Chapter 3 of Kohelet opens one of the most famous sections of the book: "To everything there is a season, and a time for every purpose under heaven" - followed by a series of paired times. King Solomon teaches that in this world, nothing is an absolute good or an absolute evil in and of itself; everything depends on the season, the timing, and the circumstance. In this lesson, we will follow the order of the verses and examine how the Midrashim, Rashi, the Abudarham, and the masters of Mussar explain them, and what practical moral lessons emerge from them.
עֵת לָלֶדֶת וְעֵת לָמוּת, עֵת לָטַעַת וְעֵת לַעֲקוֹר נָטוּעַ׃ - A time to give birth and a time to die, a time to plant and a time to uproot that which is planted.
The Torah Temimah cites from Midrash Rabbah: "Another explanation: 'A time to be born and a time to die' - from the time of birth, the time of death is set." That is, from the moment a person is born, it is decreed how many years he will live. This follows the same principle mentioned earlier: already at the time of birth, it is determined how long a person will live. However, if he merits, years are added to him, and if not, they are reduced from him. A person's merits are what lengthen his days.
It is not for nothing that Bnei Brak has one of the highest life expectancies in the country. In Bnei Brak, as is well known, people do not engage heavily in sports, nor is the diet made up of tofu and chia seeds - they eat cholent, borekas, rugelach, and kugel, which are hardly health foods. The point is not to recommend this lifestyle, but reality proves that if there is longevity there, it is not due to dietary habits. In what merit, then? "That your days may be lengthened," "that it may go well with you" - referring to a world that is wholly good and long: there is both longevity in this world and reward in the World to Come.
Beyond that, it has often been noted: a person of faith is a peaceful, calm person. What kills a person is not what he eats, but what eats at him. People who live in constant tension, anxiety, and stress lack faith. One who lacks faith lives under constant pressure; a believer knows that whatever happens to him is by Hashem's will and all for the good, and nothing strips him of his peace of mind. This brings longevity, this brings health, and such people live long lives.
There are other reasons as well. A study conducted at the Guttman Institute found that people who frequent the synagogue live longer, and the more often they attend, the greater their longevity: they compared those who attend only on Shabbat, those who also attend during the week, and those who attend every single prayer service. We do not need this secular study - we have the Gemara and the Midrash. The Gemara asks: How is it that there are elderly people in Babylonia (outside the Land of Israel)? And it answers: Because they arrive early and stay late in the synagogues.
The Midrash relates a story about an elderly woman who told the Sages that she had grown weary of life; she had passed the age of one hundred, all her peers were long gone, and she had no desire to carry on - as the saying goes, "Stop the world, I want to get off." They asked her about her daily routine. She replied, "Every morning I go to the synagogue." They told her, "We have found the reason; stop going to the synagogue." Three days later, she passed away. From this we understand what grants longevity.
It emerges, then, that the time granted to a person is added through his good deeds. It is not by chance that we see people who lived lives of maximizing every moment in holiness reaching a ripe old age. It is told that the only matter in which one of the greatest rabbis of the generation would not heed his doctor was regarding food. The doctor said, "In everything else he listens to me, but when I ask him to add something to his diet for his health, he draws the line." There was only one thing he agreed to add: an egg. And when it came to eating that egg, he would sigh, "One must listen to the doctor, it is a mitzvah to obey," and he would eat it. Beyond that, he was unwilling. In other words, longevity is not fundamentally about dietary habits or physical regimens, but about clinging to Hashem. This is what the Midrash means: from the moment of birth it is decreed when the time of death will be, but if he merits, years are added, and if not, they are reduced.
Another explanation in the Midrash: "Another interpretation: 'A time to give birth and a time to die' - when a man reaches twenty years of age and does not marry, the Holy One, Blessed be He, says: It was a time for you to bring children into the world and you did not want to; let this now be a time to die." This is a severe and sobering Midrash. "A time to give birth" here means: your time has arrived to have children, you must engage in procreation and build a family. Your time arrived and you refused - then it becomes a time to die, and Heaven forbid this can bring about death. Indeed, Chazal said regarding one who reaches twenty and has not married: "Let his bones swell."
