FOR

A SEVEN DAY PERIOD YOU SHALL LIVE IN SUKKOT.

EVERY RESIDENT AMONG

THE ISRAELITES SHALL LIVE IN SUKKOT

(Vayikra

23:42)

All seven days, one

makes his sukkah into [one's] regular [dwelling] and

his home in to an occasional [dwelling]. If rains fall, at what point may he

leave the sukkah? When the porridge

becomes spoiled [by rain falling into it]. [The Sages] spun a parable:

To what may this be compared – to a servant who came to pour a cup for his

master, and he poured a jug on his face.

(Mishna Sukkah

2:9)

A question was asked of

the scholars: Who poured on whom? Come and hear that which was taught in

a braita: His master poured a jug on his face and

said to him: "I do not want you to serve me."

(Sukkah 29a)

Who poured on whom? The servant [poured for] his master, and this is the meaning: This may be compared to a

servant who did not serve his master properly; similarly, [through the fact

that rain falls on Sukkot] we know that Israel has

not served [God] properly. Or perhaps this is the meaning: His master poured a

jug on his face, as to say "Leave my presence, I do not want you to serve

me" – The rainfall is the pouring of the jug,

and in any case, it is

an omen of curse. But the meaning of our braita is

that the scholars were asked "The pouring of the jug is [comparable] to

what – to the dwelling in the sukkah, or to the rainfall?

(Rashi

ad loc)

"And spread over us Your

sukkah of peace,

the sukkah of compassion, life,

and peace"

Menachem Klein

The connection between the Sukkot festival and

the megilah of Kohelet

which is customarily during the holiday seems strange. Sukkot

is "the season of our joy" while Kohelet

expresses despair, pessimism, and deep skepticism. Sukkot

is a festival with great love of life, an outburst of vitality in the wake of

the High Holy days, which were designed to impose order and discipline from

above and to encourage us to choose life. Repentance, prayer, and charity set

aside the evil decree of death. Contrastingly, in Kohelet

(2:17) we find the verse, I hated the living.

Kohelet emphasizes the vanity of our living existence

and how death – final extinction – waits at the end of every human endeavor and

at the end of every life. Life is an illusion compared to the true reality of

death and termination.

These contradictions do not arise solely out of the encounter between Kohelet and the holidays of Tishrei;

they are built into the book itself:

This book contains difficult words. Sometimes one thing is stated in

many places while its opposite is stated elsewhere. That is why the Sages of

Israel said: "The Sages wanted to hide away the Book of Kohelet because it contradicts itself." It says [both]:

Better wrath than laughter and its opposite: Be not hasty with your spirit to become

wroth, for wrath lies in the bosom of fools. And also: For in much wisdom is

much vexation, and its opposite: It

is better to go to a house of mourning. And also: And I praised joy, and its opposite: and

concerning joy [I asked], "What does this accomplish?" And also: For

what advantage has the wise man have over the fool? And its

opposite: There is an advantage to wisdom. And also: And I praised

the dead and its opposite: better a living dog [than a dead lion]. And

also: for there is neither deed nor reckoning, neither knowledge nor wisdom

in the grave. And its opposite: There is a

season for every purpose. And also: But it will not be well with the

wicked, and he will not prolong [his] days. And its

opposite: There is a wicked man who prolongs his days. And also: …that

it will be good for those who fear God. And its

opposite: there are wicked men to whom it happens according to the deed of

the righteous. One who seeks diligently will find others like these in the

book. (Ibn Ezra on Kohelet 7:3)

Following the Sages, Ibn Ezra asks whether

this book be counted as part of Holy Scripture when "it is known that even

the least among the wise would not write a book contradicting his own words in

his own book."

This is not a question regarding one verse or another, but rather a

matter of principle. Its answer will determine the interpretive approach to the

entire book. One possibility is to assume that the contradictions are merely

apparent. That is the policy of the Sages and the classical commentaries who

interpreted Kohelet in such a way that it would jibe

with the truths found in other books of the canon. Ibn

Ezra himself supports this approach: "We knew that there is no contradiction

in its words, rather, they are all proven to he who understands, and correct

for those who find knowledge" (ibid). Ibn Ezra dismisses the possibility that King

Solomon, the wisest of men, would commit an error that the least among the wise

would have avoided. We need to change our view of the book. Ibn

Ezra rejects the approach taken by one of the exegetes (his name remains

unmentioned) who suggested a different solution to Kohelet's

many internal contradictions. This commentator claims that the contradictions

arise from the fact that the book was not composed by a single author but

rather by many different writers who were all Solomon's students. The word kohelet [related to kahal

= "congregation" or "assembly"] points to a collection of

thoughts belonging to various people. "His students composed the book and

each of them expressed his own thoughts" (ibid). Ibn

Ezra bases his rejection of this approach upon verses that indicate the book's

having being written by a single author rather than comprising a compilation of

passages by a number of different authors.

