Our chapter opens with the great warning regarding speech before the Holy One, blessed be He: "Therefore let your words be few." From here, King Solomon continues to the distinction between the words of the wise and the words of the fool, and from there to the laws of vows and the obligation to fulfill what you have vowed. In this part, we will first complete the Ibn Ezra's critique of the liturgical poets (payetanim) - a critique that stems entirely from that same fundamental principle of "let your words be few" - and continue to the subsequent verses.
They challenged Ibn Ezra: Who are you to question the early liturgical poets, for "one does not challenge the dead lion"? Ibn Ezra replies: Calculation is a simple and straightforward matter, and our Sages did not hesitate to state that Daniel erred in his calculation. Yet according to that very same claim, one could have argued there as well: had Daniel been alive, he would have proven that your calculation was flawed and that what he said was correct! Rather, the Sages certainly held: we know how to calculate, and according to our calculation, it emerges that he erred. The same applies here: we know and understand the Holy Tongue, and therefore we can say that the Kalir used phrasing in his composition that was inappropriate. Do not answer me with "one does not challenge the dead lion," for if so, you would have to say that to the Sages regarding Daniel as well.
Another defense offered to him was: What difference does it make if you phrase it one way or another, since "the Merciful One desires the heart" - the Holy One, blessed be He, wants the heart, and grammatical precision in speech is not an obstacle. Ibn Ezra answers them: If so, why do we need to speak and pray at all? After all, He knows the secrets of the heart, so let us dispense with prayer entirely! But observe that the early authorities instituted reciting on the Yom Kippur fast: "Be with the mouths of the emissaries of Your people, the House of Israel... and let them not stumble in their speech." We do not suffice with Hashem knowing what is in the heart; rather, we ask that He be with our mouths so that we speak correctly. This implies that one can indeed stumble in speech and that this is a severe shortcoming, meaning the heart alone is not enough.
The fourth and final point Ibn Ezra makes is that all his piyyutim are full of midrashim and aggadot, whereas our Sages said, "A verse does not depart from its plain meaning," yet he weaves into the piyyut a midrash that is not the plain meaning of the text. Therefore, it is fitting to pray only according to the plain sense: not by way of mysticism (sod), not by way of parable, not regarding an opinion that does not follow the halachah, and not in terms that can be interpreted in multiple ways. For we know from the Midrash on Shir HaShirim that every mention of "Solomon" there is a holy name, referring to the King to Whom peace belongs. Could it enter anyone's mind to pray, "Save me, King Solomon!" - intending the midrashic sense, that King Solomon is the Holy One, blessed be He? Did we ever find someone praying according to a midrashic interpretation? You must pray according to the plain meaning, not according to its midrashic reading.
In contrast, Ibn Ezra notes: The Gaon, Rav Saadia, was careful regarding all four of these matters in his two supplications (bakashot), the likes of which no author has ever composed. They are based entirely on biblical language and grammatical precision, without riddles, parables, or homiletic interpretations (derash). See how wondrous his works are, and this is generally the approach of the Sephardic sages. There are, for instance, the Azharot for the holiday of Shavuot, by Ibn Gabirol and by Rav Saadia Gaon. Here is an example from his piyyut on the Ten Commandments: "Fear Hashem your God and serve Him in prayer, evening and morning unify Him with a sign and frontlets for praise" - "a sign and frontlets" refers to tefillin; "On your garments' corners tzitzit forever, and on your doorways a mezuzah eternally" - "forever" (netzach) and "eternally" (selah) both denote perpetuity, and the rhyme continues: tefillah, tehillah, selah; "Honor your parents, revere them, for God has granted them greatness." Clear language, without distortions, without linguistic mutations, and without midrashim.
He also has a piyyut for the 613 commandments: "My chosen one, behold, these are My commandments, six hundred and thirteen is their count; be strong and courageous and act, for the exalted God is your aid. Please, Hashem, remember those who received them, and even if their generation is impoverished in good deeds - just as You granted us the merit to recount them, grant us the merit to perform and keep them." Pure and clear language that requires neither translation nor explanation. And this, says Ibn Ezra, is the most fitting language for liturgical poetry.
