Chapter 9 of Kohelet continues the profound investigation King Solomon pursued in the previous chapters: What is the nature of the Holy One, Blessed be He's governance of His world, and why does a superficial observation of the world fail to reveal who is beloved before the Omnipresent and who is despised? Solomon does not intend, Heaven forbid, to question the justice of Divine judgment, but rather to demonstrate how far human comprehension is from grasping the ways of Divine Providence. We will follow the order of the verses, presenting the commentaries, Midrashim, and the remarkable classification of all humankind set forth by the Imrei Shefer.
כִּי אֶת־כָּל־זֶה נָתַתִּי אֶל־לִבִּי וְלָבוּר אֶת־כָּל־זֶה, אֲשֶׁר הַצַּדִּיקִים וְהַחֲכָמִים וַעֲבָדֵיהֶם בְּיַד הָאֱלֹהִים; גַּם־אַהֲבָה גַם־שִׂנְאָה אֵין יוֹדֵעַ הָאָדָם, הַכֹּל לִפְנֵיהֶם. - "For all this I took to heart and clarified it all: that the righteous and the wise and their deeds are in the hand of God; neither love nor hatred does man know, everything is before them."
The Pesikta Zutreta, and likewise the Imrei Shefer along the same lines, explain that here Solomon continues to clarify his words: man cannot comprehend the ultimate purpose of God's governance, nor can he understand how Hashem directs and conducts His world. "I took to heart and clarified" (velavur) - from the root meaning clarification, to perceive matters with true clarity. And what did I come to realize? "That the righteous and the wise and their deeds are in the hand of God." According to most commentators, "their deeds" ('avadeihem) refers to their actions (as in Aramaic ovadohi, his deeds). That is: the righteous, the wise, and their deeds - all are in the hand of Hashem; His providence rules over everything, and nothing lies outside His grasp. Even the pinnacle of creation, the righteous and the wise, are entirely in the hand of God.
"Neither love nor hatred does man know" - similar to phrases such as "neither mine nor yours shall it be," or "neither yesterday nor the day before." In other words, man cannot determine whether God's conduct expresses love or hatred. When a person observes how Hashem deals with the righteous, he might begin to doubt and wonder whether, Heaven forbid, God despises them, since at times the righteous experience what seems fitting for the wicked, as we saw at the conclusion of the previous chapter. From a superficial vantage point, man is left bewildered: Does Hashem love the righteous person or the opposite? And if He loves him, why does He exact punishment from him in this way? To this, Solomon continues: "Everything is before them" - all occurrences in the world, whether good or bad, happen to them as well, even to the righteous. There is a righteous person who fares well, and a righteous person who suffers, just as there is a wicked person who prospers, and a wicked person who suffers. Since the very same external reality is observed among both groups - "Can you find the depth of God? Can you find the ultimate limit of the Almighty?" One who contemplates this realizes that we do not have even the beginning of an understanding of how the Holy One, Blessed be He, governs His world.
Clearly, his intention is not to suggest, Heaven forbid, that Hashem does not love the righteous or that He favors the wicked. His entire point is that upon superficial observation, anyone watching what transpires in the world sees that the righteous sometimes suffer what seems suited to the deeds of the wicked, which raises difficult questions. The straightforward explanation has already been clarified: if it were always good for the righteous and bad for the wicked, free will would be eradicated. Yet reaching the ultimate depths of God's governance and His ways is beyond man's capacity.
Rashi explains: "All this I clarified and discerned, that the righteous and the wise and their servants are in the hand of God." Unlike most commentators, Rashi interprets "their servants" ('avadeihem) in its literal sense: their servants, the disciples who attend to them and follow in their ways. Although the vocalization (with a kamatz under the beit) would make it more suitable to interpret it as "their deeds," which is why most commentators took that approach, Rashi follows his own path.
Regarding "neither love nor hatred," Rashi comments: "Other people do not know and cannot discern to consider who is beloved to the Omnipresent and who is despised." That is, it is difficult for a person to know what is beloved before Hashem and what is despised, for when he sees a righteous person afflicted with harsh decrees and suffering, he might assume that perhaps his actions are despised, and that being righteous is not pleasing in the eyes of God. Based on observable events in this world, one cannot know what is beloved and what is despised; this can be known solely from the holy Torah, from what was transmitted to us through Moshe Rabbeinu, and from what the Holy One, Blessed be He, revealed to us regarding how to find favor in His sight.
