In the passage before us, King Solomon continues his line of reasoning from the previous verses: he praised the dead who have already died more than the living who are still alive, and now he adds a third state, better than both. From this, he enters into a major theme: what is the driving force behind all of man's toil in this world, and does this toil lead to perfection or to emptiness? We will follow the order of the verses, explain the words of the Malbim and the Midrashim, and add the explanations of the Havot Yair and the Imrei Shefer, who follow in the Malbim's path.
וְטוֹב מִשְּׁנֵיהֶם אֵת אֲשֶׁר־עֲדֶן לֹא הָיָה אֲשֶׁר לֹא־רָאָה אֶת־הַמַּעֲשֶׂה הָרָע אֲשֶׁר נַעֲשָׂה תַּחַת הַשָּׁמֶשׁ׃ - And better than both is he who has not yet been, who has not seen the evil work that is done under the sun.
He spoke of the dead who have already died, and he spoke of the living who are still alive, and now he says that there is a state better than both. Eden means "still" or "yet" - and incidentally, whoever studies the Malbim notices that in his commentary, whenever he wants to say "still" (adayin), he writes eden. That is to say: better than the dead and better than the living is one who was never born and never arrived in this world at all. The reason is stated explicitly in the verse: "who has not seen the evil work that is done under the sun." For both the dead and the living saw the evil work done under the sun, whereas those who have not yet entered the world never saw it at all.
The Midrash asks: Who are those "who have not yet been"? The Midrash replies: These are the one thousand generations that arose in thought to be created, but were not created. Before the creation of the world there was the Torah, and it is said, "The word which He commanded to a thousand generations," and Chazal say that these are the generations that were plucked up before their time. About them Solomon says that they are the most praiseworthy of all, for they never experienced nor saw the evil that exists in the world.
In the book Eretz Chemdah, which offers explanations based on the Malbim, the commentaries of the Havot Yair are also cited, as he too explains the verses according to the style and approaches of the Malbim; thus we will mention his words in several places. He asks a powerful question: How is it possible that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disputed whether it is better for man to have been created or not created, until they took a vote and concluded that it would have been better for man not to have been created, and now that he has been created, let him examine his deeds and engage in Torah? After all, King Solomon explicitly revealed his opinion on this: "And I praise the dead who have already died more than the living who are still alive," and "Better than both is he who has not yet been." If so, it is clear that it is better for man not to have been created, so how could they debate a matter that the wisest of all men had already resolved?
He explains this based on the Gemara in Tractate Megillah (7a): It was taught: Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya says, Kohelet does not defile the hands, because it is Solomon's own wisdom. To provide context: the Sages decreed that all Holy Scriptures defile the hands, because people used to place the terumah brought to the Kohen in the same chest as the sacred scrolls - since terumah is sacred - while waiting for the Kohen to arrive. Often the produce would rot and ruin the sacred scrolls with it. Therefore, the Sages decreed ritual impurity upon the Holy Scriptures, so that they would defile hands and invalidate terumah, thereby ensuring that sacred scrolls were protected and that produce and terumah would not be stored alongside them.
Thus, according to Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya, Kohelet does not defile the hands because it represents Solomon's personal wisdom and was not spoken with ruach hakodesh (divine inspiration). According to this, it is understandable why the Sages did not immediately decide the matter based on his words: when one has proof from a Scriptural verse, it is an absolute proof; but when told that a certain sage said something, one can debate human wisdom. There is no person in the world, even the wisest, whose wisdom cannot be disputed. The Vilna Gaon was undoubtedly wiser than all the men of his generation, yet no one says the Halachah follows him in every instance - on the contrary, in most matters the Halachah does not follow the Gra. No one has a monopoly on wisdom, and therefore, if Kohelet is Solomon's human wisdom, the Sages could disagree.
