Chapter 2 of Kohelet is a direct continuation of the first chapter's conclusion: "He who increases knowledge increases sorrow." King Shlomo opens a new stage here in his inquiry - no longer merely a theoretical investigation, but a practical examination of ways of living. The Kol Ephraim explains that this entire progression is a series of inquiries into worldly matters to discover the proper path, and here arrives the fourth inquiry: Is joy man's ultimate purpose? The Imrei Shefer adds that Shlomo is describing the course of his own life and what he learned from experience - as someone who accumulated immense experience, even though he did not live a very long life; he experienced all of this world's pleasures and every stage: he was at the very pinnacle, reached the lowest depths as well, and saw it all. He is, as it were, saying: Come, let me tell you what I experienced firsthand.
אָמַרְתִּי אֲנִי בְּלִבִּי לְכָה־נָּא אֲנַסְּכָה בְשִׂמְחָה וּרְאֵה בְטוֹב וְהִנֵּה גַם־הוּא הָבֶל׃ - I said in my heart, "Come now, let me test you with joy and look upon good," and behold, this too is vanity.
Rashi explains: "I said" - since this is so, that he who increases knowledge increases sorrow, then perhaps let us indulge in the pleasures of this world. Why increase knowledge, when gaining wisdom often brings only pain? "Anaskhah" (אֲנַסְּכָה) is related to the mixing of wine, as in "she mixed her wine" (masekhah yeinah) - diluting wine with water. It was their practice to dilute wine with water, for the wine was exceptionally strong and could not be drunk unmixed. In other words: I will pour and mix wine and drink, and through this I will be joyous. "And look upon good" - and always experience goodness.
And what is the meaning of "and behold, this too is vanity"? Rashi explains: I saw through prophecy that many ruins arise from revelry. Belshazzar died in the midst of a feast; the people of the Flood were swept away because of excessive indulgence, having pursued the physical pleasures of this world. You might have thought that this was perhaps the right path? Shlomo says: I see that this, too, is vanity.
Here we encounter a fundamental principle we already saw in chapter 1: The Malbim emphasizes that wherever it says "I said in my heart," it refers to notions that are not true, whereas "I spoke in my heart" denotes something true. Therefore, "I said in my heart, 'Come now, let me test you with joy'" is not truth. Is this indeed the path, to chase after wine feasts? Wherever it says "I said in my heart," Shlomo comes to say: I entertained a thought that was later proven to me not to be the right way, not the proper stance and worldview.
The Ibn Ezra explains that here Shlomo is, as it were, addressing his own soul: If wisdom brings grief, I will abandon it and engage in feasting, similar to Rashi's explanation. Regarding "anaskhah," the Ibn Ezra offers an alternative explanation: it means "I will test you" (from anasekha). Even though it is written here with a final heh rather than a final chaf, he compares it to biblical expressions such as "achavakh," "ashem alai," and "akhankha ve-lo yedatani." In other words: I will test this avenue of feasting and merrymaking; perhaps this is the way.
The Kol Ephraim notes a nuance in the phrasing: "I will test you with joy" - bodily pleasure, drinking, eating, delicacies. "And look upon good" - not spiritual goodness, but tangible goodness that one can actually see, material luxury that one enjoys. As we will see further on: servants, wealth, possessions of property. All of this I said I would test, perhaps this is the way a person will derive fulfillment from his life here in this world. And then I saw that this, too, is vanity - that which I thought was good has no true substance.
לִשְׂחוֹק אָמַרְתִּי מְהוֹלָל וּלְשִׂמְחָה מַה־זֹּה עֹשָׂה׃ - Of laughter I said, "It is mad," and of mirth, "What does this accomplish?"
Rav Abba bar Kahana said: All the laughter and mirth that the nations indulge in is mixed and confused (meholal), and their end is folly (toholah). "Mixed" means that ultimately nothing good comes of it, only evil. And "toholah" - as Rashi explains in Iyov on "and upon His angels He imposes deficiency (toholah)" - is an expression of madness and foolishness. The end of all these is folly, laughter turned to madness, producing nothing but frivolity and foolishness. "And of mirth" - that of the nations of the world - "what does this accomplish?" What reason has Israel to rejoice with them? When you see the nations rejoicing, why should you rejoice with them? Put simply: their joy is not our joy, their parties are not our parties, their pleasures are not our pleasures. And as Hoshea says: "Do not rejoice, O Israel, exulting like the nations."