Indeed, this is the ultimate aspiration of the righteous, as phrased in Mesillat Yesharim: "And in Your abundant mercy, may You desire us." The righteous seek nothing other than Hashem's favor. Sometimes a person commits a sin and repents, and the Holy One, Blessed be He, forgives him, yet He takes no delight in him. And that is the most terrible state of all. Therefore we pray, "And in Your abundant mercy, may You desire us and accept us favorably" - not merely that we fulfill Your mitzvot, but that Hashem truly desires us. From a superficial perspective, man cannot know what will find favor before Hashem and what will be rejected before Him; it is known solely through the Torah, which guides us on the upright path.
הַכֹּל כַּאֲשֶׁר לַכֹּל, מִקְרֶה אֶחָד לַצַּדִּיק וְלָרָשָׁע, לַטּוֹב וְלַטָּהוֹר וְלַטָּמֵא, וְלַזֹּבֵחַ וְלַאֲשֶׁר אֵינֶנּוּ זֹבֵחַ; כַּטּוֹב כַּחֹטֶא, הַנִּשְׁבָּע כַּאֲשֶׁר שְׁבוּעָה יָרֵא. - All things come alike to all: one fate happens to the righteous and to the wicked; to the good, to the pure, and to the impure; to him who sacrifices and to him who does not sacrifice. As is the good, so is the sinner; one who takes an oath as one who fears an oath.
The plain meaning of the verse is that the exact same thing happens to everyone. Whether you are righteous or wicked, good, pure or impure, one who offers sacrifices or one who does not, good or a sinner, one who takes an oath or one who does not swear - one fate befalls all. From this it appears impossible to perceive and comprehend Hashem's providence.
The Midrash provides striking examples for this verse, and Rashi follows this path as well. Rabbi Shimon bar Abba opened: "'All things come alike to all: one fate happens to the righteous and to the wicked' - 'to the righteous,' this is Noach, of whom it is said, 'a righteous, blameless man was he,' yet when he emerged from the ark, the lion struck him and fractured his limb, leaving him lame. 'And to the wicked,' this is Pharaoh. When Pharaoh came to sit upon Shlomo's throne without knowing its mechanism - and Shlomo's throne was crafted with an intricate mechanism, such that when someone stepped on a particular step the beasts would begin to roar, and anyone who did not know the correct sequence of stepping would receive a blow - the lion struck him and fractured his limb, leaving him lame, and from then on he was called 'Pharaoh Necho' (the lame). Behold: this one died lame, and that one died lame - Noach the righteous, and, lehavdil, Pharaoh the wicked."
"'To the good, to the pure, and to the impure' - 'to the good,' this is Moshe, of whom it is said, 'and she saw that he was good.' 'To the pure,' this is Aharon, who was constantly occupied with the purification of the Jewish people. 'And to the impure,' these are the spies (meraglim). These spoke disparagingly of Eretz Yisrael while those spoke in its praise - a disparity as vast as heaven and earth, and Moshe and Aharon even yearned to enter the Land. Yet what was their end? These did not enter the Land, and those did not enter the Land. Thus, the good, the pure, and the impure met the exact same outcome.
"'To him who sacrifices and to him who does not sacrifice' - 'to him who sacrifices,' this is Yoshiyahu, of whom it is said, 'And Yoshiyahu sacrificed.' 'And to him who does not sacrifice,' this is Achav, who abolished the sacrifices from upon the altar, as it is said, 'And Achav slaughtered sheep and oxen for himself' - for himself he slaughtered, not for Hashem. And what was their end? This one died by arrows, and that one died by arrows: Achav died upon his chariot when the archers struck him, and Yoshiyahu was riddled with arrows like a sieve."
"'As is the good, so is the sinner' - 'as is the good,' this is David, of whom it is said, 'And he sent and brought him, and he had goodly eyes.' What is meant by 'goodly eyes' (tov ro'i)? Rabbi Yitzchak said: He had goodly vision in Halachah, for anyone who looked at him would remember his Torah study. An astounding thing: a living Sefer Torah, such that anyone who gazed upon him remembered everything he had forgotten. 'So is the sinner,' this is Nevuchadnezzar. This one built the Beis HaMikdash and reigned for forty years, and that one destroyed it and reigned for forty years. ('This one built' refers to Shlomo who actually built it, since David only prepared the foundations and materials - yet in any case, he reigned forty years); and the one who destroyed it was likewise granted long life and forty years of reign."