One must understand: this refers specifically to "you did not want to." It speaks of people who say, "Why do I need to get married? I don't want to get married," and all sorts of frivolous individuals who think they came into this world just to have fun, and whenever they feel like it, Hashem will wait for them. Reality shows that to those who say, "Master of the Universe, it's not convenient for me to get married right now," the Holy One, Blessed be He, replies: When it becomes convenient for you, it won't be convenient for Me. "Master of the Universe, having children doesn't suit me right now" - when it suits you, it won't suit Me. The Holy One, Blessed be He, does not work for you, nor does He operate according to your clock. He grants specific windows of opportunity - seize them! Do not assume that what was offered to you now will wait for you later, because if you assume that, you may suddenly find yourself facing a broken trough with nothing left. Everything has its season and its purpose: when you are given an opportunity, grab it, and do not delay thinking that the Almighty will wait until it suits your schedule.
It is important to emphasize that the Gedolei Yisrael did not regard the age of twenty as a rigid, sacred deadline, even though the Gemara states that it is good to marry early because it saves a person from the Yetzer Hara - especially in our generation, where we all know how fiercely the evil inclination rages. It is told that one of the great Chassidic Rebbes, likely the Gerrer Rebbe, met a Lithuanian Rosh Yeshivah and asked him, "What about 'at eighteen to the wedding canopy'? After all, in Lithuanian yeshivot, young men marry at twenty-two, twenty-four, and later." The Rosh Yeshivah answered him, "With us, we prolong the Shemoneh Esreh." The Rebbe did not remain indebted and replied, "When you prolong Shemoneh Esreh, you lose out on Kaddish." A powerful remark.
In any event, the Gedolei Yisrael did not push for early marriage, for two reasons. First, if a young man marries early before having had the opportunity to learn sufficiently, it is not at all certain that this serves him well. Second, and this is primary: the reality in our times is that our youth lack maturity. Compared to the youth on the street, of course, our yeshivah bochur is an elder; but compared to what is expected of someone about to build a home, it falls short. In earlier times, a thirteen-year-old boy would go out to support his family; people were responsible and mature at a very young age. Today, however, if you marry off two sixteen-year-olds, it will end up like kindergarten. They lack the emotional maturity to understand what a wife is, what married life is, and what responsibility entails - these require psychological maturity.
Therefore, there is no reason to marry someone off early when you see that the young man is still occupied with trivialities, interested in foolishness and games, and not yet mature enough. Saying, "Let us throw him into it and he will mature," does not always work out, and reality often proves the opposite. Therefore, the Gedolei Yisrael hold that one must allow time for maturation, until the young man reaches emotional maturity and readiness. The same applies to a young woman: marrying her off at fifteen - she is still a child. In past generations, a fifteen-year-old was already raising children alongside her mother, whereas today a fifteen-year-old is still occupied with childish things; marrying at such an age is premature and unripe.
Moreover, in many yeshivot, when young men become engaged early, the Roshei Yeshivah ask them to leave, telling the bochur: "You got engaged? Go to another yeshivah, learn in a kollel, but do not continue here." Why? Because an early engagement creates tension in the yeshivah. If a bochur knows that shidduchim begin in the fourth or fifth va'ad, and suddenly someone in the second va'ad gets engaged, it creates tension in the shiur, and everyone begins talking and thinking about shidduchim. A young man at that age should sit and learn, keeping his mind immersed in Torah; there will be time, and he will reach that stage as well - "a time for every matter." Therefore, the Roshei Yeshivah, based on experience, do not push for early marriage. One must qualify this: while the opinion of Rav Chaim Kanievsky was different, the reality that Roshei Yeshivah observe points elsewhere. Therefore, everyone should act in accordance with the guidance of his rebbe and the practice of the yeshivah his son attends, avoiding unconventional actions in order to prevent unpleasant situations.
