We begin the Book of Kohelet. Even before delving into the verses, a preliminary note on the method of study is in order: the Malbim did not write a systematic commentary on the Book of Kohelet, so we will gather his insights from other places in his writings - from Sefer HaKarmel, Yair Or, and his commentaries on the other books of the Prophets - and join them with the words of the classical commentators and Midrashim. As is well known, the Malbim's approach is to analyze each and every word with grammatical precision, often blazing a new trail in interpretation, at times contrary to the view of other commentators.
דִּבְרֵי קֹהֶלֶת בֶּן־דָּוִד מֶלֶךְ בִּירוּשָׁלָ͏ִם׃ (א, א) - The words of Kohelet, son of David, king in Jerusalem.
The Targum explains: "Words of prophecy prophesied by Kohelet, who is Shlomo son of David, king who was in Jerusalem." In truth, there is no explicit statement in the text that Kohelet was written by King Shlomo, unless we understand that Kohelet is Shlomo. Although there are differing views on this, Chazal took it as a given that "Kohelet son of David" is Shlomo son of David, and the Targum likewise states this as an obvious fact.
Why does it say "The words of (Divrei) Kohelet," rather than opening immediately with his message? Because this book is a work of rebuke and mussar. The Sifrei on the verse "These are the words" (Eleh HaDevarim), cited by Rashi, explains that these are words of rebuke: dibbur is a harsh expression, whereas amirah is a soft expression. The reason for this, as we have discussed, is that dibbur shares a root with dabar - a leader, as Chazal say, "There is one leader (dabar) for a generation, and not two leaders for a generation." When a person comes to lead and rule, he speaks harshly, as it says, "The lord of the land spoke harshly (diber) with us." Amirah, on the other hand, is not handing down directives from above, but rather a gentle appeal. Even today we use this distinction: a principal might tell a teacher, "I spoke (dibarti) with the student" - meaning, I put him in his place - whereas regarding a colleague he would say, "I told (amarti) him."
Rav Perlman cites an interesting point in a note in the name of Rav Rosenzweig: this distinction is hinted at in the acronyms. Amar stands for El Malei Rachamim (God full of compassion) - this is soft speech. Diber stands for Din Belo Rachamim (judgment without mercy) - or if you will, speech without mercy. Notice, therefore, that whenever a person addresses himself, Scripture always says "he said in his heart" (amar belibo) - for to ourselves we always speak softly, and only to others do we speak harshly.
Shlomo is called Kohelet because he was the first king to assemble (hik'hil) the congregation of Israel in the Temple Courtyard on the festival of Sukkot - for he was the first to build the Beit HaMikdash - and there he would rebuke them regarding heavenly matters. This is also the reason the Sages instituted the reading of this Megillah on Chol HaMoed Sukkot: specifically at that time, heightened rebuke is needed, since during the festival a person tends to pursue pleasure and rest, delighting in meat and wine, ascending to the Temple and offering sacrifices; therefore, precisely then he must be admonished concerning the honor of Heaven.
Why does Scripture emphasize that he is the son of David and a king? Because a king who is the son of a commoner is nothing like a king who is the son of a king. Shlomo had no wars; he was a man of peace and rest, and all his days passed in tranquility, except toward the end of his life when it is said that the Holy One, blessed be He, raised up an adversary against him, Rezon son of Eliada and the like. A king who is the son of a commoner is occupied all his days with establishing his kingdom and confronting his enemies - consider the life of King David, whose entire life was filled with wars. But a king who is the son of a king is free from such turmoil, and consequently has ample leisure to engage in worldly pleasures. Therefore, when he speaks of matters of vanity, you can trust that he knows whereof he speaks.