The Ibn Ezra also cites a certain sage in France - whose name is unknown, although his liturgical poem is known to this day - who composed a supplication beginning with "Hearken to my words, Hashem," and his words contain things that are incorrect. For example, he says, "You expanded worlds without limit," but one cannot say this, for anything without a limit is not a created being; every creation has a boundary, and one cannot say that Hashem created limitless worlds. Furthermore, he said, "For Your name is in You, and in You is Your name." Ibn Ezra remarks: had he known what the word "name" (shem) means, this thought would never have entered his mind. Moreover, "Your name is in You" and "in You is Your name" are one and the same. Is there any difference between "Peace be upon you" and "Upon you be peace"? Between "You are Reuven" and "Reuven are you"? Between "Seize them alive" and "Alive seize them"? "May Hashem bless you and guard you," "Hashem will guard you from all evil" - there is no difference, and you have merely repeated the exact same thing. This is not the way of prayer, but the way of mockery.
And another sage joined two words together until they became one in his mouth, such as avarmel - meaning "I will elucidate a word" (ava'er milah) or "I will clarify a word" (avarrer milah). An invented word in the Hebrew language, and such things happened even back then! Ibn Ezra says: and behold, he did the exact opposite of what he claimed, for he did not elucidate the word nor did he speak clearly; rather, he corrupted the Holy Tongue with his language. You said, "I will elucidate a word" - yet you did the precise opposite, convoluting the word; who can understand what you said?
And Ibn Ezra concludes: "And I cannot explain one in a thousand of the errors of the liturgical poets, and what seems best in my eyes is that a person should not pray using them, but only with the established prayer, and let our words be few so that we are not punished in judgment." And this is what King Solomon tells us here: let your words be few. Do not multiply words, for a multiplicity of words that lacks understanding or meaning will even be accounted as sin; rather, restrict your words, and thereby your few words will be accepted with favor.
כִּי בָּא הַחֲלוֹם בְּרֹב עִנְיָן וְקוֹל כְּסִיל בְּרֹב דְּבָרִים. - For a dream comes with much occupation, and a fool's voice with a multitude of words.
"For a dream comes with much occupation" - out of the many affairs that occupy a person during the day, that is where the dream comes from, as Daniel said: "The thoughts of your heart came upon your bed." And so Chazal said: what a person contemplates by day is what he dreams at night. And just as a dream comes from much occupation in thought, so too is a fool recognized by his multitude of words. As scripture says, "Even a fool, when he holds his peace, is counted wise" - but through his multitude of words, it becomes known that he is a fool.
This is a familiar reality: someone walks into a room and immediately starts talking - you know right away that this person is empty. "A coin in a jug makes a loud clatter" - a single coin inside a pitcher makes a lot of noise. The moment he arrives he begins to talk, throwing a comment to this one and saying something to that one, raising his voice here and there - so much noise. In contrast, notice that a distinguished, sensible person is quiet. Usually, someone who maintains silence demonstrates his wisdom and the fact that he possesses an inner world of his own: he does not need to chatter constantly, he does not need to broadcast himself, he sees no need to comment and express his opinion on everything, and he knows how to keep silent as well.
On the contrary, when a person remains silent, he merits to receive. It is written regarding Moshe Rabbeinu, that when Aharon corrected him and said, "Behold, today they offered their sin offering... and such things befell me; had I eaten the sin offering today, would it have been good in the eyes of Hashem?" - "And Moshe heard, and it was good in his eyes." The Chassidic masters explain: until that moment, Moshe had been speaking - "And Hashem spoke to Moshe, saying," and Moshe came and spoke to the people; this was the first time Moshe had occasion to listen, "And Moshe heard" - and what is written? "And it was good in his eyes." He found joy in listening. How pleasant it is to hear and receive something from another! Instead of talking all the time - listen for once, hear from others as well. "In a multitude of words, transgression does not cease," and therefore when a fool passes before you talking excessively, you immediately know his true nature.
And just as a dream is mixed with many matters, Ibn Ezra says that when a dream is mixed with many matters, it is a sign that it stems from a mixture of foods. This was discussed at length in Mishnat HaChalomot, explaining how to distinguish between true dreams and false dreams. One of the signs is: if a person dreamed at the beginning of the night and the dream is jumbled with many matters. At the beginning of the night, dreams stem from the stomach - the smoky vapors rising from what he ate confuse his brain, and due to the mixture of foods, the dream includes many disparate matters. Such a dream, says Ibn Ezra, has no interpretation and indicates neither good nor bad, for it is meaningless vanity. On the other hand, in a dream toward morning, when the food has already been digested, there is a greater likelihood that it contains some truth - and even then, on condition that it is not jumbled with many matters.
And Ibn Ezra also connects this to the preceding verse: there we saw the warning, "Do not be rash with your mouth" - when you come to pray before Hashem, curtail your words. And all the more so in a place designated for perpetually mentioning the Name of the Most High, in the synagogue, where a person must curtail his words and speak minimally, so that he does not come to sin.