The Kol Ephraim explains that the clauses in this verse parallel one another. Notice that Shlomo combined in a single verse: "A time to give birth and a time to die" alongside "a time to plant and a time to uproot what is planted." This teaches us that birth is like planting, and death is like uprooting what has been planted. Frequently, a plant is uprooted precisely in order to replant it elsewhere. From this one understands that planting and uprooting are not absolute good and absolute evil: sometimes it is good to plant, and at other times it is actually good to uproot - in order to establish the plant in a different place, because its current location is less suitable for it.
The same applies to life and death. There are people about whom one might say: it would have been better had he never been born, as the Tanna says, "It would have been better for him had his afterbirth been turned over his face." Is "a time to give birth" necessarily good, then? Sometimes yes, and sometimes no. Likewise, is "a time to die" necessarily bad? There are those for whom the opposite is true: had a person known how strictly he would be judged in Heaven for every single deed, he would have preferred to die young, since the long life granted to him only fueled the fires of Gehennom - would it not have been better for him had he died sooner? It emerges that just as there is a time to plant and a time to uproot, and at times one is good and at times the other is good, all depending on the time and the circumstance - so too with a time to give birth and a time to die.
עֵת לַהֲרוֹג וְעֵת לִרְפּוֹא, עֵת לִפְרוֹץ וְעֵת לִבְנוֹת׃ - A time to kill and a time to heal, a time to tear down and a time to build.
The Pesikta Zutrata, along with many Midrashim, interprets all these upcoming verses as referring to Jerusalem - to its construction and its destruction. "A time to kill" - as it is said, "and slew all that were pleasant to the eye," which occurred at the time of the exile. "And a time to heal" - as it is stated in Yirmiyahu, "Behold, I will bring it health and healing," when they return from exile. "A time to tear down" - as it is said, "And you shall go out at the breaches, every one straight before her," referring to the breaching of the walls. "And a time to build" - "And I will build them and not tear them down," for Hashem will rebuild Jerusalem in the future and it will never be destroyed again.
Rashi explains: "A time to kill" - when the time of its reckoning arrives, as it is written, "and your remnant He will slay with the sword." "And a time to heal" - their fracture, as it is said, "and he shall return to Hashem, and He will be entreated of them, and will heal them." "A time to tear down" - the city walls, as it is written, "and the walls of Jerusalem are broken down." "And a time to build" - as it is written, "and the city shall be built upon its mound."
The Kol Ephraim explains that with the words "a time to kill," Shlomo came to reject the mistaken view of those who claim that it is forbidden under any circumstances to take a human life - those pacifists who hold that one may never kill any person, neither in war nor anywhere else. Rather, there is a vast difference between murder and killing. The expression in the Torah is not "You shall not kill," but "You shall not murder": to kill a person without justice and without due process of law - that is murder. But killing when a Beit Din has ruled that a person must be executed is, on the contrary, a rectification for him in this world and in the World to Come, as well as a rectification for the community. It is a rectification for the individual himself, as he is told, "May my death be an atonement for all my sins," and through his death he achieves atonement for the sin he committed. Furthermore, it embodies the concept of removing thorns from the vineyard: in his wickedness, this person is like a thorn in everyone's ship, arousing severe judgment against the community. Thus you understand that there is indeed a time to kill, and that time is fitting and proper.
The concept of the Resurrection of the Dead is also alluded to here, in accordance with the verse, "I cause to die and I grant life, I strike down and I heal." There is an apparent difficulty here: the verse opens with "a time to kill" and then "a time to heal," whereas it seemingly should have said the reverse - a time to heal and a time to kill, for once a person has been killed, how does healing apply any longer? Rather, Chazal explain that this refers to the Resurrection of the Dead: "a time to kill" refers to the time when a person dies, and "a time to heal" means healing him from that state, raising him up and bringing him back to life. Therefore, this verse follows immediately after the verse that states "a time to die": after telling you there is a time to die, know that there is also a time to revive - that is "a time to heal."