In verse 12 it says, "I was king over Israel in Jerusalem," whereas here it says only "king in Jerusalem." What is the difference? There, he is speaking about matters of wisdom. A typical king who is the son of a king is preoccupied with vanities and worldly pleasures, with no time for Torah and wisdom; you never hear of a monarch pursuing an academic degree or a professorship - even from a secular perspective, where does he need to advance? He is already king. What will he do instead? He will pursue more pleasures and indulgences. Therefore, when Scripture comes to tell us that Shlomo, although he was a king and the son of a king, specifically pursued wisdom, it calls him "king over Israel." "Israel" pertains to the more exalted stratum of the nation, the masters of Torah - "Yaakov" refers to the lower level, related to the word akev (heel), while "Yisrael" represents the higher, spiritual level. And furthermore, "in Jerusalem," which is the seat of Torah and wisdom. In other words: I was king over the men of wisdom themselves, and I surpassed them. But when he speaks of worldly pursuits, he says "king in Jerusalem" - I was a royal prince, I had the leisure for every pleasure, and I experienced them all. When he speaks of wisdom, he adds "over Israel," so that you know you are receiving wisdom from one who attained it at the highest level, as described in the Book of Kings, that he was wiser than all men: wiser than Eitan, Heiman, Kalkol, Darda, and the sages of Egypt.
Furthermore, regarding "in Jerusalem": Jerusalem was the metropolis of the entire world. If someone tells you he was king in some remote, desolate corner - what pleasures could he possibly know? But someone who reigned in a great, central world capital and knew everything happening within it is someone you can believe. Shlomo says: I was king in Jerusalem, where all pleasures, wealth, joy, and honor converged - and despite all of that, I tell you that everything is utter futility.
We must also explain the three crowns he bound to his head: Kohelet, David, and Jerusalem - all three being the absolute opposite of hevel (futility). Hevel is temporary: a person exhales a breath of air, and where is it now? It has vanished, gone. Yet these three possess eternal existence. "Kohelet" refers to kehal Yisrael, the congregation of Israel, who were gathered on the pilgrimage festivals; and the Jewish people are eternal, as "the Holy One, blessed be He, the Torah, and Israel are one," and for Israel's sake the world was created. "The son of David" - David, king of Israel, lives and endures. "Jerusalem" - the holiness of Jerusalem is eternal, and as we learned in Yechezkel, the Beit HaMikdash will be established there in the future as well. These three crowns are fitting to adorn the wisest of all men, declaring: I am bound to eternity, and therefore I am uniquely qualified to tell you what is futile, what is fleeting, and what will leave nothing behind.
Another explanation of "Kohelet" is that he gathered and assembled (kihel) all forms of wisdom. This serves as an essential preface for accepting his words. There are people with expertise in a single niche: ask an astronomer about central bank interest rates, and he will have no idea what you are talking about; ask him about quantum mechanics, and he will ask what that even is. Ask a mathematician about history, and he will not remember who preceded whom, confusing the dates. Kohelet says: I gathered all wisdoms; my knowledge is not limited to a single field. Whoever reads these words should know that he is not receiving them from someone with narrow horizons and a limited perspective, but from one who mastered all the wisdom in the world - and when he speaks on a matter, his words are absolute truth.
There is another meaning in the phrase "the son of David": at times, you will find statements in this book that seem difficult, and Chazal themselves noted apparent contradictions and statements that seem to lean toward heresy. Therefore, Scripture tells you: the author of this book is the son of King David, of whom it was said, "Preserve my soul, for I am pious," who was renowned as a chassid and a tzaddik. Do not cast doubt upon him or imagine that he writes anything deviating from faith and righteousness. If you encounter difficult passages, there is a mitzvah to resolve them and delve deeper into them. When a wise man speaks, his words are not treated superficially; one searches for their underlying depth. And when Kohelet tells you something, even if it strikes you as difficult, remember that you are standing before the wisest of all men.
הֲבֵל הֲבָלִים אָמַר קֹהֶלֶת הֲבֵל הֲבָלִים הַכֹּל הָבֶל׃ (א, ב) - "Futility of futilities, said Kohelet, futility of futilities, all is futile." (1:2)
The Targum explains: When Shlomo, king of Israel, foresaw through prophetic spirit that the kingdom of his son Rechavam was destined to be divided with Yerovam ben Nevat, that Jerusalem and the Beit HaMikdash were destined to be destroyed, and that the Jewish people were destined to go into exile, he said: This world is the futility of futilities; all that I and my father David toiled for is futility of futilities. That is to say: everything I built, I see being ruined - the kingdom will be torn apart, the people will be exiled, and the Temple I built will be destroyed.
