In this chapter, Shlomo HaMelech arrives at one of the most famous verses in the entire Book of Kohelet - a verse that anyone who has ever sat shiva, Heaven forbid, has heard far too many times, as every beginner darshan opens with it. A rav once visited a house of mourning and began speaking on a different subject, and the mourners told him: "Honored Rav, you are the first one who hasn't given us another explanation of 'It is better to go to a house of mourning.'" Let us try to understand what is truly written here, and afterward we will move on to the verse, "Anger is better than laughter."
טוֹב לָלֶכֶת אֶל בֵּית אֵבֶל מִלֶּכֶת אֶל בֵּית מִשְׁתֶּה, בַּאֲשֶׁר הוּא סוֹף כָּל הָאָדָם, וְהַחַי יִתֵּן אֶל לִבּוֹ׃ - It is better to go to a house of mourning than to go to a house of feasting, for that is the end of all mankind, and the living will take it to heart.
Let us begin with the Midrashim. The Midrash says: "It is better to go to a house of mourning" - it is better to go to an attribute in which there is tribulation than to an attribute in which there is no tribulation. A banquet hall is a place of joy, while a house of mourning is a place where the hand of Hashem has held sway, where tragedy has struck. And precisely there, a person learns and attains fear of Heaven. The Midrash further says: It is better to go to an attribute that applies equally to the poor and the rich, than to an attribute that applies only to the rich. Feasts - only the wealthy can afford them, but death affects everyone; there is no one whom the Angel of Death skips over.
Furthermore: It is better to go to an attribute that applies to the dead and the living, than to an attribute that applies only to the living. A house of mourning applies to both - people mourn the deceased, and comfort the living mourners. Others explain this in another way: it applies to the dead, for the deceased has already passed away, and it applies to the living, for all the living will ultimately die. There is no living person who will not eventually face death. Feasts, however, belong only to the living; there are no banquets for the dead.
Rabbi Levi said: The Torah begins and ends with acts of loving-kindness. The Holy One, blessed be He, said: Learn from Me - I set aside the rejoicing of My children in the Mishkan and went to the mourning of Nadav and Avihu. That is to say, when a person is faced with two options, a house of mourning or a banquet hall - even a banquet of a mitzvah - the Holy One, blessed be He, says to him: Learn from Me. On the day of the dedication of the Mishkan, on the day of great celebration, Nadav and Avihu died, and as it were, the Holy One, blessed be He, set aside the celebration and attended to the mourning.
The Pesikta Zutreta adds: It is better to go to an attribute that applies to all, than to go to an attribute that does not apply to all - as we explained, to both rich and poor, to both the living and the dead. And it is better to go to an attribute for which one receives a good reward, than to go to an attribute for which one does not receive a good reward. One might say: A house of mourning is depressing, while a house of feasting is joyful. But what lasting benefit will that joy bring you? Here, at least, you have a good reward; you have fulfilled the mitzvah of comforting mourners.
Notice how the Midrash expounds this: What is meant by "the end of all mankind"? Know that just as you act toward others, so will be done for you. Yosef merited this through his father - he was the one who attended to the burial of Yaakov and brought him up to the Land of Israel with immense honor, escorted by kings. Therefore, Moshe, the greatest in Israel, attended to him. And Moshe merited this through Yosef; therefore, "And He buried him in the valley" - the Holy One, blessed be He, in all His glory, attended to Moshe's burial.
"And the living will take it to heart" - these are the righteous, who take things to heart. And why does the verse specifically say "the living"? Because the dead do not take things to heart, which refers to the wicked, who even during their lifetimes are called "dead." The wicked person does not take it to heart at all, or quite the contrary - he takes it to mean, "Eat and drink, for tomorrow we shall die": if tomorrow we die, let us seize the moment and indulge in life.
Midrash Tanchuma cites: Rabbi Shimon bar Abba said, there are two distinct traits among those who perform acts of kindness - doing kindness for a bride and doing kindness for the dead. And if both come into your hands at once, you do not know which of them to grasp first. Suppose there is a wedding in Be'er Sheva and the final day of shivah in Haifa; you cannot be in both places on the same evening - either you travel north or you travel south.