עֵת לִבְכּוֹת וְעֵת לִשְׂחוֹק, עֵת סְפוֹד וְעֵת רְקוֹד׃ - A time to weep and a time to laugh; a time to mourn and a time to dance.
Rashi explains: "A time to weep" - on Tisha B'Av; "and a time to laugh" - in the Future to Come. It is interesting that Rashi does not say on Purim; apparently, even on Purim there is no aspect of full laughter - there is a mitzvah to rejoice, but "then our mouth will be filled with laughter" belongs only to the Future to Come, as it is stated, "Then our mouth will be filled with laughter." "A time to mourn" - during days of mourning; "and a time to dance" - before grooms and brides.
Here there is a wonderful and very well-known explanation. Many have mistakenly attributed it to the Vilna Gaon, but in fact the Abudraham preceded him by centuries, and the Rokeiach also cited this interpretation; the Vilna Gaon is not its original source. The difficulty is as follows: in all the preceding expressions, the letter lamed appears - to kill (laharog), to heal (lirpo), to break down (lifrotz), to build (livnot), to weep (livkot), to laugh (lischok) - and suddenly we find sefod and rekod without a lamed. Where did the lameds go? Why does it not say "a time to mourn and a time to dance" with lameds (et lispod ve'et lirkod)?
The Abudraham explains that King Shlomo was hinting at what Chazal taught: one suspends Torah study for the sake of escorting the dead and bringing a bride to the chuppah. When there is a funeral procession, one does not say, "It is a waste of Torah study, so I will not attend the funeral" - rather, Torah study is set aside for the sake of honoring the deceased. Likewise for bringing in a bride: someone who is involved is not told to remain at his studies. The letter lamed represents limud, Torah study. Therefore, specifically regarding sefod (mourning) and rekod (dancing), Scripture dropped the letter lamed: at a time of mourning, which corresponds to escorting the dead, there is no lamed - it is not a time of study, since Torah study is suspended for eulogizing. And similarly, at a time of dancing, which corresponds to rejoicing with a bride - there too, there is no lamed, because one sets aside Torah study for this mitzvah.
עֵת לְהַשְׁלִיךְ אֲבָנִים וְעֵת כְּנוֹס אֲבָנִים, עֵת לַחֲבוֹק וְעֵת לִרְחֹק מֵחַבֵּק׃ - A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing.
The Kol Ephraim raises a question against this interpretation: ostensibly, it does not fit the continuation of the verses, for the very next verse states, "A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones (kenos avanim)" - and it does not say with a lamed (ve'et liknos avanim). According to the principle we presented - that the lamed is omitted only where Torah study is set aside - does one really set aside Torah study to gather stones?
He cites a wonderful explanation in the name of Rabbi Michael Sorotzkin shlit"a, grandson of the Gaon Rabbi Zalman Sorotzkin, about which Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach gave his warm approval, calling it a beautiful interpretation. He explains based on Kohelet Rabbah and Yalkut Shimoni - which is also the first explanation of the Rokeach - that "a time to cast away stones" refers to the stones of the Beit HaMikdash: the destruction of the Temple, when Hashem decreed that stones be cast down - "the sacred stones are poured out." "And a time to gather stones" refers to the Beit HaMikdash being rebuilt speedily in our days, when all the stones will be gathered together and the House will be rebuilt anew, as in "Behold, I lay a stone in Zion." Thus, casting stones represents destruction, and gathering stones represents construction.
We have a halachah in Shabbat 119b: schoolchildren are not interrupted from their studies for building, even for the building of the Beit HaMikdash. From this we learn: schoolchildren are not interrupted, but adults are. It follows that during "a time to gather stones" (eit knos avanim), which is the rebuilding of the Beit HaMikdash, there is no prefix *lamed* - for they do not learn Torah at that time, but rather interrupt Torah study for the sake of building the Beit HaMikdash. Thus, in all three places - a time to mourn (eit sefod), a time to dance (eit rekod), and a time to gather stones (eit knos avanim) - there is no *lamed*, because during all of them one does not study Torah, as Torah study is suspended to fulfill the mitzvah.