The Midrash states: It was taught, King David said, "Man is like a breath [hevel]," but he did not specify what kind of breath. For if he meant the steam from an oven or a stove, it possesses some substance, and if so, it is not entirely insignificant. Shlomo came and clarified: "Futility of futilities" - the vapor of a vapor, a breath that has no substance whatsoever.
Another Midrash explains this even more clearly: What is meant by "vanity of vanities" (hevel havalim)? Rabbi Yehoshua ben Karchah said: A parable of a person who places seven pots one on top of the other; the steam of the topmost pot has no substance at all. From the lowest pot, dense steam rises, but from the topmost pot - only the slightest wisp of vapor. This is "vanity of vanities." And seven kinds of vanities were stated here so that you understand that in this world, nothing is enduring, nothing is eternal.
Why does the verse repeat and say "said Kohelet," when it already opened with "The words of Kohelet son of David"? The Midrash explains: If someone else had said "vanity of vanities," I would have said, "This person, who never acquired two pennies in his life, disparages the wealth of the world." If a pauper who has never seen the shape of a coin comes and tells you that all the money in the world is nonsense and offers a person nothing - of course you say that, you never had it and never tasted it! It is like someone telling you that cigarettes have no appeal at all; you ask him if he has ever smoked in his life, and he answers that he never did - why would I believe you? What are you talking about, something you know nothing about? But Shlomo, of whom it is said, "Silver was not considered of any account in the days of Shlomo" - for him it is fitting to say, "Vanity of vanities."
Later in the book it says "amrah Kohelet" (in the feminine), whereas here it says "amar Kohelet" (in the masculine), and several commentators addressed this. The Me'am Lo'ez cites in the name of Seder HaYom that Kohelet is both the name of the author and the name of the scroll: when referring to the person, Shlomo, it uses the masculine; and when the Megillah itself is speaking, it uses the feminine. But the Midrash offers a different answer: Rabbi Yirmeyah said, this refers to Ru'ach HaKodesh (the Divine Spirit), and Ru'ach HaKodesh sometimes speaks in the masculine and sometimes in the feminine. We find a similar idea regarding the Holy One, blessed be He - one can speak of the holy Shechinah in the feminine, or speak in the masculine. According to the esoteric teachings (Kabbalah), this is very well understood: when speaking of Ze'eir Anpin, which corresponds to the aspect of Kudsha Berich Hu, it is masculine; and when speaking of the Nukva, the Malchut that receives the divine outflow, that is the aspect of the holy Shechinah. Therefore, do not be surprised when you find masculine phrasing at times and feminine at others.
The Gemara in Bava Batra (100b) teaches: The Rabbis taught that one must not perform fewer than seven standings and sittings for the deceased, corresponding to "vanity of vanities," etc. The calculation of the seven vanities is as follows: "Vanity" (hevel) is one, "vanities" (havalim) is two - making three; "vanity" is four, "vanities" makes six; and "all is vanity" makes seven. Therefore, when carrying the deceased, they halt seven times along the way. In practice, it is largely among Yemenite Jews that the ancient burial customs have been preserved in many details - such as bare-shouldered mourning, wrapping, and the halts of standing and sitting. Thus, anyone who attends a funeral conducted according to Yemenite custom will see that at a certain point they announce, "Be seated, dear ones, be seated," and everyone sits on the ground and lowers the bier; afterward they call out, "Arise, dear ones, arise." They do this seven times, corresponding to the seven vanities.
Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar taught: Kohelet stated seven vanities corresponding to seven worlds that a person experiences in his lifetime. At one year old, he is like a king: everyone hugs and kisses him, and at his slightest whimper, people come running. At two and three years old, he is like a pig sticking its hands into gutters, touching every filth, thrusting its hands into the trash, and making a mess. At ten, he skips like a kid (young goat), and who can stop him? At twenty, he acts like a prancing horse, seeking a wife. Once he marries, he is like a donkey - and the Midrash means a beast of burden, who must carry heavy loads to support his household. Once he has children, he becomes brazen as a dog to bring home bread and sustenance, for now he has children to feed. When he grows old, he resembles an ape. These are seven stages and conditions in a person's life, and regarding this Shlomo declared: "Vanity of vanities, said Kohelet, vanity of vanities, all is vanity."
There is a profound difficulty in this verse: How could Shlomo say that everything in the world is vanity of vanities? This seemingly contradicts what the Torah states: "And God saw that it was good" at the conclusion of each day, and at the completion of Creation: "And God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good." If everything is very good, how can one say that all is vanity of vanities? Because of this difficulty, many commentators sought an approach to explain the verse so that it would not contradict what we see in the Torah - that the world indeed has a purpose. The Vilna Gaon offers an explanation here, interpreting the seven vanities as corresponding to the seventy years of a person's life, ten years for each vanity, and he also explains why "said Kohelet" is placed in the middle; his explanation is lengthy, so we will not delve into it here.
The Ramban resolves this by explaining that the first instance of "hevel" is not a descriptive noun but a command: "Render futile (habel) the vanities" - treat all fleeting matters as worthless. Kohelet commands his listeners: Do not make the affairs of this world primary; understand that all is vanity, and consequently, dismiss and devalue all futile pursuits. His intention is not that the entire world is inherently worthless, but that you must treat material affairs as fleeting, since the primary objective is involvement in the intellect and spirituality. And just as one who performs a mitzvah repeatedly becomes more attached to it, and likewise, l'havdil, one who commits a sin repeatedly becomes more attached to it - so too, the more you deem worldly matters insignificant, the more accustomed you will become to viewing them without undue regard and esteem, turning your focus primarily toward spiritual matters.
The Imrei Shefer explains that Kohelet offers an overarching introduction to the entire book here: all matters of this world are vanity; there is no lasting substance in them. And what is meant by "vanity of vanities" (hevel havalim)? When a person gathers small components to form a larger entity, the larger entity is the purpose. If one gathers beams, stones, and gravel, they are collected to build a house, meaning that building the house is the purpose of collecting the materials. But looking at the broader picture: is building a house the purpose of the world? No. It is merely a relative purpose, relative to collecting the planks and stones, but it is not the ultimate purpose. This is what Shlomo teaches us: this world is an accumulation of vanities leading to a vanity, and that vanity itself is also vanity. A person toils, strains himself, and earns another paycheck - why? To pay off the mortgage. Finally, he achieves it; he has a home. But is that the ultimate purpose? Even if everything done until now was a vessel to attain that home, the home itself is fleeting vanity, for it is not an end in itself, and you do not remain here forever; as he will state later, you leave everything behind. Thus, "vanity of vanities" means: the culmination of human toil in this world is a vanity built out of many small vanities. What will it benefit you in a hundred years that you owned a house?
In the sefer Kol Ephraim, there is a deeply innovative explanation, following the trailblazing approach of the Malbim even where it diverges from other commentators. He deduces that "said Kohelet" (amar Kohelet) uses the language of gentle speech (amirah), indicating that this is not merely a rebuke, but an offer of comfort. Kohelet comes to console those who toil under the sun, saying to them: there are many vanities in the world, but if you recognize what the greatest vanity of all vanities is, that itself is the greatest consolation. And the greatest vanity of all vanities is to claim that everything is vanity. The greatest foolishness of all foolishness is to say that everything is nonsense; there is no greater folly than that.