There is, of course, one who would say: surely go to the house of mourning, it is also cheaper. Once I saw someone pull a wedding invitation envelope out of the mailbox and say: "I got another ticket." He treats it like a parking ticket. On the other hand, there are those who receive as a wedding gift a plastic triangular sink strainer. If everyone does so - well and good; but one who receives hundreds of shekels and returns a plastic sink strainer faces a halachic problem of theft (gezel), for the Rambam writes that bridal and wedding reciprocal gifts (sivlonot) must be given in accordance with what one received. That is the general principle, and there are further rules in this matter.
At any rate, Shlomo came and clarified: it is better to go to a house of mourning. A proof of this: we find people who went to a house of feasting whose names were not specified. Where? By Avraham Avinu - "And Avraham made a great feast." What makes it "great"? Not the sheer number of guests - not eight hundred plated dinners and two thousand invitees - but rather that the greatest luminaries of the world were present. After all, if you were offered a wedding attended by the Chafetz Chaim and the Ben Ish Chai, or a wedding of eight hundred guests, we would all choose the former. The gedolei hador are worth hundreds of guests. And who was there? Shem, Ever, and Avimelech - and yet their names are not explicitly mentioned in Scripture.
By contrast, those who went to a house of mourning - not only were their names explicitly specified, but they were saved from Gehennom and prophesied through Ruach HaKodesh. These are the friends of Iyov. Iyov was a mourner; in addition to his afflictions, he was mourning his children who had died, and his friends came to comfort him. They were saved from Gehennom, the Holy Spirit rested upon them, and their names were explicitly recorded: Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite, and Zophar the Naamathite. And from where do we know that Ruach HaKodesh rested upon them? As it is stated, "Then Eliphaz the Temanite answered (vaya'an)" - and "vaya'an" implies prophecy, as it is stated, "Moshe would speak and God would respond to him (ya'anenu) with a voice." What do you learn? It is better to go to a house of mourning - even more so than to a banquet of a mitzvah, the feast celebrating "the weaning of Yitzchak" (and some say this was the day of his circumcision, since the numerical value of "higgamel" equals eight).
The Midrash continues and asks: Who first showed His face to a mourner? You must say it was the Holy One, Blessed be He. When? When Devorah died, as it is stated, "And Devorah died," and it is written, "And God appeared again to Yaakov." Yaakov was mourning the death of Devorah, Rivkah's wet nurse, and immediately the Holy One, Blessed be He, revealed Himself to him - a form of comforting mourners. The Holy One, Blessed be He, says: Learn from Me; just as I comfort mourners, so too shall you comfort mourners; just as I bestow lovingkindness, so too shall you bestow lovingkindness.
Rashi explains "for that is the end of all men" - because mourning is the ultimate end of every person, every person is destined to come to this, and therefore "the living will lay it to his heart." And what should he lay to heart? That which the Gemara states: take to heart that whatever kindness you perform for the deceased will be done for you. "One who lifts up (the bier) will be lifted; one who carries will be carried; one who eulogizes will be eulogized; one who escorts will be escorted." You lift the deceased - you will be lifted; you eulogize - you will be eulogized; you escort - you will be escorted.
And why is this called chesed shel emet (true kindness)? Because there is no expectation of receiving anything in return. When I give you a loan, I say to myself: tomorrow I may need money and you will lend to me. But one who escorts his deceased relative does not say, "Tomorrow you come escort me," Heaven forbid; he has no wish to reach that point, and he anticipates no repayment. This is true kindness. And Rashi adds: if he does not perform kindness for him now, he will never perform kindness for him again.
This is elaborated in the Midrash. A man invited his friend to a banquet house, saying to him, "Tonight I am making a wedding; I want you to come." But the friend did not come. When they met afterward, feeling embarrassed, he said, "Eventually you will have a son, and I will be there with you - bli neder, even without an invitation I will show up." A son was born - and he did not show up. Meeting him again, he said, "When this child has his bar mitzvah, with God's help, I will be there bli neder; I will even bring him a volume of the Chiddushei Rabbi Akiva Eiger." The bar mitzvah arrived - and he did not come. Again: "This child will be married in no time; it happens much faster than you think - bli neder I am coming." And he did not show up there either.
