot, B-G-H - Binah, beneath it Gevurah, and beneath it Hod. Thus, Binah is on the side of Gevurah, and therefore in Kohelet, which corresponds to Binah, the merciful Name of Havayah is not mentioned, but only the Name Elokim, which corresponds to Gevurot. Another reason is given: because Shlomo did not protest against his wives, the holy spirit departed from him and strict judgments rested upon him, as we see that he was driven from his throne and terrified by Ashmedai; therefore he uses the Name Elokim, which expresses strict judgment.
Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disputed whether Kohelet renders the hands impure. Beit Shammai maintain that it does not render the hands impure, since it represents Shlomo's human wisdom - which reinforces what we saw earlier, that the Sages sought to suppress the Book of Kohelet, believing it was not part of the Sacred Scriptures, and it is the Sacred Scriptures that render the hands impure. However, we do not rule in accordance with that view, but rather follow Beit Hillel, holding that Kohelet is indeed a sacred book, one of the twenty-four books of Tanach, and therefore renders the hands impure just like the other sacred books.
Let us briefly recall the reason for the rabbinic decree that Sacred Scriptures impart ritual impurity (which was discussed at length in Seder Taharot). People used to store the Sacred Scriptures alongside terumah, reasoning that both terumah and the holy writings are sacred. This attracted mice to the terumah - to the fruits and grain - and the mice would eat and damage the sacred scrolls as well. The Sages therefore decreed that Sacred Scriptures impart impurity; if placed together with terumah, they would render the food impure, thereby forcing people to keep them apart. In any event, we have proof here that Kohelet is indeed a sacred book, as the halachah follows Beit Hillel that it defiles the hands.
The book of Kohelet differs fundamentally from all other books of Tanach. All other books of Tanach focus on the relationship between God and man, on the dialogue between them. In all his actions, man is evaluated from a divine perspective: is he doing the will of Hashem or not? Even history is not recorded as mere history, neither in the Torah nor in the Prophets, but rather through the lens of whether people fulfilled God's will. When we study Tanach as Jews, we are not opening a history department; we are studying the moral message that emerges, not engaging in academic research. For this reason, dates are omitted in many places in Tanach, because the Tanach is a guide for life and a book of teaching, not a chronicle of history. It comes to teach proper conduct: when the Jewish people strayed from the path, there was exile, there was suffering - "By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat and wept"; when they did the will of Hashem, see how much economic abundance and goodness they enjoyed. Tanach does not recount history for its own sake, but rather conveys the inner lesson.
In Kohelet, by contrast, we do not find this direct divine evaluation of human deeds, nor do we see the central axis around which the rest of Tanach revolves. Here, the focus turns to philosophical reflections: Shlomo ponders man's role, his purpose in the world, and what gain he has from all his toil and labor. The mode of expression is also distinct: Kohelet frequently uses the first person - "I," "I applied my heart," "and I said to myself." Here we see a man wondering, observing, delving deep, asking himself: What is my purpose in this world? What is expected of me? Is it worthwhile to amass wealth and chase after material pursuits? Is joy a positive or negative thing - "and of mirth, what does it accomplish?" Some characterize Kohelet as the only philosophical book in Tanach, dedicated to introspective contemplation of man's role and the question of whether there is any point in pursuing pleasures and physical gratifications in this world.
The core message of Kohelet can be summarized in five principles. First: man is merely a temporary resident on earth - "A generation goes and a generation comes, but the earth endures forever"; man's existence here is transient and fleeting. Second: realize that I gathered everything, I possessed everything, every sort of pleasure, and it all passed away; Shlomo was deposed from his throne and nothing of it remained. From this, man must learn not to chase after fleeting pleasures, for not only does man pass from this world, but the pleasures themselves are fleeting. Third: the superiority of wisdom over foolishness, which is like the superiority of light over darkness; from this, man understands that his duty is to pursue light and wisdom, not vanity and darkness. Fourth: Shlomo commands us to fear Hashem and observe all His mitzvot. Fifth: Shlomo proclaims that there is reward and punishment - "I said in my heart, God will judge the righteous and the wicked"; Hashem gives the righteous a modest reward in this world, while reserving their primary reward for the World to Come, whereas for the wicked, the reverse is true. Hence the overarching message: a person should invest himself in spirituality, cast aside the vanities and material pursuits of this world, and focus on spiritual growth and the World to Come rather than on transient matters.