In the sefer Imrei Shefer, it is explained: The prophet Zechariah says, "And dreams speak vanity," yet despite this, we see that there are dreams that have real substance - the dreams of Pharaoh and his ministers, the dreams of Joseph, the dream of Jacob with the ladder which was a prophetic vision, and the dream of Nebuchadnezzar that was fulfilled. If so, how should one relate to dreams? King Solomon comes and gives you a sign: "For a dream comes through much business, and a fool's voice through a multitude of words." If you see that a dream is jumbled with many disjointed matters, it is evident that it is merely a dream and has no true spirit within it. When a dream jumps from topic to topic, suddenly you are there and suddenly you are here, know that there is no true vision in this. In this same way, all the dreams that bring futility to a person each night are entirely meaningless. And by that same measure, you recognize the fool: a wise person's words are few, while the fool opens his lips wide and speaks whatever comes to mind, and "in a multitude of words, transgression does not cease." When you see a person who speaks without limit, you know immediately that he is a fool.
A story is told of Rav Nissim Karelitz, of blessed memory, to whom a congregational rabbi came and asked how much he should correct people and how much rebuke he should give. Rav Nissim told him: "When they appointed me to be the rabbi of the synagogue, I initially refused, and afterward I went to ask the Steipler. I told him that I was very apprehensive, for as the rabbi of a synagogue I bear a responsibility - I must observe what is happening, and if someone does something improper, I must correct him. The Steipler said to me: 'No, you do not need to correct them.' The meaning is that many times criticisms and remarks only push people away. Rather, what should one do? One must set a personal example and speak generally about how things ought to be, but not make personal remarks to people, which only alienates them and ultimately ensures that no improvement will come of it."
He further related to him: "On the first Shabbat I arrived at the synagogue, I heard the chazzan announce, 'Let our teacher, Rav Nissim, arise.' At that moment, I wanted to protest - after all, I was not called Nissim; my name was Shemaryahu Yosef. (The name Nissim had been added because in his infancy, before his brit milah, he was in mortal danger, so they added that name; and incidentally, one rarely finds Ashkenazim named Nissim.) I immediately wanted to correct him, but I remembered what the Steipler had said - not to offer corrections - and I remained silent. Ever since then, everyone has known me as Rav Nissim; until then I had been known as Rav Shemaryahu Yosef, and from that incident my name took root." And he concluded: "You see, from this you can learn a lesson in mussar - there is no need to make comments."
In any event, the fool chatters without restraint, constantly speaking, constantly commenting, expressing his opinion on everything - and this demonstrates his foolishness. So too with a dream: when it is filled with many disjointed matters, it shows that there is no real substance to it.
כַּאֲשֶׁר תִּדֹּר נֶדֶר לֵאלֹהִים אַל תְּאַחֵר לְשַׁלְּמוֹ, כִּי אֵין חֵפֶץ בַּכְּסִילִים, אֵת אֲשֶׁר תִּדֹּר שַׁלֵּם. - When you make a vow to God, do not delay paying it, for He has no pleasure in fools; whatever you vow, pay.
When you make a vow to God, do not delay paying it; rather, pay the vow promptly, for Hashem has no desire for fools who vow and do not pay - whatever you vow, pay. The Midrash connects this to the preceding verse: "and a fool's voice through a multitude of words" refers to those who frequently make vows and do not fulfill them, vowing here and pledging there with a flood of words. Therefore, the verse tells you: Beware, the fool multiplies words, but do not be like him.
The holy Alshich raises strong questions: Is this the wisdom of Solomon? After all, the Torah already states, "When you make a vow to Hashem your God, you shall not delay paying it," and we do not need Solomon to dictate verses from the Torah to us! Furthermore, why did he add, "whatever you vow, pay" - had it not already been stated in the first clause, "do not delay paying it"? Moreover, regarding the following verse, "It is better that you not vow than that you vow and not pay" - this seems self-evident; even a child understands that it is better not to vow than to vow and fail to pay! Who asked you to vow? If you vowed and did not pay, you have transgressed, and no one obligated you to vow in the first place. This difficulty was so acute that Rabbi Meir was required to offer a special explanation, linking the verse to the end of the previous one: even though "whatever you vow, pay," and even if you do eventually pay, it is still better not to vow at all; rather, simply bring the animal and sacrifice it immediately, without advance pledges. Furthermore, "for He has no pleasure in fools" seems entirely superfluous, for it is obvious that Hashem has no desire for fools.