However, the Gemara continues and responds to him: Did he speak only this? Is it not already stated, "And he spoke three thousand proverbs"? If it were all merely Solomon's human wisdom, why was this specific wisdom recorded in Scripture? Rather, whatever was spoken with ruach hakodesh was written down, and whatever was not spoken with ruach hakodesh was not written down. Since Kohelet was recorded, it is a sign that it was spoken with divine inspiration and is part of the Holy Scriptures. Therefore, in the end they voted and concluded that it would have been better for man not to have been created, relying on the verse, "Better than both is he who has not yet been." Initially they did not rely on it because they thought it was merely Solomon's personal wisdom, but once it became clear that whatever was recorded was spoken with ruach hakodesh, they brought proof from here.
וְרָאִיתִי אֲנִי אֶת־כׇּל־עָמָל וְאֵת כׇּל־כִּשְׁרוֹן הַמַּעֲשֶׂה כִּי הִיא קִנְאַת־אִישׁ מֵרֵעֵהוּ גַּם־זֶה הֶבֶל וּרְעוּת רוּחַ׃ - And I saw all labor and all skillful achievement, that it is a man's jealousy of his fellow; this too is vanity and vexation of spirit.
The Pesikta Zutarta states: "And I saw all labor" - this refers to the labor and toil that a person exerts in this world. "And all skillful achievement" - this refers to the improvement of human endeavor, everything that a person skillfully produces and rectifies here. And Shlomo saw the driving force behind all these actions: "that it is a man's jealousy of his fellow." The Pesikta explains: So-and-so, my fellow, built a house, so I will build too; so-and-so acquired property, so I will acquire too.
Mesillat Yesharim similarly writes that a person would readily be content to eat what he eats, drink what he drinks, and wear what he wears, were it not for seeing that another has more than he does. A person would be prepared to be satisfied with little, but how could he fall behind everyone else? His friend has already upgraded to the latest model, so will he continue driving an old clunker? After all, "you are what you drive," and he feels compelled to demonstrate his financial standing. Even though he has no money, and is burdened by a mortgage and expenses, he will take out a loan, even from non-bank lenders, as if loans do not have to be repaid from his own pocket. In this way, we see people living far beyond their means, all because of a man's jealousy of his fellow. If a person lived on a deserted island, he would never deliberate over what outfit to wear or what he wore yesterday, for whom would he look at, and who would see him? He would manage with what he had, and everything would be fine.
Regarding this, Shlomo says: this too is vanity. For everything a person accomplishes, labors over, and toils for, in the end he leaves behind here, and all of it was driven purely by jealousy. These matters are devoid of any lasting guarantee, for he leaves them behind and departs. And "vexation of spirit" means heartbreak and frustration - to see how a person toiled, strained, and labored so intensely, yet in the end leaves everything behind here.
Rashi explains that the verse does not refer to material acquisitions, but rather to spiritual matters. "And I saw all labor" refers to sins, as "labor" (amal) can denote transgression, as in "he conceives mischief [amal] and brings forth falsehood" and "those who decree unrighteous decrees [amal]," for sins represent, so to speak, troublesome toil before the Holy One, blessed be He. "And all skillful achievement" would seemingly refer to good deeds, upright actions, and mitzvot, yet Shlomo saw that even these are not done for the sake of Heaven: the sins he commits freely, and when he finally does perform a mitzvah, it is not for the sake of Heaven, but to compete with his fellow. So-and-so did this, so-and-so gave, so-and-so donated, so I will also do, give, and donate. It is all a man's jealousy of his fellow.
Why, then, is this called vanity and vexation of spirit? After all, does not one who begins with an ulterior motive (shelo lishmah) eventually come to act for the sake of Heaven (lishmah), and does not the jealousy of scholars increase wisdom? Rather, as explained often, and in accordance with the Rambam upon whom Rav Dessler elaborates at length, the World to Come is acquired only through deeds done purely lishmah. This is what the Sages meant by "The Holy One, blessed be He, desired to confer merit upon Israel; therefore He gave them Torah and mitzvot in abundance." The Rambam asks at the end of Makkot: Is a multitude of Torah and mitzvot necessarily advantageous? After all, the more commandments there are, the more opportunities there are for transgression. He answers: out of the abundance of mitzvot, it is possible that a person will perform at least one of them purely lishmah, and if he performs even one lishmah, he has thereby merited life in the World to Come. A single mitzvah performed for the sake of Heaven is sufficient to grant him that merit. This does not mean he should neglect the rest, but through that one mitzvah he has already acquired his share. We see, then, that the essential requirement is lishmah. Therefore, when a person performs mitzvot solely out of jealousy of his fellow, this too is vanity and vexation of spirit: he will certainly receive reward, but not the eternal acquisition of the World to Come, which is purchased only through deeds done for the sake of Heaven.