Rabbi Yoel Bin-Nun summarizes the various

exegetical approaches to the book in an article available at http://www.ykd.co.il/hebrew/shiurim/rav_yoel/kohelet.htm.

He points out that the approach adopted by Ibn Ezra

and the Sages does violence to the plain meaning of the text while preserving

the unity of the biblical religious world view. The verse which is repeated by

the congregation at the culmination of the reading of Kohelet,

The sum of the matter, when all is said and done: Revere God and observe His

commandments! For this is all there is for man, is the great leveler, the motto

which wipes away doubts and heresy and lights the way of faith and

commandments.

In contrast, the critical approach claims that the book's message is

subversive, thus turning the traditional approach on its head. According to the

critical view, Kohelet was originally written in

opposition to biblical faith but was later corrected by the editors of the

Scriptural canon in order to make it jibe with the other texts of Hebrew

Scripture. This correction was not achieved through deletion but rather through

the addition of verses reflecting established religious ideas that contradicted

the subversive passages. Thus the book lost its unified structure and became

the work of more than one hand. Of course, the critical approach prefers the

subversive message to that which it sees as expressing editorial emendation. Both

the traditional as well as the critical approaches seek a unified structure and

play down the importance of the book's other voice. As against this, Rabbi Bin

Nun believes that the other voice should not be disparaged. However, he is not

willing to go so far as to grant full legitimacy to the skeptical and

subversive voice. He champions an interpretation built upon the assumption that

the book is deliberately structured as a debate between different voices all of

which arise from the mouth of a single author whose own views are actually unambiguous.

Kohelet is a riddle that carries its own solution

within itself; its contradictions stimulate skepticism in order to support and

validate faith. According to his reading, the skeptical themes of Kohelet are instrumental both for the book's religious

message as well as for its structural unity. Such themes generate skepticism,

but they are part of the question and not part of the answer.

Yoel Bin Nun is not prepared to accept Mordechai Zer-Kavod's interpretation, found in the introduction to

the Da'at Mikra

edition, pp. 33-39. Yoel Bin-Nun correctly identifies

the interpretive orientation which, because Da'at

Mikra is an officially Orthodox commentary, Zer-Kavod conceals behind his careful linguistic

formulations. According to Zer-Kavod, Kohelet's dominant tone is that of the believer – that is

why the book could enter the canon. However, Kohelet's

skepticism is genuine rather than instrumental. The subversive voices do not

come to serve faith, but rather stand on their own in defiance of faith. Human

beings carry out wicked deeds and God is silent. Wisdom does not protect us

from heaven-sent misfortune or from human evil. The question does not serve the

answer, but rather stands independently and undermines the answer's certainty.

Beyond the debate over which interpretive strategy better fits the text,

Zer-Kavod's way of thinking better reflects human

reality. Kohelet describes human experience with all

its contradictions.

Let us return to my opening words regarding the contradiction between

the Sukkot festival and the Book of Kohelet. The contradiction is itself the heart of the

matter and not something to be resolved. The contradictory connection between Sukkot and Kohelet is itself the

message. One can find this contradiction within Sukkot

itself. The festival of Sukkot points in the other

direction, towards an alternative, and grants it a legitimate place. It

is precisely when we leave our summer home and gather in our crops that we are

required to move from our solid permanent homes into temporary dwellings. It is

precisely when the year begins anew and the temporal routine is re-established

– the Days of Awe which mark the social order, government, and discipline [malkhuyot – the shofar

blasts of "kingship", din – justice, reward and punishment] and the temporal regime [year, month, day] – that Sukkot comes and overturns that order, marking a different

direction that is also part of existence.

Dr. Menachem Klein is a member of the editorial board of Shabbat

Shalom. He teaches in Bar Ilan University's

Department of Political Science.

Clouds of Glory Point to

Human Dependence on God and Encourage Humility

For a seven day period you shall live in sukkot – in

parallel to the clouds of glory.

Every resident among the Israelites shall live in sukkot – the

stranger does not have to be told this because he has no other

home, but the residents and

those settled in Israel must dwell in sukkot, even if

they own houses and large palaces. This festival is set for the time that grain

and grapes are harvested lest their hearts become haughty over their houses

that are full of all good things, and they say our

hands produced all of this wealth. Dwelling

in the sukkah will bring them to praise and thank He

who gave them hereditary lands and houses full of all good things.