For more than half of the book of Kohelet, King Shlomo teaches us that nothing in this world is permanent. Everything moves at the command of Hashem, blessed be He, joyous and eager to perform the will of their Creator: "It goes toward the south, and turns around to the north"; the sun moves, and everything in the universe is in motion. Wealth and poverty alike are a revolving wheel in the world, and nothing lasts forever. Shlomo says: I gathered everything, and yet nothing of it remained with me. Everything is in constant flux. Therefore, a person should not say, "Let me simply enjoy what I have right now." Shlomo replies: know that in the end, others will consume the fruits of your labor; you too will move on, you too will depart from here, so why exhaust yourself in vain? This is the fundamental purpose of the book of Kohelet as a whole: to bring a person to understand what is truly important in this world and invest in it, rather than in transient matters.
It is customary to read Kohelet on Sukkot: some communities read it on Shabbat Chol HaMoed, some on the festival itself, and some on Shemini Atzeret. An early commentary explains that this is because Sukkot is the Festival of Ingathering (Chag HaAsif), when farmers bring the produce of their land into the barns. Kohelet speaks in praise of the land - "The advantage of the land is in all things," meaning that even a king depends on the land and the cultivated field; "Sweet is the sleep of a laborer, whether he eats little or much." All this was meant to encourage the laborers not to become slack in their toil, but to continue working their fields, lest it happen that "I passed by the field of a lazy man... and behold, it was completely overgrown with thistles, its surface covered with nettles." On the contrary, now is the harvest season - strengthen yourself and do the necessary work of the field.
Another reason: on the festival of Sukkot following the Shemitah year, the king would read sections from the Torah before the nation in the Beit HaMikdash, at which time they would gather (hakhel) the entire people. As we have seen, some explain that he was called Kohelet because Shlomo delivered these words at the Hakhel gathering; therefore, we read this Megillah on Sukkot, the festival when the people were assembled.
Yet another reason: since a person gathers his harvest at this time, it is liable to lead him to arrogance and a feeling of "Look how much I have accomplished, look how much I have acquired!" Shlomo arrives and deflates his balloon: "Vanity of vanities, said Kohelet, vanity of vanities, all is vanity." No matter how much you pursue and seek material wealth and worldly affairs, it brings man neither true joy nor completion. Shlomo therefore comes to highlight the futility of worldly matters precisely at the moment when a person has completed his pursuit of wealth and worldly pleasures. There is also an additional reason: Shlomo says in his book, "Give a portion to seven, and even to eight," which alludes to Sukkot and Shemini Atzeret - the seventh and eighth - which is why it is read at this time.
This concludes the introduction to the book, and from here follows a brief introduction regarding the commentary with which we will study. A great many commentaries have been written on the Book of Kohelet, and one could study each verse for long months, but that is not our way. Our approach is to study with the Malbim, whose commentary possesses numerous virtues, and that was our wish for Kohelet as well. Unfortunately, the Malbim authored a commentary on the entire Tanach except for two books: Eichah and Kohelet. Nevertheless, at the end of one of the Malbim's works - apparently Eretz Chemdah - he provides an explanation of several verses from Kohelet, and with God's help we will mention this, along with other insights culled from his other writings. However, an orderly, systematic commentary on the Book of Kohelet we do not have from him.
In 5768 (around eleven years ago), a book was published titled Mishnat HaMo'adim - Kohelet with the commentary of the Malbim. This brought great joy to all admirers of the Malbim's teachings and was a major surprise in the Torah world: the publisher presented manuscripts purporting to show that the Malbim had indeed written a commentary on Kohelet. Very quickly, however, the forgery came to light, once scholars who were experts in the Malbim's handwriting, style, and referenced sources examined it. Anyone interested may consult the journal Yeshurun, volume 25 - a compilation of Torah scholarship - which contains a very comprehensive article by Rabbi Avraham Yeshayahu Zacharish, proving beyond a shadow of a doubt the forgery of this work that attempted to attribute its commentary to the Malbim.
What is more, it became clear that this work was authored by one of the maskilim (followers of the Enlightenment), who quoted commentaries from "Rambaman." The publishers had assumed this was a typo, removed the second mem, and printed "Ramban." But who was Rambaman? Moses Mendelssohn (may the name of the wicked rot), one of the leaders of the Haskalah in Europe, which caused so many casualties in Jewish faith. It turned out that the book was written by someone who inclined after the Haskalah, even citing interpretations from that detestable figure. The publishers therefore withdrew the book from circulation, and to their credit it must be said: once they realized it was a forgery and that they had been misled, and despite the substantial expenses they had incurred in preparing it for print, they withdrew and suppressed it. For our part, we give it no weight whatsoever.