A man once came to a Rebbe and asked him to put an end to the auctions for mitzvot in the synagogue. The Rebbe asked him why, and the man replied: "Rebbe, it has become a disgrace. The wealthy magnates arrive, each seeking to display his wealth and power; one raises the bid just to outdo his rival, and it is all driven by pride and honor. It turns the synagogue into a marketplace, breeding quarrels and anger. Perhaps we should abolish the auctions and conduct ourselves like the synagogues and minyanim of kollel scholars, where honors are distributed in an orderly fashion, reserving specific aliyot for individuals of stature?"
A story is told regarding the opening of the ark (petichat ha'heichal) on Rosh Hashanah, when a gentile entered the synagogue. There was a wealthy magnate there named Poznanski, who would always purchase the opening of the ark for a vast sum. Suddenly, the gentile began bidding against him. One bid fifty thousand rubles, the other sixty, then seventy, eighty, ninety, until reaching one hundred thousand rubles. Poznanski backed down, and the gentile won the auction. The gentile asked: "What did I actually buy?" They told him: "The opening of the ark - you are supposed to open the Holy Ark." He said to them: "Give it to someone else." They asked him: "You bought it, yet you do not even know what you purchased?" He replied: "I do not know, but I know Poznanski, and if he invests in something, it is worth competing for."
On a related note, someone once related an incident at a synagogue during a Shabbat bar mitzvah celebration, where a woman took out a smartphone and began taking photos. Her friend said to her: "Ma'am, this is a synagogue and it is Shabbat, what are you doing?" She retorted: "A synagogue? Just a moment ago you were holding auctions here like a marketplace, and now you remind me that this is a synagogue?" In other words, such conduct opens the door to complaints.
And what did the Rebbe reply? He said: "No, leave the situation as it is, and not merely because of the financial needs of the court. Understand that these men come to the synagogue, each wishing to display his wealth. If he cannot do so here, he will seek an outlet elsewhere: at public auctions, gambling houses, places of prohibition, and other undesirable venues. It is better that he display his wealth in the synagogue." This is precisely what Shlomo addresses: everything that transpires in the world stems from a man's jealousy of his fellow, and it is certainly preferable for a person to envy his fellow in matters of mitzvot and emulate him, rather than in crass, material pursuits. But is this the ultimate perfection? Certainly not. True perfection is for a person to perform all his deeds solely for the sake of Heaven.
The Kli Yakar (on Bereishit 4:3) offers a wonderful explanation of this matter, as discussed in the lessons on the Kli Yakar. The verse states, "And Hevel brought, he too, of the firstlings of his flock and of their fat," and the Kli Yakar asks: What is the meaning of "gam" (also / he too)? It would have been sufficient to say, "And Hevel brought of the firstlings of his flock." He prefaces this by noting that many ask why Hevel was harmed, for Kayin rose up against him and killed him, and we know that there is no death without sin and no suffering without iniquity; it is impossible that such a thing would befall him without any wrongdoing. Some say that Hevel gazed at the Shechinah when it descended to accept his offering - as discussed in Mishnat HaGilgulim regarding how this connects to his subsequent reincarnations - but this is not the place for that.
However, in Sefer Tzeror HaMor, by Rabbeinu Avraham Saba (one of the Spanish exiles), he writes that the grievance against Hevel was that he did not awaken on his own to bring an offering and give thanks to Hashem, and when he did bring one, he did so out of imitation: "And Hevel brought, he too" - since Kayin brought, he brought as well. That word "gam" indicates a deficiency, an imitation, the envy of one man toward his fellow. And although the envy of scribes increases wisdom, and it must be reiterated again and again that this is certainly a positive factor, it is not the ultimate purpose. The ultimate purpose is to act out of personal inner awakening and with pure intention for the sake of Heaven, not out of envy, not even out of envy of scribes. And it is very possible that this is Shlomo's intent here: "And I saw all labor and all skillful work, that it is a man's rivalry with his fellow; this too is vanity [gam zeh hevel]" - this is the very "gam" in which Hevel stumbled. Whatever a person does in this world out of jealousy of his fellow is the "gam" of Hevel, the act of Hevel.