(Hizkuni

Vayikra 23:42)

What is Good for Man?

The antithesis between the constantly repeated question

– what is good for man? – and nothing is discovered which is good

for man – and the final verse, which does not say what is good for man but rather what is the totality

of man – that is to say, what is

the significance of human existence in a world in which nothing is good for man?

– this antithesis proves that the final verse is not

an addendum tacked on by a God-fearing Jew who had been shocked by the

skepticism and heresy found in the author's words. It is rather quite the

opposite: that verse expresses the author's own main intention. Kohelet does not say fear God and observe His

commandments, for that is good

for man. Rather, he says in a

demonstrative and blatant fashion: for that is the totality of man. Here faith and the service of God are seen

as independent values, not as means for the gain of benefit.

(From

Prof. Yeshayahu Leibowitz z"l's He'arot le'Parashiyot Ha'Shavu'a pg.

137.)

No man has knowledge of

the site of his burial place

God did this because,

were the site of his [Moses'] burial to be known, future generations might err and

make a god of him [i.e., worship at his grave] because of the

wonders he performed. Indeed, we see how some of the Israelites erred with

respect to the copper serpent that Moses made, because of the greatness of its

creator (II Kings 18:4), but since God

buried him in miraculous fashion [without human involvement which would have

revealed the burial place], no one ever touched his grave.

(RaLBaG, Devarim

34:6)

…and the cemetery is

marked off, and a memorial stone is erected over the grave, and the righteous

have no stone erected to their memory, for their words are their memorial,

and people will not turn to visiting gravesites.

(RaMBaM, Laws of Mourning 4:4)

"Rejoice and Be Happy on Simhat Torah" – On the Difference Between

Joy (Sasson) and Happiness (Simha)

Simha is present on the occasion of the beginning or the renewal of something

which makes man happy; sasson is

present when that something reaches positive completion, as in [the verse from

the liturgical poem, El Adon], "Happy in

their going out, and rejoicing upon arrival" – when they [celestial

sources of light] go out to shed light upon the earth, they are happy; when

they reach the west, having completed their beneficial activity, they are

joyful… This being the case, why, in reference to Simhat

Torah, do we first say "Rejoice" and afterwards "Be happy"?

It is because these commands are said after the reading of the Torah; we

complete the Torah cycle, and immediately begin again from Bereishit.

Therefore we say "Rejoice" upon the completion and "Be

happy" on the new beginning.

(Brought in Taamei

Haminhagim (Mekore

Ha'dinim) attributed to the Gaon

of Vilna)

If you enjoy Shabbat Shalom, please consider contributing towards

its publication and distribution.

• Hebrew edition distributed in Israel

  $700

• English edition distributed via email $

  100

Issues may be dedicated in honor of an event, person, simcha, etc. Requests must be made 3-4 weeks in advance to

appear in the Hebrew, 10 days in advance to appear in the English email.

In Israel, checks made out

to Oz VeShalom may be sent to Oz VeShalom-P.O.B.

4433, Jerusalem 91043. Unfortunately there is no Israeli tax-exemption for

local donations.

US and British tax-exempt contributions to Oz VeShalom may be made through:

New Israel Fund, POB 91588, Washington, DC 20090-1588, USA

New Israel Fund of Great Britain, 26 Enford

Street, London W1H 2DD, Great Britain

PLEASE NOTE THAT THE NEW ISRAEL FUND IS NO LONGER ACCEPTING DONATIONS

UNDER $100.

PEF will also channel donations and provide a tax-exemption. Donations

should be sent to P.E.F. Israel Endowment Funds, Inc., 317 Madison Ave.,

Suite 607, New York, New York 10017 USA

All contributions should be marked as donor-advised to Oz ve'Shalom, the Shabbat Shalom project.

About us

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom is a movement

dedicated to the advancement of a civil society in Israel. It is committed to

promoting the ideals of tolerance, pluralism, and justice, concepts that have

always been central to Jewish tradition and law.

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom shares a deep

attachment to the land of Israel and it no less views peace as a central

religious value. It believes that Jews have both the religious and the national

obligation to support the pursuit of peace. It maintains that Jewish law

clearly requires us to create a fair and just society, and that co-existence

between Jews and Arabs is not an option but an imperative.

5,000

copies of a 4-page peace oriented commentary on the weekly Torah reading are written

and published by Oz VeShalom/Netivot Shalom and they

are distributed to over 350 synagogues in Israel and are sent overseas via

email. Our web site is www.netivot-shalom.org.il.