Strife and rivalries (Part 2)

Verses 4:17-5:6 form a connected vignette, and this is generally reflected in modern translations by starting chapter five with verse 4:17 of the Hebrew text.  The point of the vignette is introduced by verses 4:17 and 5:1 – hasty vows may have enduring and catastrophic consequences (consider Jephthah in Jud 11:31 or Saul in 1 Sam 14:24).  Torah requires every responsible person to fulfill every vow he/she has made (Num 30:2-15), whether convenient or not.  Failure to do so will result in God's judgment on the individual, the family, the clan, or the people as a whole.  Because personal vows are always voluntary (not mandated by Torah) making a vow that exceeds one's ability to fulfill is always a foolish act (v 5:3) – even if it is done in private, for God still hears.  Consequently, never making a vow is always better than making any vow and failing to live up to it (v 4; see also Lv 19:12, Nu 30:2 ff., Dt 23:22-24, Mat 5:33-37). 

['mov]li b/rq;w“ μyhiloa‘h; tyBeAla, ËleTe rv,a}K' Úyl]g“r" rmov] 17

.[r; t/c[}l' μy[id“/y μn:yaeAyKi jb'z: μyliysiK]h' tTemi

Guard your steps when you go to the house of God and draw close to listen unlike the fools presenting a sacrifice, for they do not know that they are doing a bad thing.

This verse begins the new vignette (4:17 – 5:6), which addresses the recommended attitude and conduct of a person when he attempts to interact with God.  The entire vignette includes a positive admonition and three negative commands.  Failure to adhere to the positive admonition will result in conduct addressed by the negative commands.  Failure to follow the advice given by the negative commands will bring a possibly devastating judgment from God.  Failure to interact meaningfully and honestly with God at all will result in the ultimate futility of life under the sun described in verses 2:26 and 6:1-7.

['mov]li b/rq;w“ – Úyl]g“r" rmov] The first half of the verse consists of three clauses that summarize the attitude and conduct of a person when he enters into the house of God.  Throughout the Hebrew scriptures, the expression μyhiloa‘h; tyB is a technical term for the either the tabernacle or the temple.  It occurs just five times in the Christian books (Mat 12:4, Mk 2:26, Lk 6:4, 11:51, and Heb 10:21), and all but the passage in Hebrews are referring to events from the kˊˊnt (the Hebrew bible).  Clearly, the author is referring to worshippers entering into the temple precincts rather than a synagogue, which never existed in Solomon's time.  The kˊˊnt preserves relatively little detail about the conduct of the worship practices in the first temple.  However, the Torah describes the regular priestly duties at the altar and within the holy place, David established the corps of Levitical singers for the temple worship, and the Levites evidently were responsible for teaching the people.  So the pair of commands – guard your feet … come close to hear – were intended primarily for the ordinary people, not the priests or the Levites.  The people were to come circumspectly to learn and then do what God expected of them.

jb'z: μyliysiK]h' tTemi   This clause presents the alternative of not following the positive command; however, all of the ancient translations had problems with this clause.  The NASB translation is ‘… rather than to offer the sacrifice of fools.’  This translation makes excellent sense in the context, but if the existing consonantal text is even approximately correct, it is not possible syntactically.  tTemi is a qal infinitive construct of ˆtn configured as the object of the preposition ˆmi.  The fundamental meaning of this preposition is separation.  In this context it could express comparison (more than) or cause (because).  μyliysiK]h' is a definite mp noun, and as such it cannot be the governing noun in a construct chain; so ‘the sacrifice of fools’ is not a possible translation for the text as it stands.  More likely, ‘the fools’ is the subject of the infinitive, and jb'z: (pausal form for the ms noun jb'z<) is the object of the infinitive.  (See Gen 29:19 for an example of tTemi introducing just such an infinitive clause.)  Consequently, the point of the passage is that going before God to listen, learn, and do is superior to the superficial ceremonial rite of sacrifice.  An additional question is what type of offering is being referred to?  The priests officiated for everything presented at the altar, but individuals brought sacrifices for sin offerings, for peace offerings, for free will offerings, for first fruits, and for vows.  In my estimation, these personal types of offering are the ones specifically in mind.  Of these, only the sin and first fruits offerings are demanded by Torah; the remaining three were voluntary.

.[r; t/c[}l' μy[id“/y μn:yaeAyKi This last clause gives an explanatory assessment of the practice of the fools in the presence of God.  The specific assertion is that the fools giving offerings on the altar are displeasing – bad – in the sight of God.  This statement must not be understood to mean that the sacrificial offerings themselves were bad or evil.  God himself had commanded the people to conduct the ceremonial worship in a very specific manner, so the ceremonies in themselves could not be bad or displeasing to God.  But the ceremonies were a means to an end, not an end in themselves.  So, a person's failing to come for the purpose of learning and then doing what God wished was the reason why the practice became bad in God's sight.  This is the main thrust of such passages as Isaiah 1:10-20.