Pesikta Zutrata states: "A time to cast away stones" - the destruction of the Beit HaMikdash, as in "Raze it, raze it to its very foundation"; "and a time to gather stones" - "Behold, I lay a precious cornerstone in Zion." And another explanation: "A time to cast away stones" - as it is said, "The stone which the builders rejected"; and conversely, "a time to gather stones" - for that very stone which the builders rejected became the chief cornerstone, the top of the tower and the most important of them all. This is also an allegory for David HaMelech, whom they initially rejected and sent out to the sheep, and afterward "the stone which the builders rejected became the chief cornerstone" - he became the king of Israel.
There is an astonishing Midrash here: "'A time to cast away stones' - when your wife is pure; 'and a time to gather stones' - when your wife is ritually impure." A wondrous Midrash indeed; do not try this at home! First of all, the simple meaning is baffling: what does casting stones have to do with this at all? Is a person supposed to go throw stones at his wife?
An explanation is offered that casting stones is an idiom for speaking harsh words: throwing stones at someone means hurling unpleasant words at them. With this, the verse warns: when your wife is ritually impure, it is "a time to gather stones" - this is not the time to hurl harsh words, unpleasant comments, or rebuke at her. Why? First, because during the time a wife is ritually impure, the timing itself is a factor: due to hormonal changes, she has a shorter fuse and is more prone to agitation - therefore it is a time to gather stones.
Furthermore, one only casts stones when one can also draw near - rebuke should only be offered when one can simultaneously fulfill "the left hand pushes away while the right hand draws near." But at a time when the right hand cannot draw near, the left hand must not push away either. Therefore, when his wife is ritually impure and he cannot draw her near with the right hand, there must be no left hand pushing away. When his wife is pure, however, and he is able to draw her near with the right hand, he may also speak words of reproof or things that are less pleasant to hear, since to counterbalance this he also possesses the capacity to draw near with the right hand.
There is also an additional explanation: human nature is such that if a person casts stones, so to speak, when his wife is ritually impure, and gathers stones when she is pure, she is left with the impression that when he needs her he does not cast stones, but when he does not need her, he casts them. Therefore one must be extremely cautious: when his wife is ritually impure, let him gather stones, so that she does not feel that merely because he cannot have his physical desires met, he now throws stones at her. On the contrary, when she is ritually impure, gather stones; and if one genuinely has matters to address, or mussar and rebuke to offer, let it be specifically when his wife is pure.
The Midrash further states: If you see a group of righteous people, it is a time to embrace; and if you see a group of wicked people, it is a time to refrain from embracing. When you see righteous people, it is a time to embrace, reflecting the principle of "I am a companion to all who fear You" - attach yourself to wholesome, God-fearing people. But when you see a group of wicked people, on the contrary, that is where one must "refrain from embracing."
Rashi explains: "A time to cast away stones" refers to the destruction of the Beit HaMikdash. And who are the stones being cast away? Rashi says: these are the young men of Israel, for Chazal say that "the sacred stones are poured out" was spoken regarding the young men of Israel. "And a time to gather stones" - there is a time to gather those precious stones, the young men of Israel, from the exile, as it is written: "And the Lord their God shall save them on that day like the flock of His people, for like crown stones they shall glisten on His land" - a time when Hashem gathers the dispersed of Israel and the young men of Israel back to their land. "A time to embrace" - as it is written: "For as a sash clings to the loins of a man, so have I caused the entire House of Israel to cling to Me," a time when Hashem embraces us and attaches us to Himself. "And a time to refrain from embracing" - as it is written: "And the Lord has driven man far away," for when the people of Israel rebel against Hashem, He, as it were, distances them and does not embrace them.
There is a wonderful explanation here in the name of Rabbi Zalman of Volozhin, preceded by a brief introduction. Rabbi Zalman was the brother of Rabbi Chaim of Volozhin, an immense genius proficient in the entire Torah, to the extent that people once asked Rabbi Chaim what the difference was between him and the Vilna Gaon - so similar did their brilliance appear. He replied: There is a vast difference; Rabbi Zalman knows the entire Torah forwards, but the Vilna Gaon knows it forwards and backwards. And that in itself is an extraordinary stature.