Rather, if you scrutinize the wording, you will notice: it does not say "vow a vow to Hashem" as in the phrasing of the Torah, "When a man vows a vow to Hashem," but rather "vow a vow to Elokim." Why did the text emphasize the Name Elokim? Because here it speaks of a person who has fallen into distress - the Name Elokim denotes the attribute of strict justice (Middat HaDin), and this person has reached a situation where strict justice has struck him. Therefore, the verse tells him: Do not say, "I make a vow, and I will pay it when I am saved from this distress and achieve peace and a good life." Rather, pay immediately, even before you see the salvation.
And do not say: "Surely I intend to fulfill my vow, for I desire salvation, and reason dictates that I vowed precisely in order to escape the distress, so there is no concern that I will vow and fail to pay." To this, he says, "for He has no pleasure in fools." The explanation is this: Had the vow not come as a result of distress and sin, one could indeed delay it for up to three pilgrimage festivals, for a vow may not be delayed past three festivals. But here - how did you come into distress? As a consequence of sin, and such a person is termed a fool, for "a person does not sin unless a spirit of foolishness enters him." Since the attribute of strict justice came upon you because of your sin, there is no place here to postpone fulfilling the vow until after the salvation, nor is good will and the desire to pay sufficient. This is "He has no pleasure (cheifetz) in fools" - mere desire (cheifetz) and good will are not enough when dealing with a person who has sinned and stands in distress; rather, pay immediately: "whatever you vow, pay." Thus, according to the Alshich, we find a major insight: even if you vowed with full intent to pay, when you are in distress, hasten the payment and do not wait until you emerge from the trouble - and through this, your salvation is assured.
The Imrei Shefer explains: Above, the text spoke about matters of speech, and here it moves on to discuss forbidden speech between man and God. There is forbidden speech between man and his fellow, such as lashon hara (slander), and there is forbidden speech between man and God. And what is that? "When you make a vow to God, do not delay paying it" - lest you say: I will make a vow and not pay it. Who would even think of doing such a thing? Rather, this refers to a shrewd person who says: I will make a vow so that it creates a stir, so that many people hear it and become inspired. A rosh yeshivah comes to speak and make an appeal, exciting the crowd, and they ask who will be the first to give - and this fellow raises his hand: three thousand dollars! Driven by that push, everyone gets inspired, this one pledges two hundred dollars and that one pledges his share. Meanwhile, the man who pledged three thousand says: That was just a "starter," a pledge made only to arouse the others, not with the intention of actually paying. Lest you say, "I will vow and not pay, so that many will envy me and make vows to Hashem and pay them, and there will be sustenance in the House of Hashem." To this, the verse responds: Hashem has no pleasure in fools. Hashem desires only the person whose heart moves him to vow in order to give, not those who make promises and ultimately fail to deliver. This is like what the Gemara recounts about Shimon HaTzaddik, who never ate from the guilt offering of a defiled nazirite, because a person vows naziriteship and then later regrets it - Hashem takes no pleasure in those who make vows and regret them, whose hearts are not whole. Therefore, "pay what you vow," and do not employ such clever tricks just to motivate the public.
The Ateret Shmuel, cited by Me'am Lo'ez, explains "there is no pleasure in fools" differently: it does not mean that Hashem has no pleasure in fools, but rather that fools themselves have no desire - they lack a strong will to fulfill their vow. For if you had a strong will to fulfill your vow, you would succeed in fulfilling it no matter what, even if your circumstances were difficult and even if you wondered where the money would come from. Where there is a will, there is success. Why does the fool ultimately fail to pay? Because he lacks the desire and will to pay, and that itself causes him not to pay; had he possessed a genuine desire, he would have found the means and the way to settle his debt.
טוֹב אֲשֶׁר לֹא תִדֹּר מִשֶּׁתִּדּוֹר וְלֹא תְשַׁלֵּם. - Better that you should not vow than that you should vow and not pay.
Pesikta Zutreta cites: Rabbi Yehudah says, better than both is one who vows and pays. That is, it is better not to vow than to vow and not pay, but what is truly good is to vow and pay, as it says, "Vow and pay to Hashem your God" - vow and pay. Here he disputes the view of Rabbi Meir, who said: Better than both is one who does not vow at all. What should he do instead? Bring his sheep to the Temple courtyard, consecrate it, and slaughter it. Rabbi Meir says: Do not involve yourself with vows at all. You want to bring an offering? Without prior commitments - take it, bring it to the courtyard, and declare it an offering to Hashem. For premature vows can create complications: a person vows and suddenly passes away, or vows and suddenly lacks the funds and postpones it indefinitely. In short, just ask the synagogue gabbaim how many pledges end up completely lost. Therefore, Rabbi Meir says, it is better not to vow at all than to eventually find yourself unable to fulfill the vow you made.