Chapter 5

μyhiloa‘h; ynEp]li rb;d: ayxi/hl] rhem'y“Ala' ÚB]liw“ ÚyPiAl[' lheb'T]Ala'  1

.μyFi['m] Úyr<b;d“ Wyh]yI ˆKeAl[' 6r<a;h;Al[' hT;a'w“ μyIm'V;B' μyhiloa‘h; yKi

Do not be hasty with your mouth, and your heart will not be quick to bring a word before God.  Since God is in heaven and you are on the earth, let your words be few.

ÚyPiAl[' lheb'T]Ala' Verse 5:1 continues and expands the topic introduced in 4:17, which addressed one's attitude when coming before God.  This verse addresses one's conduct, particularly verbal conduct, before God.  Since there is no reference to the temple in this or any of the following verses, Solomon appears to be asserting that you are before God regardless of where you might be physically.  The essential content of the admonition is think before you speak. 

μyhiloa‘h; ynEp]li rb;d: ayxi/hl] rhem'y“Ala' ÚB]liw“ Grammatically ÚB]l your heart, the seat of volition, is the subject of the verb.  This clause is synonymously parallel with the previous clause, and so they express the same thing in two different ways.  When one's seat of volition controls one's speech, then one's mouth should remain under control.

6r<a;h;Al[' hT;a'w“ μyIm'V;B' μyhiloa‘h; yKi The last two clauses clearly present the rationale for being circumspect in speech before God.  Because a human is limited in time and space, his judgment and perspective are also limited, particularly when evaluating personal circumstances.  Speaking too quickly about a situation in which one is emotionally involved almost always result in rash comments that may be inaccurate and may be regretted later.  The positive admonition is 'let your words be few.' 

.μyrIb;D“ broB] lysiK] l/qw“ ˆy:n“[i broB] μ/lj}h' aB; yKi  2

Because the dream comes with greatness of a task, but the voice of a fool with many words.

ˆy:n“[i broB] μ/lj}h' aB; yKi  Again we see a sequence of clauses all introduced by yKi.  A common approach to such a sequence is to interpret them all as interconnected with one another.  If we assume this approach is valid, this verse is in some way parallel with the previous clause in which God, who is in heaven, has a perspective beyond that of men on earth.  Just so, a person with a great (in magnitude or significance) task will develop a dream or vision that defines that task; but a fool generates a multitude of words with little or no thought.  (See chapter 10:13-15.)

/mL]v'l] rjea'T]Ala' μyhiloale rd<n< rDoTi rv,a}K'  3

.μLev' rDoTiArv,a} tae μyliysiK]B' 6p,je ˆyae yKi

When you make a vow to God, do not delay to pay it. 
Because there is no delight in fools: what you vow, pay!

μyhiloale rd<n< rDoTi rv,a}K'  This verse almost seems to introduce a completely new topic.  However, people still make vows (or pledges) on the spur of the moment with little thought (or swear oaths that they know are false).  The problem with such vows is that humans lack overall perspective and cannot assess what impact such a vow might have in the future; yet, under Torah, every responsible adult is obligated to make good his vows.  (See Lev 19:12, Num 30.2 ff, Dt 23:21-23.  See also Yeshua's admonition with respect to oaths in Mat 5:34-37.)  Failing to fulfill an oath (vow) makes a fool of that person before God and possibly before his peers.

.μLev't] aloow“ r/DTiV,mi rDotiAalo rv,a} b/f  4

It is better that you not make a vow than that you vow and not pay.

ayhi hg:g:v] yKi Ëa;l]M'h' ynEp]li rm'aToAla'w“ Úr<c;B]Ata, ayfij}l' ÚyPiAta, ˆTeTiAla'  5

.Úyd<y: hc,[}m'Ata, lBejiw“ Úl,/qAl[' μyhiloa‘h; 5xoq]yI hM;l;

Do not allow your mouth to sin against your own flesh (i.e., yourself), and do not say to the messenger, 'It was a mistake.'  Why should God become angry due to your voice and destroy the work of your hands…

Úr<c;B]Ata, ayfij}l' ÚyPiAta, ˆTeTiAla' Literally: Do not give your mouth to make your flesh sin.  Thoughtless speech in the form of an ill-considered or deceitful oath that remains unfulfilled will be counted as sin for the individual.

ayhi hg:g:v] yKi Here yKi could be understood as a relative pronoun introducing an indirect quotation or as the start of a direct quotation.  It has been interpreted as the latter because this clause is the direct object for a verb of speech.