The question then arises: When is the deadline? When is the very last opportunity, after which, if he fails to show, it is over? The answer: when the person passes away. Now you are invited, God forbid, to a funeral - this is the final opportunity. After this, what will you tell him? When else will you come? This is "for that is the end of all men" - this is the end, the ultimate deadline, after which it is no longer possible to perform kindness for him: not at a brit milah, not at a bar mitzvah, not at a wedding, and not in anything else. Therefore, at least come to the funeral, which is the final remaining opportunity for you to do kindness with him, if you did not do kindness with him at all his previous joyous occasions.
Many homiletical explanations have been offered for this verse, and one of the most famous is that of the holy Alshich, who was well known as a master expositor. He asks two questions. First, why does the verse use the form lalechet ("to go") regarding a house of mourning, but regarding a house of feasting it says millechet (from lechet)? It should either use lalechet in both places or lechet in both. Second, what is added by the phrase, "in that it is the end of all men"? Who does not know that death is the end of all men? Did anyone think there was another stop along the way? Do we need King Solomon to teach us this?
The Alshich prefaces: it is clear that Solomon is not speaking here about wild parties and revelry, but rather, as mentioned in the name of the Midrash, about a seudat mitzvah - a wedding feast or a brit milah feast. And our Sages stated: Anyone who partakes of a groom's feast and does not gladden him violates five voices, and anyone who gladdens a groom merits five voices - the sound of joy and the sound of gladness, the voice of the groom and the voice of the bride. (As the humorous quip goes, politicians love attending celebrations: another five votes and another five votes, gathering votes for the primaries - a play on the Hebrew word kolot, meaning both voices and votes.)
In passing, he asks an interesting question there: Who is it that needs to be gladdened? The groom - for whom this is the happiest day of his life, he is on a high, he is a king, a red carpet is rolled out for him, and he is the center of the evening. For a depressed person, it is understandable that there is a mitzvah to cheer him up, but for someone who is already overjoyed, how does gladdening apply? And with the bride even more so; this is the happiest day of her life; women are emotional by nature, all her days she dreams of the day she will be a bride, and even afterward she still pores over the album. "Would it not seem strange: what groom needs others to gladden him, when he is in the day of his wedding and the day of his heart's rejoicing?" And whoever Hashem has endowed with wisdom and insight will understand the depth of these words.
And this is the novel insight Solomon comes to teach: even though in both places one reaches the same conclusion - that a person must be awakened, for he is destined to reach the day of death - nevertheless, it is better to go to a house of mourning. Why? Because in a house of mourning, this realization is blatant, clear, and absolute. Immediately you see: there was a person here, yesterday I spoke with him, and today he is gone. This tells you: wake up, no one knows when his summons will arrive, and "repent one day before your death." This brings about a powerful awakening.
In contrast, in a house of feasting, only someone who probes deeply and contemplates reaches this conclusion, and under normal circumstances, who truly contemplates? The noise, the band, the celebration, and the dancing do not allow a person to reflect, and therefore he does not arrive at the proper conclusion.
Hence the difference in phrasing: lechet denotes actual going, whereas lalechet denotes preparation and the desire to go. Solomon is telling you: even a person who merely prepares himself, desiring and intending to go to a house of mourning, is already in a better position than someone who actually goes to a house of feasting. For from the very thought of going to a house of mourning, one is awakened more than he would be upon actually arriving at a house of feasting.
And what is the reason? "In that it is the end of all men, and the living will lay it to his heart." Even at a house of feasting, a person can attain a certain humility and an awareness that he is destined to depart this world - after all, people marry to bring children into the world, which hints to him that he will one day pass away - but there, it is not yet the end, for there are still children to come. In a house of mourning, one sees death right before his eyes; there it is "the end of all men," which awakens a person much more to reflect on what the ultimate purpose is, what is expected of him, and why he is in this world.