To return to our subject: Rabbeinu Yerucham wrote in the name of the Ramban that a mourner is permitted to embrace and kiss his wife. However, Rabbeinu Yerucham himself rules against the opinion of the Ramban, maintaining that one must be stringent in this matter. The Rama likewise ruled strictly to prohibit it, as did the Beit Yosef - except that the Beit Yosef cited no source for this ruling. The entire debate concerns whether a mourner is permitted to embrace his wife; marital relations are explicitly stated to be forbidden, but for embracing we have no source, as the Gemara does not state this and we have no explicit text.
Yet Rabbi Zalman discovered something wondrous, rejoicing over it like one who finds great spoil. In his novellae on that very halachah, Rabbi Akiva Eiger cites: "I saw printed in the name of the Gaon, our teacher Rabbi Zalman of Vilna, of blessed memory, that it is explicitly stated in the Targum on Kohelet on the verse, 'A time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing' - 'A chosen time to embrace a woman, and a chosen time to refrain from embracing during the seven days of mourning.'" Here is an explicit source! Such is the mastery of one who commands the entire Torah - he knows even the Targum on Kohelet, deriving an explicit halachah from it.
Yet he wondered: Why did the author of the Targum wander as far as the seven days of mourning? He could have easily applied the verse to the days of niddah, which are far more common and immediate: there is a time to embrace a woman - whenever one's wife is permitted to him, and a time to refrain from embracing - during her period of niddah, when all agree that embracing and kissing are forbidden. Why, then, did he find it necessary to refer specifically to a time of mourning?
The explanation is magnificent. Seemingly, the verse should have said, "a time to embrace and a time not to embrace" - why does it say, "and a time to refrain from embracing" (mechabek)? Rather, the Targum did not interpret the word as a verbal noun ("from the act of embracing"), but as a participle describing a person: a time to distance oneself from the one who embraces - that is, to stay away from someone who is permitted to embrace.
Now, if the verse were speaking of niddah, how could one say, "a time to distance oneself from the one who embraces"? During niddah, both husband and wife are forbidden to touch, and neither can be described as one permitted to embrace. To what case, then, can this apply? Only to a situation where one party is technically permitted to embrace - and that is during mourning. In mourning, the mourner is forbidden, but the spouse who is not in mourning is technically permitted on their own part. Thus, when one spouse is in mourning and the other is not, the non-mourning spouse is the "embracer" who is permitted; nevertheless, Scripture tells you: it is a time to refrain - you must distance yourself even from the one who is permitted to embrace. Nor does it make any difference whether the mourner is the husband or the wife. How delightful this is to those who understand, a true wonder to see how Shlomo HaMelech alluded to this matter, and why the Targum specifically explained that it refers to the period of mourning rather than the time of niddah.
The verses we have studied teach a single fundamental principle: nothing in the world is inherently good or bad in itself; rather, everything depends on the appointed time. "A time to give birth and a time to die" - from the moment of birth, a person's days are set, yet his good deeds, his faith, his peace of mind, and his attendance at the synagogue add life to him; and whoever was granted an appointed time and did not seize it should not imagine that the Holy One, blessed be He, will wait for an hour convenient for him. "A time to plant and a time to uproot" teaches that even birth and death are not absolute good or evil, but are measured by their time. "A time to kill and a time to heal" teaches that there is a killing that brings justice and rectification, while alluding to the resurrection of the dead that follows death. "A time to wail and a time to dance" and "a time to gather stones" - without the prefix lamed - teach that there are moments when one sets aside even Torah study for a funeral procession, bringing joy to a bride, and the building of the Beit HaMikdash. And "a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing" teaches whom to draw close and whom to distance, how to exercise caution in speaking with one's wife, and an explicit ruling in the laws of mourning. One Torah - and within every word, worlds of halachah, ethical wisdom, and redemption.