Úyd<y: hc,[}m'Ata, lBejiw“ The verb is a 3ms piel perfect of lBj with vav consecutive.  The vav consecutive continuous the force of the imperfect forms in the previous clauses, and the piel stem of this root means 'ruin, destroy.'

.ar:y“ μyhiloa‘h;Ata, yKi hBer“h' μyrIb;d“W μylib;h}w" t/mloj} brob] yKi  6

… when (temporal yKi) with a multitutde you increase (hiph inf absolute of hbr) dreams, illusions, and words?  Rather (adversative yKi) fear God.

Verses 5 and 6 form the conclusion to this vignette.  Verse 5 is straight forward, but I have always found the structure and content of verse 6 very difficult to understand.  I studied Israeli Hebrew first, and hBer“h' is now nothing but an adverb in the modern language.  Understanding this word as an adverb results in an ungrammatical string of words; neither the ancient translations nor any of the commentaries I have consulted gave any insight into the intended meaning of these words.  Most modern translations merely amend the text to make it intelligible to a reader today.  However, hBer“h' is a hiphil infinitive absolute form in classical Hebrew, and here it functions as a finite verb to continue the force of the last finite verb in the previous context.  (See Williams Hebrew Syntax ¶209 ff for this use.)  In addition, the Masoretic accents connect brob] yK together as a phrase separate from μyrIb;d“W μylib;h}w" t/mloj}, which I take as a compound object for the verb.  These identifications have served as the key to my present understanding for the syntax within this clause.  The net result is this: If one goes along with a crowd and makes a vow he cannot fulfill, he endangers both himself and those he holds dear with severe judgment from God.

ar:y“ μyhiloa‘h;Ata, yKi I take the yK as an adversative to present the alternative to making empty oaths along with (or to impress) the masses.  One who fears/reveres God will strive not to make oaths beyond what he can accomplish.

6p,jeh'Al[' Hm't]TiAla' hn:ydIM]b' ha,r“Ti qd<x,w: fP;v]mi lz<gEw“ vr: qv,[oAμai  7

.μh,yle[} μyhibog“W rmevo H'bog: l['me H'bog: yKi

If you should see extortion of the needy and plunder of justice and righteousness in the province, do not be surprised at the matter, because one official watches over another, and (higher) officials watch over (both of) them.

qd<x,w: fP;v]mi lz<gEw“ vr: qv,[o This string makes up a compound direct object for the finite verb ha,r“Ti.  It is composed of two construct chains.  The first of these consists of a qal ms participle qv,[ governing a second qal participle vr:.  The second phrase consists of an ms noun lz<gE governing two conjoined nouns qd<x,w: fP;v]mi.  This latter construction is uncommon and permitted only when the two nouns are closely related.  (See Williams ¶29b.)  Presenting the direct object first in the clause is emphatic.

vr: As previously mentioned, this is  qal ms participle referring to one who is lacking.  It is generally assumed that it refers to the poor, those lacking material resources.  However, those lacking wisdom, knowledge, or understanding can be and often are easy targets for unscrupulous officials.

hn:ydIM] The English term province now implies a location that is generally remote from the principal centers of authority and governance.  However in classical Hebrew usage, this term could refer to a governmental district up to the size of an entire empire.  Consequently, this verse suggests that one can expect to find such corruption anywhere there is governmental oversight, and this situation often exists to this present time.

.db;[,n< hd<c;l] Ël,m, aYhi lKoB' 6r<a, ˆ/rt]yIw“  8

Yes, profit of a land is with all (of them): a king is served by a field.

The significance of verse 7 is relatively straight forward both grammatically and syntactically, but verse 8 is obscure and considered corrupt by many interpreters.  The verse contains two clauses, and both are difficult semantically.   Let me suggest that this verse may have been composed either from two separate proverbs that have been joined together or from a proverbial couplet.  In either case, the two clauses are intended to serve as a summary and conclusion for the observation in the previous verse.  The first clause is grammatically and semantically simpler than the second:

6r<a, ˆ/rt]yIw“ First, ˆ/rt]yI is the governing word of a construct chain and the subject of the clause.  6r<a, is the bound term and probably is intended to allude back to province in the previous verse.  Clearly, officials who corrupt justice are seeking to extract some of the profit from the location where they exercise authority to benefit themselves.

aYhi lKoB' This expression forms the predicate of the clause.  The interpretive problem is how to understand the preposition -B.  The fact that it is given the vowel for a definite article suggests that the expression is a reference to the corrupt officials of the previous verse.  Semantically possible renderings of the preposition are: 1) accompaniment, 2) beth essentiae (essence, substance), 3) instrument, 4) cost or price.  All of these uses of the preposition appear to be possible for the present context.  The semantic difference between them is as follows:

·      1) The profit of the land is accompanied by all (of these corrupt officials)