This does not refer only to someone who celebrates New Year's Eve and all those gentile holidays of anti-Semites and haters of Israel. This refers to a person who thinks to himself: after all, there is some gentile celebration here, some holiday, some casual merrymaking - no, not at all, our celebrations are not their celebrations. This was also the misfortune of the generation that attended the feast of Achashverosh; they did not understand that at the feast of Achashverosh and the merrymaking of Achashverosh, what business do we have being joyous with them? "And of mirth, what does it accomplish?" - what is Yisrael doing in that merrymaking of the nations?
Furthermore, Midrash Zuta cites in the name of Rav Abba bar Kahana: How confused is the laughter that the nations of the world laugh in their theaters and circuses! "And of mirth, what does it accomplish?" - what business do Torah scholars have entering there? This is the same idea, except that here the Midrash adds and specifies where they rejoice: theaters and circuses. In the version mentioned earlier, which used the phrasing "what does Yisrael have to do [with it]," the matter is seemingly even more precise.
Another Midrash here brings examples of situations that at the time seemed like great joy, but afterward it became clear that the joy turned into grief. "Of laughter I said, it is mad" - how confused was the laughter that the Attribute of Justice laughed at Elisheva bat Aminadav. Elisheva bat Aminadav saw four joys on a single day: she saw her brother-in-law a king, her husband a Kohen Gadol, her brother a Nasi, and her two sons deputy high priests. Once her sons entered and came out burnt, her joy turned into mourning. This was the happiest day of her life: her entire family had attained great, exalted positions, and on that very day Nadav and Avihu entered inside and came out burnt, and this is "after the death of the two sons of Aharon."
From here we learn that sometimes what a person now views as joy - "and of mirth, what does it accomplish?" Do you know whether this joy harbors grief, mourning, or sorrow? Therefore, a person must know not to excessively magnify his joy when something good happens, for in the end, he does not know whether the very thing that seems so good and successful to him might not, God forbid, turn into grief.
We all remember what joy there was when the territories were captured, when Gaza was captured - the vision of Greater Eretz Yisrael. And we all remember what grief and heartbreak there was when it became necessary to evacuate all of it, to tear people from their places and their homes, to destroy synagogues and cemeteries and everything that was there. Behold - what you saw at the time as a great joy, do not rejoice so quickly; you cannot know what will come of it. Even the great joy over the conquest itself later turned out to be a bone stuck in the throat that we did not know how to be rid of. Every Arab country to which one might want to throw this hot potato is under no circumstances willing to take it. Menachem Begin thought at the time, during the peace agreement with Egypt, that they would take the Sinai desert and also Gaza. They told him: this far and no further. Gaza? Keep it yourself, much good may it do you; over this we are not prepared to accept control. He told them: take the Palestinians, take a dowry - but they refused. They too understood that this is a bone you will choke on for many years to come, that this is something that is not going to turn out well.
Thus, something you rejoice over today can certainly turn out tomorrow to be sorrow and a reason for weeping. And the same is true in reverse: what you weep over today, tomorrow you will laugh over. That is to say, if something unfortunate happens to a person, he should not rush to despair. You cannot know - "whatever the Merciful One does, He does for good" - who knows what good the Holy One, blessed be He, wishes to bring out for you from this matter that currently seems so terrible to you?
The Malbim in Mishlei explains the difference between sechok (laughter) and simchah (joy): laughter is visible only externally, whereas joy is in the heart - a constant joy within a person's heart. Therefore, there can be a person who weeps and laughs at the same time: weeping in his heart and laughing with his mouth. Externally he appears to be laughing, looking as if everything is fine and wonderful, but within his heart he is weeping. Just as it is written of Rabbi Akiva, that he wept and laughed. There is a person who laughs while his heart aches. Thus, laughter is external, and therefore "Of laughter I said, it is mad" - external laughter is frivolous madness. "And of joy," the internal kind - "what does it accomplish?"