This is also what Chazal tell us regarding the offering of Adam HaRishon: that the ox he sacrificed had a single horn on its forehead, "an ox with horns and hooves." What is the idea behind a single horn? When Adam HaRishon brought his offering, he had no one to learn from; when he sacrificed, he did so purely from inner awakening. This is the concept of a single horn: it resembles nothing else and is not an imitation of anyone. A singular, unique ox in the world, for no one before him had awakened to bring an offering, and therefore his offering was accepted favorably.
This is why it says, "When a man [adam] among you brings an offering to Hashem." See how wonderful this is: when you come to bring an offering, do not bring it like Hevel, but rather like Adam, who was awakened on his own. And this is the meaning of "from you" (mikem) - that the awakening must come from within yourselves, not because one saw another bring and said, "I will also bring." One who acts out of envy of his fellow, "this too is vanity [gam zeh hevel]" - whoever acts out of "gam" (also) is like Hevel. Rather, be like Adam HaRishon, whose awakening originated from within himself, and through that power he brought his offering. Simply wondrous!
The Imrei Shefer prefaces and explains the previous verse. Shlomo HaMelech sensed that a question would immediately arise: How can he praise the one who has not yet existed more than the dead who have already died? After all, if two people are walking along the road and before them lies a large, raging river that poses immense danger to cross, and we see that one is already on the other side of the river while the second is still standing on the first bank and has yet to cross, whom do we praise? Which one would we rather be? Certainly the one already on the other side, who has already crossed the river! If so, one who has not yet been born is destined to come into the world and cross the difficult and complex river of life, whereas one who has died has already crossed it. Why praise the one whose crossing still lies ahead?
Shlomo answers this in our verse: "And I saw all labor and all skillful work, that it is a man's rivalry with [lit., from] his fellow." Here lies a somewhat complex idea, and it is worth paying attention to. The verb kana (to envy) never appears with the letter mem (from). It appears with a bet (in/of) or with et: so-and-so envies so-and-so (mekaneh be...), or a husband is jealous regarding his wife (mekaneh et ishto). But never "envies from so-and-so" (mekaneh mi...). If so, what is the meaning of "a man's rivalry from his fellow" (kin'at ish mere'ehu)?
Rather, the trait of envy envelops a person in all areas of life. The most basic form is envy of material possessions: what kind of mansion he has, what kind of car he drives, and the like. But a person can also envy his fellow in intellectual and spiritual achievements: someone has attained Torah and wisdom and reached great heights in the service of Hashem, and he says, "If only I were like him!" These are two distinct types of envy, and there is an enormous difference between them.
When I envy you for the Torah you have acquired, I can do just as you did: you invested yourself in Torah, so I too will invest myself - as Tosafot state, it is the way of those who frequent the Beit Midrash that a person becomes great. If a person goes to the Beit Midrash and learns properly, he can attain Torah, perfection, and the service of Hashem just like him. By contrast, regarding the acquisition of wealth, how many people try to become like the upper percentiles, like those rare few who achieved great fortune, and how much heartache lies in that pursuit! A person can toil all his days and never achieve even the slightest fraction of it.
On the other hand, there is a complete reversal here. When it comes to wealth, I cannot be like you, but I certainly can harm your wealth: he opened a business, so I open a competing business across the street and slash prices. One could argue whether I, too, will ultimately lose and perhaps go bankrupt in four months - since one cannot survive on such prices - but I have undoubtedly harmed him. In wisdom, however, I can be like you, yet I cannot detract from you in any way. He has attained perfection, and I can become like him without diminishing him.
And even with mitzvot, one cannot diminish another. And if you say: what if he came to perform a mitzvah and I snatched it from him? Even then, you have not detracted from him at all, for if one intended to perform a mitzvah and was prevented by circumstances beyond his control, the Torah regards him as if he had performed it. It turns out that in spiritual matters, one cannot take anything away from his fellow at all.