The Alshich further asks: Why does it say "and the living [veha-chai] will lay it to his heart," rather than "and man [veha-adam] will lay it to his heart"? He connects this to the previous verse, "Better is a good name than good oil, and the day of death than the day of one's birth." Who is being spoken of? A person who possesses a good name, meaning a righteous person (a tzaddik). It is to the house of mourning of such a person that I tell you to go, for there a person truly reaches humility: behold, even the righteous pass away; even one who performed mitzvot and served Hashem is ultimately destined to leave this world. Furthermore, going there accords honor to the deceased. In any event, one who goes to a house of mourning reaches humility and is awakened: behold, even the righteous die.
A speaker in a house of mourning once offered an explanation in a similar vein to the Alshich, though slightly different. Even in a banquet hall, one can reach the realization that "the living will take it to heart." How so? When you attend the wedding of your nephew or neighbor's son, you think: I remember this boy; it was not long ago that I was invited to his brit milah, and now, Baruch Hashem, he is already getting married. Time flies.
It is told of one of the Torah giants, likely Rabbi Isser Zalman Meltzer, that he made a special point of attending a Bar Mitzvah, although he was not accustomed to attending Bar Mitzvahs. When asked why, he replied: Because of him, I had an awakening. When asked what awakening, he said: When so-and-so came to invite me to his son's Bar Mitzvah, I remembered that I had been at his brit milah. I thought to myself - what, thirteen years have passed? Look at how swiftly life passes; before you even realize it, thirteen years have flown by. We must utilize our time. I experienced an awakening, and out of gratitude, I came to the Bar Mitzvah.
Thus, even at a wedding a person can experience an awakening, learning to cherish time. Nonetheless, Shlomo says: It is better to go to a house of mourning. For in a house of mourning, the awakening is direct - one sees that this is the end of all men, whereas in a banquet hall, one still needs to contemplate and reflect in order to arrive at the proper conclusion.
טוֹב כַּעַס מִשְּׂחוֹק, כִּי בְרֹעַ פָּנִים יִיטַב לֵב׃ - Better is anger than laughter, for through a sad countenance the heart is improved.
Rashi explains, based on the Midrash: One who is pursued by the attribute of strict justice and feels that Heaven is angry with him should not grieve. As an example: It would have been better for the generation of the Flood had the Holy One, Blessed is He, shown them an angry countenance for the sins they committed, rather than the playful indulgence He displayed toward them; for had He shown them even a bit of stern displeasure, they would have repented. The generation of the Flood enjoyed only good: it is written that they would sow once every forty years, that all their days were like the pleasant season from Pesach to Shavuot, with no need for heating or cooling, and that they could traverse from one end of the world to the other in just a few paces. A utopia. Yet in the end, they were all destroyed. Had Hashem shown them an angry countenance, had they received a few blows, they would have awakened. But He laughed with them, showed them a smiling face, and they did not repent.
Likewise, the Midrash states: It would have been better for Adonijah had his father grieved him for every sin he committed, rather than the indulgent affection he showed him, which ultimately led to his death. "And his father had not grieved him at any time, saying: Why have you done so?" - King David never rebuked him for his actions, and as a result, Adonijah rose up and rebelled against his father. We learn from this: when there is no rebuke and no display of anger, it often causes great harm in the end. Therefore, anger is better than laughter - there are times when anger and reproof are far better than showing a smiling face.
As noted previously in the study of the Prophets based on the Malbim, the Ralbag explains that King David did not succeed in raising his children: look at Adonijah, Absalom, and Amnon. Why? Because he brought them into his royal court, never grieved them, and even granted them ministers and official roles, so they never corrected their ways.
Another explanation was also cited at the time: Why does the verse say "saying: Why have you done so" in the past tense, rather than "Why are you doing so"? Because Adonijah was the son of Haggith, and Haggith was an eshet yifat to'ar (a woman taken captive in war). It is written that whoever marries a captive woman will ultimately father a stubborn and rebellious son. Therefore, "his father had not grieved him" - for had he grieved him, Adonijah would have answered: Why have *you* done so? Why did you marry a captive woman? That is to say, "Why have you done so" is what Adonijah would have said to David.
"For through a sad countenance the heart is improved" - when a person is shown a stern countenance, his heart is transformed, he betters himself, and mends his ways. Had Hashem shown a stern face, man would have corrected his ways; but when He showed a smiling countenance - just as David showed a smiling face to his son even for misdeeds - the heart was not improved, and he did not mend his ways.