The Imrei Shefer makes a different distinction (not following the line of the Malbim, for whom simchah is always enduring joy, as opposed to gilah, which is an outburst): simchah refers to something where there is genuine reason to rejoice - a person who found wealth, a person who heard good news, even if these are physical, material reasons. By contrast, sechok refers to things of no substance, the company of scoffers, the futile matters with which people occupy themselves - something that is not a real cause for joy. According to this, internal pleasures are termed simchah, because the person genuinely rejoices in them at that time; whereas external pleasures are called sechok, since for the most part they lack substance, are mostly vanity, and do not endure. Every external pleasure is fleeting, and entirely in the realm of sechok. Therefore, "Of laughter I said, it is mad": a person who toils all his days for matters of laughter, external pleasures and desires - this is madness, this is insanity. Should a person exert so much toil to amass things of no benefit whatsoever? An external pleasure was here, ended, and is gone, and every external gratification is something that terminates and has given you nothing.
The Kol Ephraim explains that there are three levels in human actions. The lowest level: things that lead a person to sin. The intermediate level: things that do not lead to sin, but neither do they lead to good deeds, mitzvot, and the service of Hashem. And the third level: things that bring us closer to His service, blessed be He, to the observance of the Torah, and to the fulfillment of His mitzvot. Laughter, says the Kol Ephraim, belongs to the first and worst category: things that lead to mockery and immorality. "Mad" (meholal) - insane, something unbalanced. In laughter there is no positive aspect whatsoever, and one cannot even define it as neutral: laughter and frivolity lead a person to madness, foolishness, stupidity, and harm.
"And of joy, what does it accomplish?" - Here we are dealing with joy that seemingly has some advantage. For instance, a person who delights in hearing melodies and musical instruments, enjoying the sound of song. You might ask: What sin is there in this? True, there is no sin in it - but neither is there necessarily any good deed in it. Where does it lead you? A person who spends all day listening to songs, engrossed in the philharmonic and all kinds of music - I might find nothing wrong with it, but neither is it necessarily something good. Have you become stronger in Torah, in fear of Heaven, in the service of Hashem, in man's purpose in his world as a result? And although it may provide relaxation, which is important - for people are often stressed and need a little music to calm down - its proper definition is that it is not fitting for a discerning person to occupy himself with it except on rare occasions: when he is tired, when he needs rest, when he feels downcast and wants to release some tension. Even so, it cannot necessarily be defined as positive. And note: we are not speaking here of the joy of a mitzvah, such as Torah study or rejoicing with a bride and groom, which are certainly positive, but of mundane, ordinary joy.
An interesting finding was discovered regarding music: high school students were played different kinds of music during class, one group listening to trance and heavy, rhythmic beats, and the other group to classical music. The differences were seen immediately during the recess after the lesson: the first group was more violent and impatient, while the second was far calmer. In other words, music has an impact, and it can also have a negative impact. One should not think that all music brings calm; sometimes it is just the opposite, bringing a kind of frenzy, intoxication of the senses, and a loss of control, and then, on the contrary - it is ruinous and harmful.
According to this principle, we can understand the verse: "Of laughter, I said it is mixed" - laughter is corrupt and degraded, belonging to negative matters. But joy - is it bad or good? Regarding joy, such as the joy of musical instruments and the like, I cannot say it is bad, nor can I say it is good. What then? One must see "what does it accomplish." Let us examine what this joy produces and where it leads. If, out of joy, a person goes and studies Torah, fulfills a mitzvah, or performs kindness for another - the joy has brought him to something positive. If, out of joy, a person is drawn after lusts and pleasures - the joy has brought him to something negative. If joy leads to something positive, I know it is positive; and if it leads to something negative, I know it is negative. This is cited by the Me'am Lo'ez in the name of the Kol Yaakov.
However, he adds - unlike the Kol Ephraim - that even with laughter, it is very possible to have positive laughter, for "meholal" can also be interpreted in the sense of praised and praiseworthy, not only from the root of confusion and corruption. Regarding laughter too, one must ask: Where did it lead you? If laughter leads to wisdom and divine inspiration - it is praiseworthy, it is lauded; but if it leads to levity and frivolity - it is corrupt. And so too with joy, one must see "what does it accomplish," whether its results are positive or negative, and according to this we know whether this joy is good or negative.
