Ecc 5:9-11 | KD | STEP | The author, on the other hand, now praises the patriarchal form of government based on agriculture, whose king takes pride, not in bloody conquests and tyrannical caprice, but in the peaceful promotion of the welfare of his people: “But the advantage of a country consists always in a king given to the arable land.” What impossibilities have been found here, even by the most recent expositors! Ewald, Heiligst., Elster, Zöckl. translate: rex agro factus = terrae praefectus ; but, in the language of this book, not עבד but מלך עשׁה is the expression used for “to make a king.” Gesen., Win., de Wette, Knobel, Vaih. translate: rex qui colitur a terra ( civibus ). But could a country, in the sense of its population in subjection to the king, be more inappropriately designated than by שׂדה? Besides, עבד certainly gains the meaning of colere where God is the object; but with a human ruler as the object it means servire and nothing more, and נעבּד can mean nothing else than “ dienstbar gemacht ” made subject to, not “honoured.” Along with this signification, related denom. to עבד, נעבד, referred from its primary signification to שׂדה, the open fields (from שׂדה, to go out in length and breadth), may also, after the phrase עבד האדמה, signify cultivated, wrought, tilled; and while the phrase “made subject to” must be certainly held as possible (Rashi, Aben Ezra, and others assume it without hesitation), but is without example, the Niph . occurs, e.g. , at , in the latter signification, of the mountains of Israel: “ye shall be tilled.” Under , Hitzig, and with him Stuart and Zöckler, makes the misleading remark that the Chethı̂b is בּכל־היא, and that it is = בּכל־זאת, according to which the explanation is then given: the protection and security which an earthly ruler secures is, notwithstanding this, not to be disparaged. But היא is Chethı̂b, for which the Kerı̂ substitutes הוּא; בּכּל is Chethı̂b without Kerı̂; and that בּכל is thus a modification of the text, and that, too, an objectionable one, since בכל־היא, in the sense of “in all this,” is unheard of. The Kerı̂ seeks, without any necessity, to make the pred. and subj. like one another in gender; without necessity, for היא may also be neut.: the advantage of a land is this, viz., what follows. And how בּכּל is to be understood is seen from Ezr 10:17, where it is to be explained: And they prepared the sum of the men, i.e. , the list of the men, of such as had married strange wives; cf. 1Ch 7:5. Accordingly בכל here means, as the author generally uses הכל mostly in the impersonal sense of omnia : in omnibus, in all things = by all means; or: in universum , in general. Were the words accentuated מלך לשדה נעבד, the adject. connection of לשׂ נע would thereby be shown; according to which the lxx and Theod. translate τοῦ αγροῦ εἰργασμένου; Symm., with the Syr., τῇ χώρα εἰργασμένη: “a king for the cultivated land,” i.e. , one who regards this as a chief object. Luzz. thus indeed accentuates; but the best established accentuation is מלך לשדה נעבד. This separation of נעבד from לש can only be intended to denote that נעבד is to be referred not to it, but to מלך, according to which the Targ. paraphrases. The meaning remains the same: a king subject (who has become a servus ) to the cultivated land, rex agro addictus , as Dathe, Rosenm., and others translate, is a still more distinct expression of that which “a king for the well-cultivated field” would denote: an agriculture-king, - one who is addicted, not to wars, lawsuits, and sovereign stubbornness in his opinions, but who delights in the peaceful advancement of the prosperity of his country, and especially takes a lively interest in husbandry and the cultivation of the land. The order of the words in is like that at ; cf. ; Isa 22:2. The author thus praises, in contrast to a despotic state, a patriarchal kingdom based on agriculture.