The Alshich sees this verse as linked to the preceding one. We noted that it is better to go to a house of mourning even over a feast celebrating a mitzvah, and that even from a banquet hall one can depart with humility - since people marry to bring forth descendants, which is a sign that they themselves are destined to depart this world, and from this too the living can take it to heart and draw moral instruction. If so, one might argue: since both are mitzvot, perhaps it is actually preferable to go to a joyous place rather than a depressing one. In a house of mourning, one sees the mourners in their grief and anguish over their deceased loved one, especially if he died prematurely - and incidentally, there is no real concept of "premature," for that is only from our human perspective, as a person always passes away at his appointed time; one may say "cut down in his prime," but not prematurely - and he hears complaints and expressions of anguish from the mourners, which might seemingly distance him from the service of Hashem. Perhaps, then, it would be better to go to a place of joy, since when a person is joyful he has greater desire to fulfill mitzvot, and out of joy the eyes of the intellect will be opened to understand and discern the end of a matter from its beginning.
Regarding this, Shlomo says: Better is anger - that anger a person hears in the house of mourning - than the laughter heard in a banquet house, at a wedding. Why? "For through sadness of the face, the heart is improved": that somber expression he absorbs in that place, when he sees the mourner distressed and in pain, is what brings the living to take it to heart and draws him closer to the service of Hashem. The mourner's distress does not turn you into an angry person, but merely imparts a measure of gravity to your countenance, and this itself will improve your heart and rectify your deeds far more than the laughter heard in a banquet house, where, on the contrary, it distances a person rather than drawing him near. Therefore, it is preferable in every respect to go to a house of mourning.
The Gemara in Masechet Shabbat explains: What is the meaning of "Better is anger than laughter"? Better is the anger the Holy One, Blessed is He, directs at the righteous in this world than the laughter He laughs with the wicked in this world. This is similar to what we explained earlier regarding the Generation of the Flood and Adoniyah: it would have been better for the wicked person had the Holy One, Blessed is He, been exacting with him and displayed anger toward him in this world, rather than laughing with him. The wicked person with whom you see Hashem, as it were, laughing - it is bad for him; and the righteous person with whom Hashem, as it were, is angry - it is good for him. The anger comes to purge the righteous person of his sins, while the laughter with the wicked is in order to exact full retribution from him in the World to Come for all his transgressions. Had the Holy One, Blessed is He, shown a little anger toward him here - it would have been far better for him.
In the sefer Torat Zahav, it is explained: What is "Better is anger"? At times anger is good, when it is for the sake of a mitzvah. Yet is a person permitted to become angry for the sake of a mitzvah? Even for a mitzvah, it is forbidden to become angry. Rather, the intention is to an anger of the face, not anger of the heart. If one's son did something improper, the father displays a stern countenance, raises his voice slightly, and expresses anger toward him - and through this, the son rectifies his ways. But if he never rebuked or distressed him, we have seen what befell Adoniyah.
And this is "Better is anger than laughter" - good is anger that stems from laughter, meaning that deep within, the person is laughing and not truly angry. This does not mean, Heaven forbid, that he finds the matter amusing, but rather that in his heart he harbors no genuine feelings of wrath; the anger is merely an outward display. And why? "For through a stern countenance the heart is made better" - the severity is only on the face, showing a stern look, while inwardly his heart remains calm and good-natured, free from wrath. This is the proper form of anger for a person when he needs to inspire reverence and discipline.
The two verses before us point us in the very same direction. "It is better to go to a house of mourning" - the place where the reality of death is evident and absolute, applying equally to the poor and the rich, to the living and the dead; where one receives reward; and where one has the final opportunity to perform true loving-kindness (chesed shel emet). Therefore, even the very preparation and intention to go there is preferable to actually going to a banquet house, where the noise and revelry prevent a person from contemplating. And "Better is anger than laughter" - for a stern countenance rescues a person and guides him toward betterment, whereas unchecked laughter and abundance lead to ruin, as with the Generation of the Flood and with Adoniyah; provided that it is anger of the face and not anger of the heart, where the sternness remains on the face alone, while inwardly the heart is well and at peace.