"'One who takes an oath as one who fears an oath' - the one who took an oath and violated it, this is Tzidkiyahu, of whom it is said, 'And he also rebelled against King Nevuchadnezzar, who had made him swear by God.' It is related that he saw Nevuchadnezzar eating a live hare - which they used to do out of cruelty, to accustom themselves not to be refined but rather ruthless men of war - and Nevuchadnezzar made him swear not to reveal it. Others say he made him swear not to rebel against him, yet he rebelled. Later, when they asked him why he broke his oath, he said that the Sages had annulled it for him. By contrast, 'as one who fears an oath,' this is Shimshon, of whom it is said, 'And Shimshon said to them, Swear to me.' Rashi explains that we learn from this that an oath carried great gravity in his eyes: he relied on their oath, for just as a person fears an oath himself, he trusts that others will fear it as well. And what was their end? This one died having his eyes gouged out, and that one died having his eyes gouged out: Shimshon who feared an oath, and Tzidkiyahu, whom they brought to Rivlah and blinded his eyes. Behold, one fate for all."
Vayikra Rabbah adds another example: "'One fate happens to the righteous and to the wicked' - these are the sons of Aharon, and, lehavdil, the assembly of Korach. These entered to offer incense in controversy and emerged burned, while those entered to offer incense without controversy and emerged burned." The assembly of Korach took fire-pans to challenge Moshe and Aharon and emerged burned; Nadav and Avihu entered to offer incense without controversy, for the sake of Heaven, and met the exact same outcome. Thus, one judgment and one fate befalls the righteous and the wicked, the good, the pure, and the impure.
The answer to all this is twofold. First, as explained: so that free will may exist. And if you ask: Is it right that for the sake of free will a wicked person should be granted good he does not deserve, and a righteous person evil he does not deserve? The Malbim already answered this at length at the end of the previous chapter with the parable of a man who was owed a favor by the king - but the king despised him - and so the king gave him his reward in the wilderness, amidst the thorns and briers; but when he was due punishment, the king punished him in the city before the eyes of all. With his beloved, however, the king acted in the opposite manner: the small punishment due him he administered in the wilderness amidst the thorns and briers, while as for the reward - he had him ride in the royal chariot in the city before the eyes of all kings. So it is with the righteous: their complete reward is reserved for them in the World Above, and if you see them suffering punishment here, that is "the thorns and briers," that is the wilderness. What is this world? A fleeting and temporary world. This explanation resolves what we see so that it does not arouse perplexing doubts. We cannot fully comprehend Hashem's governance, but know with certainty: "The Rock, His work is perfect, for all His ways are justice; a God of faithfulness and without iniquity, righteous and upright is He."
Seemingly, the verse is overly wordy. The Imrei Shefer explains: Here Shlomo HaMelech enumerates eleven categories of people according to their factions - all the types of human beings in creation. He organizes them as follows: The entirety of man's service is divided into two - between man and God (prayer, Shabbat, and the like) and between man and his fellow (theft, refraining from distressing others, and the like). The opening, "to the righteous and to the wicked," deals with matters between man and his fellow, for this is the Torah's idiom: "If there be a dispute between men and they approach the court and they judge them, they shall justify the righteous and condemn the wicked" - the one who is in the right is called tzaddik, and the one who is in the wrong is called rasha.
From here on, Shlomo transitions to matters between man and God, which are "the good, the pure, and the impure." In the classical works - as well as in the Kuzari - there is extensive discussion of three categories: the good, the beneficial, and the pleasant. The "good" is one who chooses the good and acts upon it even when it is not pleasant to him, because this is what is desired before Hashem. These are the people who choose an intellectual life, walking before Hashem, engaging in deep contemplation and conceptual understanding, in wisdom and faith. The "beneficial" are the practical people, people of civic life, who possess upright conduct and manners, doing whatever they see as beneficial for proper societal order. And the worst of all is the category of the "pleasant": people of appetite and lust, "resembling beasts," for whom something tastes pleasant to their palate for the moment, though its end is bitter. They have no concern whether something is good, or even whether it is beneficial - the main thing is that it is delicious.
These three categories correspond precisely to "the good, the pure, and the impure." The "good" is literal - he does what is good even when he seems to derive no personal benefit from it, simply because such is Hashem's will. The "beneficial" is worthy of being called "pure," for he is cautious and clean of sin; he does not steal, he does what is necessary and beneficial, and he lives according to civility and upright conduct. And the "pleasant" is called "impure," for he seeks only what pleases his desires, defiling his soul with abhorrent lusts and abominable cravings. Each person chooses and selects his own path.