This is also alluded to in what Shlomo says later, "And I commended joy" - "the joy," with the definite article, referring to the joy of marriage, regarding which five expressions of joy are mentioned: "The voice of gladness and the voice of joy, the voice of the groom and the voice of the bride, the voice of rejoicing of grooms from their canopies and of youths from their feasts of song." And by way of a witticism: politicians love to attend weddings. Why? Because Chazal say that one who gladdens a bride and groom merits "five voices" (kolot, which also means votes in Hebrew) - so he gathers five votes from here and five votes from there. In any case, these are the sounds of joy that constitute positive joy.
The Me'am Lo'ez cites another explanation in the name of Chemdat Yisrael, that these words were spoken in relation to kingship. Some explain "anasskah" (I will test) as related to the word "nasich" (prince) - meaning, I said I would rule and be a prince amid joy. But afterward I said, "Of laughter, I said it is mixed, and of joy, what does it accomplish?" - what joy can a king experience when he witnesses the suffering of his people? A king who truly understands his role cannot be cheerful and merry when he sees the state of the nation. As Rabban Gamliel said to Ben Gudgeda and Ben Chasma when he wished to appoint them to leadership and they declined: "Do you think I am granting you authority? It is servitude I am giving you!" A king who understands his role realizes he was not appointed to indulge, but to care for the people, and when he understands this properly, he no longer thinks about taking for himself the pleasures and delights of this world. And thus the elders said to Rechavam, the son of Shlomo: "If today you will be a servant to this people" - and surely they received this guiding principle from King Shlomo. There is no room for "ruling in joy" as a king; you have come for years of toil to benefit the nation, not for years of pleasure and fun, and a king who acts otherwise is surely not fulfilling his duty.
תַּרְתִּי בְלִבִּי לִמְשׁוֹךְ בַּיַּיִן אֶת־בְּשָׂרִי וְלִבִּי נֹהֵג בַּחָכְמָה וְלֶאֱחֹז בְּסִכְלוּת עַד אֲשֶׁר־אֶרְאֶה אֵי־זֶה טוֹב לִבְנֵי הָאָדָם אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשׂוּ תַּחַת הַשָּׁמַיִם מִסְפַּר יְמֵי חַיֵּיהֶם׃ - I searched in my heart to indulge my flesh with wine, while my heart guides with wisdom, and to grasp folly, until I might see what is good for the children of man to do under the heavens the number of the days of their lives.
Rashi explains: I returned to search in my heart to hold on to all of them. I saw that wisdom alone can cause harm, and I saw that revelry and joy alone cause harm - "Of laughter, I said it is mixed, and of joy, what does it accomplish?" What then? A combination, both together: I will hold onto wisdom and also a little joy, for in neither one on its own did Shlomo find the ultimate purpose. "I searched in my heart to hold on to all of them" - feast, wisdom, and folly. "To indulge my flesh with wine" - to pamper my body with wine feasting, for any pleasurable feast is called after wine, and the reference is to all pleasures of eating and drinking. "While my heart guides with wisdom" - even if my flesh is drawn to wine, my heart remains steeped in wisdom to hold onto the Torah; do not think that I was swept away after pleasures and desires, for in my mind I am still in Torah, while to the body I give the matters of this world.
And what is "and to grasp folly"? Rashi explains that this does not mean actual folly, but folly relative to wisdom. There are mitzvot that are - in double quotation marks - like "folly," and there are mitzvot that are wisdom. The mitzvot that are wisdom are those that are understood by human intellect, while the mitzvot that seem like folly are those in which we are unknowing and do not comprehend - such as shaatnez, such as the Red Heifer. I said that I will hold onto both the matters that appear to me like folly, which the Satan and the nations of the world question, and also wisdom. And as Kohelet says later in chapter 7: "It is good that you grasp this, and also from that do not withdraw your hand." I will perform and fulfill everything, and all amid feasting and joy, without one coming at the expense of the other.
The Ibn Ezra explains in a similar vein: When I saw that wisdom alone engenders pain, and frivolous laughter alone is of no avail, I resolved to combine them. However, the Ibn Ezra adds: "And all this until it shows which is the good way." That is to say, all this was a process of inquiry - grasping this and grasping that, until gradually I might discern the path of truth: what is the right path, what is the proper way to which one must adhere.
