Shabat Jol Hamoed Sucot 5777 - English

Rabbi Gustavo Kraselnik

Congregacion Kol Shearith Israel

On the Shabbat for Chol HaMoed Sukkot, generally during Shacharit and before the service of the Torah, it is customary to read the book of Kohelet, Ecclesiastes. 

Possibly one of the most profound biblical books, the text is composed by 12 chapters and comprises an exhaustive reflection on the meaning of life.  Kohelet, the pseudonym used by the author, means “he who gathers the congregation” (it comes from the root K.H.L.).

He would appear to be some sort of preacher who presents himself as a son of David, King in Jerusalem.  From there, the Midrash (Kohelet Raba 1:2) identifies him with King Solomon, who is attributed with the Song of Songs and Proverbs. (Even though the Talmud – Baba Batra 15a – claims that all three were written by King Hezekiah.)  The author writes from the standpoint of an older man who knew how to be rich and wise, and who shares his existential concerns at the end of his days.  

The reading of Kohelet in Sukkot is not mentioned in the Masechet Soferim (post Talmudic treaty), which does occur with other meguilot that are read on specific festivities (14:3).  The oldest source that mentions it is the Mahzor Vitri (France, XII Century), written by the disciples of Rashi. 

Many reasons have been given throughout the centuries to explain the reading of Kohelet during Sukkot.  The most well-known asserts that the biblical text –which delves into the most transcendental subjects of human experience– is a counterweight for the climate of excessive joy with surrounds this celebration.  

In the words of Rabbi Azaryah Figo (Italy, 1579-1647): “Too much joy causes confusion and removes from the heart the necessary humility to serve God… which is why it was ordered that the book of Kohelet be read in Sukkot.” (Freely translated for this commentary from a quote given by Prof. David Golinkin in his Responsum on this subject.)

Some of the phrases in Kohelet have become very popular, although in my experience most people are unaware of their origin.  “There is nothing new under the sun” (1:9) “Everything has an appointed season, and there is a time for every matter under heaven: a time to give birth, and a time to die; a time to sow, and a time to reap…” (3:1-2) and “Go, eat your bread joyfully and drink your wine with a merry heart, for God has already accepted your deeds” (9:7) which could be considered a summary of the vision of Kohelet. 

Probably the most famous quote is the one found at the beginning of the book and then again almost at the end: “Vanity of vanities, said Kohelet, all is vanity” (1:2 and 12:8).

Surprisingly, this verse is in the third person, while nearly the rest of the book is heard through Kohelet in the first person.  This has drawn the attention of some commentators.  The most daring in his analysis, the Rashbam (Rabbi Samuel ben Meir, grandson of Rashi, Troy 1085-1158) claims that both verses set the external boundaries of the text and were added by an editor.  

In other words, according to him, the book would start on Kohelet 1:3, and what is most surprising, it would end on 12:7, leaving the long paragraph at the end (12:8-14) as an addition by an editor.  And that addition appears to sweeten the message of the text. 

This is how Kohelet ends: “The end of the matter, everything having been heard, fear God and keep His commandments, for this is the entire man.  For every deed God will bring to judgment, for every hidden thing, whether good or bad.” (12:13-14)

Thus, keep the mitzvot and accept the divine judgment which will manifest in an uncertain future.  

But if the book were to end on 12:7, the message would be the opposite: “And the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God, Who gave it.”  It is over. The body becomes dust, the spirit returns to God.  And there is nothing else…

Which of the two endings goes better with the values of Sukkot?  Which of the two endings is a better counterweight for the festive ambience?  

Would it be the notion of divine justice and accountability for our actions or the knowing that in the end it is all just over?  Would it be the transcendence of our existence or the futility of our passing through the world?  Is vanity what must take me in search for the divine presence or is it the consequence of knowing that nothing has any meaning?

Many questions remain open.

I carry the hope that in the reading of Kohelet we may find some indication to try to answer them.

Shabbat Shalom and Moadim Lesimcha

Gustavo