Now, each of these categories is also subdivided into two. The impure is divided into "one who sacrifices" and "one who does not sacrifice." There is an impure person who is full of remorse: he sinned and enjoyed it, and afterward his conscience smote him. Even though this does not prevent him from repeating the sin a week later - and perhaps he even repented, brought an offering, and then stumbled again - he is called "one who sacrifices." He slaughters his evil inclination, but the next time his inclination slaughters him, and he lapses once more. In contrast, there is someone worse than him: "one who does not sacrifice." This is an impure person who never mends his ways, never regrets, never changes his conduct, and continues on his corrupted path without any pangs of conscience.
Within the "good" there is also a subdivision - "as is the good, so is the sinner." There is an absolute good person, who never veers from the path and does everything precisely according to Halachah without deviating in the slightest. Facing him is the "sinner" (choteh) - which does not necessarily mean a wicked villain, but is related to the idea of missing the mark, even by a millimeter. The word chet denotes a lack or deficiency, as in the phrase "then I and my son Shlomo will be missing (*chata'im*)" - lacking; and to miss the target means to fall short of it. Similarly, "If a man has committed a sin worthy of death (*chet mishpat mavet*)" - which the Holy Ari expounded in his eulogy for the Ramak, explaining that he was entirely lacking any cause for a death sentence, for he was a great tzaddik. Thus, within the "good" itself there are two levels: a good person who never errs, and a good person who sometimes misses the mark of ultimate truth.
And within the "pure" there is also a division: completely pure, and pure that is not completely pure - and this is "he who swears, as he who fears an oath." The pure are the people of the beneficial, keepers of law, uprightness, and justice. Such a person, when sued in a monetary matter, will rule leniently for himself rather than stringently - for according to his worldview, it is more beneficial to rule leniently for himself. In contrast, there is a completely pure individual who, when encountering a doubt, does not rule leniently for himself; instead, he acts stringently upon himself and pays out of his own pocket just to avoid any doubt.
A story is told about Rav Shteinman. He was notified that an individual was scheduled to arrive to receive an amount of money from Kupat Ha'ir, around five thousand shekels. They brought the Rav an envelope so he could hand it to the person - evidently so the recipient would not feel embarrassed receiving charity directly. The man visited the Rav, but the Rav did not give it to him. Afterward, they asked him, "Did the Rav give it to him?" He replied, "I completely forgot about it." Worse yet, he did not know where the envelope was. They searched and searched, but could not find it. The Rav told them, "I will pay for it, in installments, since I cannot afford to pay it all at once." They said to him, "Heaven forbid! The Rav is halachically exempt!" and began presenting halachic arguments why he bore no liability. He said to them, "You are coming to explain to me why I am exempt? I have even more arguments beyond anything you could say! But I am not looking for an exemption. If I can have one less question asked of me up in Heaven, I prefer that. So they won't ask me: Reb Aharon Leib, what happened to that money you were supposed to deliver, where you acted irresponsibly and lost it? I will have an answer - but if it is possible that they simply won't ask me that question at all, take five thousand shekels and let them not ask!"
And this is precisely the distinction. Even at the level of the "pure," which embodies the "beneficial," there is one who forfeits his own money just to avoid entering into a doubt, and there is one who, the moment a monetary doubt arises, claims the money and keeps it for himself - "Who knows, maybe it is mine," perhaps even justifying it as a stringency: "Lest I cause my fellow to stumble into theft." And where is the crucible of testing between these two conducts? The Imrei Shefer explains: the oath. The first one, who takes the money for himself, will also be prepared to swear an oath - for in his mind, he is swearing truthfully and believes justice is on his side (we are not speaking of someone who swears falsely). Whereas the second, who is exceptionally cautious, if he has the slightest doubt regarding the money, will already be afraid to swear over it, lest he stumble into a false oath. These are "he who swears" and "he who fears an oath," the two categories within the people of the beneficial.
Here you have eleven divisions among the types of humanity: in matters between man and his fellow (righteous and wicked), and in matters between man and God - the good, the beneficial, and the pleasant, each of which is subdivided into two. And having mapped out all these types of human beings, Shlomo says: with all of them, you witness one occurrence. Illness comes to everyone, troubles come to everyone, livelihood struggles come to everyone - without distinction between wicked and righteous, or between good and bad. With all of them there are losses and with all of them there are benefits. There are wealthy righteous people and impoverished righteous people; there are wealthy wicked people and impoverished wicked people. From this you see that you cannot grasp Hashem's manner of providence at all.