The Imrei Shefer explains that here Shlomo enumerates matters of his pleasures and delights, opening with wine. Wine encompasses all internal physical pleasures because it invigorates the body; yet when a person consumes wine in improper measures, on the contrary, it leads him to ruin. Therefore, "while my heart guided with wisdom, and to grasp folly": when I grasped folly, which refers to physical pleasures in general, I did not follow my eyes blindly, but rather allowed my heart to supervise and conduct things in the proper manner and in the right proportions. For as for engaging in matters of folly alone - who truly believes that this is the purpose of man? Was man created merely to drink wine and engage in material and earthly pursuits? Rather, I wished only "to grasp" folly.
And what does it mean "to grasp"? Like a person crossing a bridge who needs to hold onto something - he grasps the railing in order to cross without falling. This is the definition of "to grasp folly": while my overarching aspiration and goal was to attain spirituality, I also held onto folly as a secondary matter, as an aid and support for the service of Hashem. And this is the meaning of "till I might see what was good for the sons of men" - I set my heart to explore all the ways of the world until I could see what is proper, what will benefit human beings throughout all the days of their lives, and draw them closer to the correct service and the proper path.
He illustrates this with a parable: a king drafts one out of every hundred of his people into his army, commissioning them to serve him for six years. Would it enter anyone's mind to ask why he needed all these hundreds of thousands of men, and answer that he simply wanted to feed them for six years? It is obvious to all of us that the purpose is to teach them the arts of war and instruct them on how to defend the realm should war, G-d forbid, break out, and all their provisions are provided solely so that they can continue to serve in his army and fight for him. So says Shlomo: the Holy One, blessed be He, brings man into this world for an allotted time - "the number of the days of their lives" - and for what? So that we may eat and drink? That is just like thinking the army was drafted merely to provide them with canteens and dining halls. The canteens and dining halls exist only so that the soldier can continue to fight properly, but they are not the ultimate purpose. So too here: the affairs of this world, eating and drinking, are meant solely to sustain man here. Man was not created for seventy years merely to be fed and given drink and then taken away - that is certainly not the purpose. Therefore, "I explored" to see and understand what the purpose is, "what was good for the sons of men, which they should do under heaven the number of the days of their lives": since their days are numbered, it signifies that man must accomplish something in his lifetime, and one must find the right way to fill his life with meaningful content.
The Kol Efraim explains "I explored in my heart" - that one must investigate all the questions and everything discussed here together. Analyzing the precise wording, he explains: "guided with wisdom" - wisdom is meant to lead and be driven forward, meaning it should be allowed to surge ahead and expand. But "to grasp folly" - folly is the kind of thing one must grasp and hold onto tightly, never letting it run wild or break past its boundaries. That is, even if a person requires a small measure of folly, of physical pleasure and worldly matters, he must maintain proper boundaries and know the fitting path. For otherwise, when people are drawn after it excessively, it is like a wayward and rebellious son (*ben sorer u-moreh*): if you do not stop him while he is small, things eventually spiral out of control. With wisdom - drive forward and let it expand; but with folly - grasp it, hold it tight and do not let it burst beyond its bounds, lest it come to dominate you.
In the first three verses of the chapter, Shlomo opens the practical inquiry into the purpose of life. "I said in my heart" teaches in advance that this was a premise that ultimately proved false: an attempt to escape the pain of wisdom into feast and merrymaking, which ended with "and behold, this too was vanity," as we saw with Belshazzar and the generation of the Flood. "Of laughter I said, it is mad" - empty, external laughter is madness, folly, and tainted from the start, like the laughter of the nations of the world in theaters and circuses, whose joy is not our joy. "And of joy, what does it accomplish?" - joy itself is judged by its outcome: if it leads to Torah, mitzvah, and chesed, it is positive; but if it leads to base desire, it is negative. And from the episode of Elisheva bat Aminadav we learned neither to indulge in excessive joy nor to rush to despair, for whatever the Merciful One does is for the good (*kol de'avid Rachmana letav avid*). And finally, "I explored in my heart": the attempt to integrate both, with the heart guided by wisdom and the hand grasping folly - not as an end in itself, but like the bridge railing and the soldier's canteen, means that sustain man on his journey toward his true purpose throughout the number of the days of his life.