‏ Ecclesiastes 5:9-11

The author, on the other hand, now praises the patriarchal form of government based on agriculture, whose king takes pride, not in bloody conquests and tyrannical caprice, but in the peaceful promotion of the welfare of his people: “But the advantage of a country consists always in a king given to the arable land.” What impossibilities have been found here, even by the most recent expositors! Ewald, Heiligst., Elster, Zöckl. translate: rex agro factus = terrae praefectus; but, in the language of this book, not עבד but מלך עשׁה is the expression used for “to make a king.” Gesen., Win., de Wette, Knobel, Vaih. translate: rex qui colitur a terra (civibus). But could a country, in the sense of its population in subjection to the king, be more inappropriately designated than by שׂדה? Besides, עבד certainly gains the meaning of colere where God is the object; but with a human ruler as the object it means servire and nothing more, and נעבּד ^{▼▼Thus pointed rightly in J., with Sheva quiesc. and Dagesh in Beth; vid., Kimchi in Michlol 63 a, and under עבד.} can mean nothing else than “dienstbar gemacht” made subject to, not “honoured.” Along with this signification, related denom. to עבד, נעבד, referred from its primary signification to שׂדה, the open fields (from שׂדה, to go out in length and breadth), may also, after the phrase עבד האדמה, signify cultivated, wrought, tilled; and while the phrase “made subject to” must be certainly held as possible (Rashi, Aben Ezra, and others assume it without hesitation), but is without example, the Niph. occurs, e.g., at Eze 36:9, in the latter signification, of the mountains of Israel: “ye shall be tilled.” Under Ecc 5:8, Hitzig, and with him Stuart and Zöckler, makes the misleading remark that the Chethı̂b is בּכל־היא, and that it is = בּכל־זאת, according to which the explanation is then given: the protection and security which an earthly ruler secures is, notwithstanding this, not to be disparaged. But היא is Chethı̂b, for which the Kerı̂ substitutes הוּא; בּכּל is Chethı̂b without Kerı̂; and that בּכל is thus a modification of the text, and that, too, an objectionable one, since בכל־היא, in the sense of “in all this,” is unheard of. The Kerı̂ seeks, without any necessity, to make the pred. and subj. like one another in gender; without necessity, for היא may also be neut.: the advantage of a land is this, viz., what follows. And how בּכּל is to be understood is seen from Ezr 10:17, where it is to be explained: And they prepared ^{▼▼That כלה ב may mean “to be ready with anything,” Keil erroneously points to Gen 44:12; and Philippi, St. Const. p. 49, thinks that vǎkol ǎnāshim can be taken together in the sense of vakol haanashim.} the sum of the men, i.e., the list of the men, of such as had married strange wives; cf. 1Ch 7:5. Accordingly בכל here means, as the author generally uses הכל mostly in the impersonal sense of omnia: in omnibus, in all things = by all means; or: in universum, in general. Were the words accentuated מלך לשדה נעבד, the adject. connection of לשׂ נע would thereby be shown; according to which the lxx and Theod. translate τοῦ αγροῦ εἰργασμένου; Symm., with the Syr., τῇ χώρα εἰργασμένη: “a king for the cultivated land,” i.e., one who regards this as a chief object. Luzz. thus indeed accentuates; but the best established accentuation is מלך לשדה נעבד. This separation of נעבד from לש can only be intended to denote that נעבד is to be referred not to it, but to מלך, according to which the Targ. paraphrases. The meaning remains the same: a king subject (who has become a servus) to the cultivated land, rex agro addictus, as Dathe, Rosenm., and others translate, is a still more distinct expression of that which “a king for the well-cultivated field” would denote: an agriculture-king, - one who is addicted, not to wars, lawsuits, and sovereign stubbornness in his opinions, but who delights in the peaceful advancement of the prosperity of his country, and especially takes a lively interest in husbandry and the cultivation of the land. The order of the words in Ecc 5:8 is like that at Ecc 9:2; cf. Isa 8:22; Isa 22:2. The author thus praises, in contrast to a despotic state, a patriarchal kingdom based on agriculture. Ecc 5:10 “He who loveth silver is not satisfied with silver; and he whose love cleaveth to abundance, hath nothing of it: also this is vain.” The transition in this series of proverbs is not unmediated; for the injustice which, according to Ecc 5:7, prevails in the state as it now is becomes subservient to covetousness, in the very nature of which there lies insatiableness: semper avarus eget, hunc nulla pecunia replet. That the author speaks of the “sacra fames argenti” (not auri) arises from this, that not זהב, but כסף, is the specific word for coin. ^{▼▼A Jewish fancy supposes that כסף is chosen because it consists of letters rising in value (20, 60, 80); while, on the contrary, זהב consists of letters decreasing in value (7, 5, 2).}