What, then, can we use? It turns out that others felt this same lack, and they composed works in the style of the Malbim. Thank God, two such books exist that follow the path of the Malbim. And what is his path? First, there is no mere repetition of meaning in different words: if words appear to repeat themselves, each word expresses a distinct concept, a distinct explanation, and a distinct nuance. Second, the Malbim does not explain a verse in isolation, but rather explains it in its flow - how it connects to what was stated before it and what is stated after it; in essence, he explains the entire passage as a unit. We saw this in the Book of Iyov as well: while many commentators take each verse and explain it on its own, the Malbim explains each argument as an integrated tapestry of logic and reasoning, showing how the respondent answers each point raised in the preceding claim - which is a brilliance all its own.
The first book is titled Imrei Shefer, authored by the gaon Rabbi Meir Shraga Shapiro of Kovno. In his introduction, he writes that the work explains all the words of the Sage in an accurate literal sense, in a coherent progression, and in clear, eloquent language, uncovering lofty ideas and delightful matters within the pleasant phrasing of his words. It is built upon the three foundations established by the renowned gaon, the Malbim, of blessed and righteous memory: First, that no repetition of meaning in different words is found in it. Second, that every single word appearing in a statement is grammatically and linguistically indispensable to that statement. Third, that no statement is void of a sublime idea - nothing was written that does not contain profound inner substance.
To these he adds a fourth foundation, and note that this differs from the Malbim's own method: that he preserves the rules of the cantillation marks (the te'amim) according to their categories and never departs from the rules of the accents. This is something the Malbim was known not to adhere to strictly, as we have already shown on several occasions. The te'amim divide the verse and indicate how to punctuate it, whereas the Malbim often did not take them into account; even when an etnachta splits the verse in the middle, the Malbim often explains that the clauses before and after the etnachta form a single continuous sentence. He did not treat the te'amim as an absolute determinant. The author of Imrei Shefer, however, states that he will address the te'amim as well, and his explanation will also be based upon them. He signs his introduction as follows: 'From me, Meir son of R. Avraham z"l of Kovno, cousin of the renowned great gaon, our teacher Rabbi Yitzchak Shirvanter zt"l, who performed holy work in the city of Vilna, in the year 5663 according to the minor reckoning.' The 'minor reckoning' means that the thousands are omitted: the thousands are the major reckoning, and writing according to the major reckoning would mean writing '5,663,' whereas the minor reckoning gives only '663' - that is, approximately one hundred and twenty years ago.
The other work that Divine Providence has provided, which explains Kohelet in the style of the Malbim, is titled Kol Ephraim, authored by Rabbi Ephraim Maccoby of Sunderland, England, son of the Maggid of Kamenitz. The book includes references and notes from his grandson, Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak Perlman of London. This commentary is likewise based on the Malbim's approach, according to the principles he established and his linguistic and grammatical foundations, and we will therefore study with it as well.
And as is our custom, we will cite additional commentaries: first and foremost the Targum on Megillat Kohelet, as well as midrashim expounded by Chazal on the Megillah, and other commentaries. Here too, the goal will not be to dwell at great length or multiply commentaries, but rather to follow the flow of the subject without getting overly delayed on every detail. And if God wills and grants life and strength, the hope is, with Divine assistance, to compile these works together with the verses that the Malbim himself explained, and to publish a booklet or pamphlet for anyone seeking the Malbim's commentary on Kohelet, providing them with the works that explain in his style and method. For someone accustomed to studying with the Malbim finds it difficult to study with other commentators; here, at least, the material is based on his approach. If the Holy One, blessed be He, assists us, we will bring this out in a booklet binding all these commentaries together, making it possible to study the Megillah in this style.
Megillat Kohelet is King Solomon's composition through divine inspiration (ruach hakodesh) at the end of his days. Its name signifies the gathering of wisdoms, the gathering of viewpoints to refine the true from the untrue, and its public delivery in an assembly (hakhel). The Sages sought to suppress it due to statements that ostensibly inclined toward heresy and due to internal contradictions, but they did not suppress it because its beginning is words of Torah and its conclusion is words of Torah, and because all the arguments of the fools cited within it are ultimately refuted by Solomon himself. The entire book engages in an inquiry into man's ultimate purpose, teaching that man is merely a sojourner on earth and that everything is transient and fleeting, while demonstrating the superiority of wisdom, the duty of reverence and the observance of the mitzvot, and the reality of reward and punishment. We will conduct our study in the path of the Malbim, guided by the works Imrei Shefer and Kol Ephraim which follow his method, supplemented by the Targum, the Midrashim, and other commentaries - all aiming toward the concluding verse: 'The end of the matter, all having been heard: fear God and keep His commandments, for this is the whole of man.'