Tuesday, October 2, 2007

Koheles, This Buds For You.

This past Shabbos we read Koheles (Ecclesiastes). In theory the reading is supposed to be a sobering experience in the middle of the festive holiday Sukkos. I, however, found it somewhat refreshing.

According to Jewish commentators the book Koheles was allegedly written by Shlomo (King Solomon). While the actually authorship is in question what is clear is that the piece is an attempt by the author to pass along the results of a personal journey to find the meaning of life. I don't see this megillah as a sacred text, but I do see it as one man's honest, personal, essay (blog entry perhaps?) on the human condition.

The work may seem morbid at first glance, Koheles can't stop talking about dying, but I think he actually has a positive message about how to live your life. Koheles has great difficulty with the injustice that everyone dies regardless of their status (rich, poor, wise, foolish). He never really gets over the idea that we all die regardless of what we obtain or how we conduct ourselves. However, while I don't share his obsession with death I do love his conclusion.

The narrator concludes the work with the line "The end of the matter, everything having been heard, fear God and keep His commandments for this is the entire man." (12:13) but this is clearly not Koheles' point. In my opinion, Koheles' actual conclusion is "Is it not good for a man that he eat and drink and show enjoyment in his work?" (2:24) Koheles basically says "Life is short. God's gift to you is to eat, drink and take satisfaction in a job well done." He makes this point over and over throughout his essay. I've cited eight more examples here:
3:12 I knew that there is nothing better for them but to rejoice and to do good during his lifetime.

3:13 And also, every man who eats and drinks and enjoys what is good in all his toil, it is a gift from God.

3:22 I saw that there is nothing better than that man rejoice in his deeds...

5:17 Behold what I saw is good, it is beautiful to eat drink and to experience goodness with all his work that he does under the sun, the days of his life which God gave to him, that is his portion.

5:18 And every man who God has given riches and property and has given him the ability to eat thereof and to take his portion and to rejoice with his work, that is the gift of God.

6:2 A man whom God gives riches and property and honor, and his soul lacks nothing of all he desires, and God gives him no power to eat it [ability to enjoy it] but another man eats it; this is vanity and a grievous sickness. (Even Rashi accepts the literal translation here!)

6:6 And if he had lived a 1000 years twice and experienced no pleasure, do not all go to one place?

9:7 Go, eat your bread joyfully and drink your wine with a merry heart, for God has already accepted your deeds.
Dispite Koheles' actual words all the commentaries I read supported the narrator's interpretation.

Interestingly, Koheles doesn't seem to believe in the afterlife. As far as I can tell he makes no mention of it. If he did believe in the afterlife it would have been discussed as it ties in directly with all this talk of death. It also would have helped him with the injustice he sees inherent in life on Earth. Personally, I don't believe he was familiar with the concept. Perhaps the idea of life-after-death entered Judaism after Koheles composed his piece.

In any event, Koheles is right. Life is short (5:19). So with that in mind, I raise my beer and drink to you Koheles. We'll all be joining you before long. So it goes. L'Chaim!

(In the spirit of Koheles' narrator here is another famous reinterpretation of his work. Enjoy!)

6 comments:

Holy Hyrax said...

>Personally, I don't believe he was familiar with the concept. Perhaps the idea of life-after-death entered Judaism after Koheles composed his piece.

If kohelet is indeed a later piece written around the time of the greeks(?) and second temple times, I think the notion of an afterlife was already in play. Meaning, that just because he is not mentioning the afterlife does not mean he did not believe in it or that it did not exist.

Miri said...

the Byrds! I love that version of that song.

Orthoprax said...

I think Kohelet makes two points - believe in an accounting of man's deeds, but don't be overly concerned with the trivialities of life. Life is short and as long as you're a good man enjoy it to its fullest because you never know what will happen tomorrow.

It's essentially a piece of middle-path advice. Don't sell your soul for the sake of pleasures because ultimately it's meaningless but also don't forfeit a good life for the sake of your soul because you cannot know your fate - 'do not be over-righteous.'

Similarly, be wise because wisdom is of great utility but do not be over-wise because there are things that are simply beyond the ken of man and will just lead to futile heartache.

I also think that Kohelet was familiar with the concept of an afterlife but that he recognized the specious "wisdom" of those who spoke about it at length.

3:21 - "Who knows if the spirit of man rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?"

Lubab No More said...

orthoprax,
Thanks for pointing out Koheles' mention of the afterlife. It would seem he was indeed aware of the idea. However, it still seems to me that he didn't put much faith in it.

Anonymous said...

"The narrator concludes the work with the line "The end of the matter, everything having been heard, fear God and keep His commandments for this is the entire man." (12:13) but this is clearly not Koheles' point."

It's also probably not original to the work, but a later-added "correction."

Beno said...

Your analysis is very apt. Kohelet's main point is that you should enjoy life. Yishar Kochacha for recognizing what he meant.

He also has a nice line somewhere about finding a good woman to live your life with.

If you enjoy this kind of analysis, you might check out the old Soncino commentaries to NACH. They're in English and are very well written... the introductions are fabulous, and they make good sense out of some very difficult passages. They are the best commentaries on NACH that I have found.