The Imrei Shefer explains the verse continuing his earlier theme: "Better that you should not vow than that you should vow and not pay" - that is, if you have no intention of paying. For we spoke of someone who wants to motivate the public to pledge; the verse says to him: If you do not intend to pay, it is better not to vow than to vow and not pay simply to enrich your Master through the vows of fools - Hashem has no desire for such vows.
The Kli Yakar makes an interesting observation here: From here there is proof that Kohelet spoke before gatherings on the festival of Sukkot. As we have seen, Kohelet was named so because the king would gather (mak'hil) the people and deliver words of Torah before them on the pilgrimage festivals, especially on Sukkot, when this was most customary, like the mitzvah of Hakhel after the Shemittah year. Now, the prohibition against delaying the fulfillment of a vow (bal te'acher) is explicitly written in the Torah, so why did Kohelet include it here? Rather, Kohelet incorporated here the sermon he delivered in the Beit HaMikdash before the pilgrims. He saw that people were stumbling into the transgression of bal te'acher, making vows and ultimately failing to bring their offerings. Therefore, at the closing of the gates, before everyone departed for home, he would warn them: It is better not to vow than to vow and not pay, and if you have already vowed - pay your vow now and do not delay.
The Me'am Lo'ez cites: Rabbi Shmuel said, whoever vows and does not pay brings tragedy upon himself in that his wife dies, as Yaakov said, "And as for me, when I came from Padan, Rachel died on me on the way." This is hinted at in the initial letters of "mishetidor velo teshalem" (than that you should vow and not pay) - which form the acronym mavet (death). This teaches you, as we will see further on regarding "Why should he take your bed from under you," that Heaven forbid this harms his wife and children. Therefore, it is far better that a person should not vow at all.
From here to an interesting question: If a person owes debts to people, should he give ma'aser kesafim (monetary tithes)? This is discussed in halachah. Some say he should record it for himself, and when his situation eases, he should give it; some say he should give partially; and some say that one is obligated in ma'aser kesafim. There is room to deliberate, for regarding ma'aser kesafim itself there is discussion whether we are obligated in it or not. Some say he should not give ma'aser kesafim at all, because one is strictly obligated in debt repayment. There is also discussion whether ma'aser kesafim is by virtue of a vow or by virtue of charity - and this is a major debate among the poskim as to which category it falls under. But certainly the obligation to repay a debt is paramount, and therefore when you owe money to people, first repay your debts and only afterward give ma'aser kesafim.
This does not mean that a person may perpetually exempt himself from ma'aser kesafim on the claim that he has a twenty-five-year mortgage and is a debtor to the bank - will he really be exempt for twenty-five years? That is certainly not the intention. Rather, this speaks of someone who has creditors pressing him now, and he must pay them, and if he pays them he will be unable to give ma'aser kesafim. But someone whose financial situation is reasonable, Baruch Hashem, and can both repay his debts gradually and give ma'aser kesafim, and creditors are not pressing him for immediate repayment - from both of these do not withdraw your hand.
The Chida, in Sefer Devash Le-fi, interprets the verse in this way: "Better that you should not vow" - to charity, "than that you should vow and not pay" - the debts that you owe. That is to say, it is better not to vow to charity and enter into new obligations that you are not bound to, than to vow to charity and not pay your debts, which are a full obligation upon you. For there is a mitzvah of repaying a creditor - you took a loan, repay it. Therefore, it is better not to vow to give money you are not obligated to give, than to make vows while failing to pay what you owe your creditors. Certainly, it is preferable to pay first and settle one's debts.
In this section, we have learned one foundational principle that weaves through everything: the value of restrained and precise speech. The Ibn Ezra concludes his critique of the liturgical poets with a call to pray the established prayer in clear, simple language, "and let our words be few, so that we are not punished in judgment." And from there to the verse, "For a dream comes through much concern, and the voice of a fool through a multitude of words" - that a multitude of disjointed matters reveals that the dream is vanity, and a multitude of words reveals that the speaker is a fool; whereas the wise person knows how to remain silent, listen, and accept. And from there to vows: "When you make a vow to God, do not delay in paying it" - especially one who has encountered trouble on account of his sin, who should make the payment promptly and not wait for deliverance, for good will alone is not enough. "Better that you should not vow than that you should vow and not pay" - do not enter into unnecessary commitments, do not vow merely to inspire others with no intention of paying, and prioritize paying your debts to flesh and blood. Brevity of speech and completeness of fulfillment - this is the way of the wise.