According to this, we can understand the difference between "a man's envy of his fellow" and "a man's envy from his fellow." Envy of his fellow means that I want to be like him, which applies to spiritual matters as well: I see what you possess, and I too desire to merit Torah, the service of Hashem, and closeness to God. But "a man's envy from his fellow" means that he detracts from his fellow and takes from him, which does not apply to perfection, Torah, and fear of Heaven, but strictly to material matters.
Now we can understand the words of Shlomo. Had he seen people toiling here with true toil - toil that leads to spirituality, where all their envy is only to be like their fellow who serves Hashem and learns Torah, an envy that leads to spiritual pursuits - then he would have said the exact opposite: better are the dead who have already died than those who are destined to be born and have not yet crossed the raging river, for those who died have already passed through the trials of this world and navigated them successfully with fear of Heaven and fulfillment of mitzvot.
Yet reality is the opposite. "I saw all the toil" in which mankind labors, which is merely "skillful enterprise" - and I am not speaking of the entirely wicked, but even of the average people who labor in occupations where they invest their talents and their toil - and I saw that all their toil is a man's envy from his fellow: how to extract from his fellow and diminish his fellow. I will open across from him, I will take his customers, and it is all "from his fellow." This is not envy where I envy you in order to do as you do and become a servant of Hashem.
If so, those who have departed from this world - are they complete? Certainly not. They passed through a world entirely characterized by a man's envy from his fellow, which applies only to material acquisitions. Thus, their crossing of the river was a failure. Whereas those who have not yet arrived and have not yet crossed the river still have a chance, and it is possible that they will cross successfully. Had it been like the parable, where the one who crosses stands safely on the other side, alive and well, he would indeed be preferable to one who has not yet crossed, whose outcome remains unknown. But here it is the reverse: those who crossed the river drowned in the middle. Therefore, the status of those not yet born is undoubtedly better, for of those who already crossed it is known that they failed, while for those yet to come there is still hope that they will succeed.
The Imrei Shefer summarizes: after Shlomo saw that the labor of most people is in vain and most of their days are spent without purpose, he divides humanity into three categories. The worst of all is "the living who are still alive" - a person living here who, by the sweat of his brow, consumes vanity and emptiness, whose entire toil and investment are exclusively in the affairs of this world and not in spiritual matters. His condition is the most bitter of all, for death still awaits him, and who can stand before its fury?
Better than him are the dead who have already died, who at least have already passed through death and emerged from the miry pit, and death will no longer shoot its arrows at them. Nevertheless, they are not complete, for they still must stand in judgment, and who knows how their judgment will end? There they will behold the true way of life, and perhaps they will need to endure many years of purifications and Gehinnom in order to be rectified.
And better than both of them is "he who has not yet been" - better than the one who is alive and the one who is dead and has already passed through death is the one who has not yet existed, for before him all gates are open and all possibilities remain available. He can become a tzaddik and a servant of Hashem, since he has not yet entered the world; therefore, his condition is better and more auspicious than all the preceding states.
Shlomo presents before us three levels: the living, the dead, and the one who has not yet entered the world. The most fortunate of them is the one who has not seen the evil deed done under the sun; regarding him, Chazal expounded upon the thousand generations that arose in thought to be created, but were not created. From here is the proof for the Sages' conclusion that it is better for man not to have been created. The reason for this is explained in the next verse: all of man's toil and all of his skillful labor are driven by rivalry with his fellow - not only in material acquisitions, but even in mitzvos, which end up being performed shelo lishmah. The Rambam and the Kli Yakar taught us that the primary factor is an inner awakening for the sake of Heaven: not "and Hevel, he too brought" - merely copying someone else - but rather "When a man among you brings an offering," that the awakening must come from yourselves. And as long as a person's toil is driven "by his fellow," seeking to outdo his peer in material pursuits, one who has already crossed the river of life has crossed it having stumbled. Therefore, one who has not yet entered the world, before whom all gates remain open, is best off of all.