Mendelssohn-Friedländer also explains: “He who loveth silver is not satisfied with silver,” i.e., it does not make him full; that might perhaps be linguistically possible (cf. e.g., Pro 12:11), although the author would in that case probably have written the words מן־הכּסף, after Ecc 6:3; but “to be not full of money” is, after Ecc 1:8, and especially Ecc 4:8, Hab 2:5, cf. Pro 27:20 = never to have enough of money, but always to desire more.

That which follows, Ecc 5:9, is, according to Hitz., a question: And who hath joy in abundance, which bringeth nothing in? But such questions, with the answer to be supplied, are not in Koheleth’s style; and what would then be understood by capital without interest? Others, as Zöckler, supply ישׂבּע: and he that loveth abundance of possessions (is) not (full) of income; but that which is gained by these hard ellipses is only a tautology. With right, the Targ., Syr., Jerome, the Venet., and Luther take lo tevuah as the answer or conclusion; and who clings to abundance of possessions with his love? - he has no fruit thereof; or, with a weakening of the interrog. pronoun into the relative (as at Ecc 1:9; cf. under Psa 34:13): he who ... clings has nothing of it. Hamon signifies a tumult, a noisy multitude, particularly of earthly goods, as at Psa 37:16; 1Ch 29:16; Isa 60:5. The connection of אהב with ב, occurring only here, follows the analogy of חפץ בּ and the like. The conclusion is synon. with levilti ho'il; e.g., Isa 44:10; Jer 7:8. All the Codd. read לא; לו in this sense would be meaningless. ^{▼▼In Maccoth 10 a, לו is read three times in succession; the Midrash Wajikra, c. 22, reads לא, and thus it is always found without Kerı̂ and without variation.}

The designation of advantage by tevuah, the farmer enjoys the fruit of his labour; but he who hangs his heart on the continual tumult, noise, pomp of more numerous and greater possessions is possible, to him all real profit - i.e., all pleasant, peaceful enjoyment - is lost. With the increase of the possessions there is an increase also of unrest, and the possessor has in reality nothing but the sight of them. Ecc 5:11 “When property and goods increase, they become many who consume them; and what advantage hath the owner thereof but the sight of them with his eyes?” The verb רבה signifies to increase, the רבב, to be many; but also (which Böttch. denies) inchoatively: to become many, Gen 6:1; rightly, the lxx, ἐπληθύνθησαν. The author has not a miser in view, who shuts up his money in chests, and only feeds himself in looking at it with closed doors; but a covetous man, of the sort spoken of in Psa 49:12; Isa 5:8. If the hattovah, the possession of such an one, increases, in like manner the number of people whom he must maintain increases also, and thus the number of those who eat of it along with him, and at the same time also his disquiet and care, increase; and what advantage, what useful result (vid., regarding Kishron, above, p. 638, and under Ecc 2:21) has the owner of these good things from them but the beholding of them (reith; Kerı̂, reuth; cf. the reverse case, Psa 126:4)? - the possession does not in itself bring happiness, for it is never great enough to satisfy him, but is yet great enough to fill him with great care as to whether he may be able to support the demands of so great a household: the fortune which it brings to him consists finally only in this, that he can look on all he has accumulated with proud self-complacency.