He explains that "vanity of vanities" (hevel havalim) is constructed like "king of kings" (melech melachim) and "song of songs" (Shir HaShirim) - the greatest of the great, the supreme song among songs, the king who reigns over all kings. So too here: the greatest vanity one can utter is that everything is vanity. For if you take individual details of the world in isolation, you might look at them and deem them useless; but if you understand that He created everything for His glory, and that all that transpires here in this world is meant to sanctify the Name of Heaven, you will understand that these details also possess purpose, as everything leads toward the desired ultimate goal. And how could one sanctify the Name of Heaven if not within this physical world? Why are the angels in awe of man and envious of him? Because they cannot sanctify the Name of Heaven to this extent, since they lack free will, whereas man possesses free choice. It turns out, then, that it is a great vanity to claim that everything is futile, for throughout this entire world there exists the opportunity to sanctify His blessed Name, and consequently, there is inherent value in everything the Holy One, blessed be He, placed here in the world.
The Malbim, in his work HaKarmel - which is a type of concordance and lexicon gathering the places where he elucidated the nuances between synonyms, such as between simchah, gilah, ditzah, rinah, and chedvah, or between ani, dal, rash, and mach - discusses the difference between hevel (vanity or vapor) and reik (empty). Reik means that an entity exists, but it is devoid of content: if one says that a fruit is empty, it has an outer shell or rind, but there is nothing inside. That is, it is internally empty, but externally it possesses substance. However, hevel, says the Malbim, is absolute nothingness; it has neither shell nor interior, and possesses no substance whatsoever in its essence. That is the definition of hevel: it has no substance at all, not even like that which is reik, which at least maintains an external shell. Anyone who wishes to examine this further may look up the entry "Sheker and Hevel", as well as in the Malbim's work Yair Or under the entry "Hevel, Kazav, and Sheker", where he likewise analyzes the definition of hevel.
The Malbim further writes in I Kings (5:14) regarding the verse: "And there came of all peoples to hear the wisdom of Solomon, from all kings of the earth who had heard of his wisdom." The Abarbanel explains that the kings of the earth who heard of his wisdom sent emissaries to Solomon to learn wisdom from him; others explain that the kings of the earth came in person to hear his wisdom, and afterwards their nations would come to their own kings to hear what they had learned from Solomon. Either way, Solomon's wisdom became renowned throughout the entire world. The Malbim notes there that this alludes to the Book of Kohelet, which was delivered be-hakhel - in a great gathering, when all the kings came to hear his wisdom. In it, he addressed through philosophical inquiry and searching all worldly pursuits: what their purpose is, why the world was created, and in what a person should invest his time. This served as an instruction for kings to view worldly success as fleeting - "Vanity of vanities, said Kohelet, all is vanity" - and likewise for the masses of the nations together. That is to say, even a non-Jew must understand that the ultimate purpose does not lie in this world. Therefore, the kings would send their sages or come in person to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and Solomon would assemble them - which is the meaning of "Kohelet" (the Assembler) - teaching them that all is vanity, and that they should not invest themselves in the affairs of this world.
In the opening verses of Kohelet, King Solomon presents his credentials: "The words of" (Divrei) - a book of rebuke; "Kohelet" - for he assembled the congregation in the Beit HaMikdash and gathered all forms of wisdom, meaning his words are not those of a narrow-minded man; "son of David" - a king, son of a king, who had the leisure to experience all worldly pleasures, and the son of a righteous man whose motives are beyond question; "king in Jerusalem" - in the metropolis of the world, where all pleasures converged. These three crowns - Kohelet, David, and Jerusalem - all pertain to eternity, making him uniquely qualified to declare what is fleeting and transient. Following this comes "Vanity of vanities": seven mentions of vanity corresponding to the seven stages of life a person witnesses, and corresponding to the seven stops and standings for the deceased. The great difficulty - after all, "And God saw that it was good" - was resolved in several ways: the Ramban reads it as a command to devalue vanities; the Imrei Shefer teaches that every worldly purpose is itself a vanity constructed from smaller vanities; and the Kol Ephraim innovates that the greatest vanity of all is specifically to say that everything is vanity, since He created everything for His honor and everything can be harnessed to sanctify the Name of Heaven. This is the essence of the book, proclaimed be-hakhel before all kings and nations: do not immerse yourselves in this world, for the true purpose lies beyond it.