·      2) The benefit of the land is all (of these corrupt officials) – sarcastic/ironic

·      3) The profit of the land comes by means of all (these corrupt officials)

·      4) The benefit of the land comes at the cost of all (of these corrupt officials)

Of these possibilities, 1) and 4) appear to be closely related and reasonable.  A productive country will foster development of a class of people who wish to obtain that abundance without bothering to actually produce it.  Similarly, a productive individual can expect to attract parasites who wish to benefit from him without themselves exerting any kind of productive effort.

db;[,n< hd<c;l] Ël,m, This clause and its forms are all simple, but its meaning is not.  db;[,n< is an ms niphal (passive) participle form and may be either an adjective modifying hd<c; or a verbal form in the clause.  As a passive form of the verb db[, it can have either of two meanings: be served, or be worked/cultivated.  There are two possible renderings:

·      1) A king is served by a field.

·      2) A king is (a benefit) for a cultivated field.

Both renderings have been suggested, but the first fits the context of powerful individuals taking advantage over those whom they can exercise control either by fear or by force.  The most obvious examples of this phenomenon are the feudal societies that have existed in virtually every part of the earth.

Verses 9 through 16 appear to be individual proverbs that have been arranged in a sequence to form the final vignette in this section.  It focuses on the illusion or futility of pursuing personal wealth or an abundance of material goods as one’s goal or purpose in life.  The vignette progresses from a general principle stated in verse 9 to a specific kind of consequence (verses 12 and 13) and back to a general principle (verses 14-16).  The pursuit of material goods is an illusion because it does not in itself bring any enduring benefit to the person pursuing them.  It is futile because the possession of such goods is as fragile as the last venture undertaken.  The overall principle that governs every human life is this: We all leave this world just as naked as we were when we came into it.  There has been and there will be no exception to this rule.

ha;Wbt] alo ˆ/mh;B, bheaoAymiW 5s,K, [B'c]yIAalo 5s,K, bheao  9

.lb,h, hz<AμG"

One who loves money (silver) will not be satisfied with money (silver); and whoever loves abundance will not be satisfied with revenue.  This too is futility.

5s,K, bheao This phrase consists of a qal active participle as the governing word in a construct chain.  A more literal rendering of the phrase would be 'a lover of silver….'

ˆ/mh;B, bheaoAymiW ymi is primarily an interrogative pronoun, so the literal meaning of the clause is 'And who is a lover of abundance?'  ˆ/mh;B, bheao should be exactly parallel with 5s,K, bheao in the first half of the verse.  The interpretive problem is that the verb bha never accepts an object complement introduced by B.  Modern interpreters generally take the preposition to be the result of a scribal error.  Although the preposition is present in the LXX, the Greek text deviates from that of the Masoretic Text and is not helpful at this point.

This couplet presents a profound irony that remains as true today as it was in Solomon's day: those who love abundance (money, property, food) are never really satisfied with what they presently have.  There was a survey in the US during the 90's (a time of relative prosperity) that asked people how much income they wanted or needed.  The overwhelming response was just a little more than I get now.  If a person cannot find contentment with his current circumstances, he will not be satisfied should he obtain a little more.  This is just the opposite of Rav Shaul's advice in 1 Tim 6:8 that we should be content with food and coverings (clothes and shelter).

.wyn:y[e t/ar“Aμai yKi h;yl,[;b]li ˆ/rv]KiAhm'W h;yl,k]/a WBr" hb;/Fh' t/br“Bi 10

Along with the increase of goods comes an increase in those who devour them.

So what is the benefit for its owner except to look at it?

WBr" hb;/Fh' t/br“Bi              t/br“ is the infinitive construct of hbr used as the object of the preposition Bi, and WBr" is a 3mp qal perfect from the same root.

hb;/Fh' t/br“Bi            This is an infinitive clause in which hb;/Fh' serves as subject.  The preposition Bi can express accompaniment as rendered above or a temporal force – When goods increase, those who devour them increases.

t/ar“Aμai              The consonantal text is tYar marked with k'tiv-k're.

Verse 10 provides an explanation for the irony described in verse 9.  When a person gains an abundance of material goods, the number of people seeking to gain some benefit from that abundance grows at least in direct proportion.  As a result, the only benefit the owner gains from his growing abundance is to look at it.  But even this is an empty solace.  The reality of this observation has been demonstrated time and again by the experiences of people who have won large amounts of money from a lottery ticket. 

lkeayO hBer“h'Aμai f['m]Aμai dbe[oh; tn"v] hq;Wtm] 11

.ˆ/vyli /l j'yNIm' WNn<yae ryvi[;l, [b;C;h'w“

Sweet is the sleep of the laborer whether he eats much or little,
But the abundance of the rich man will not allow him to sleep.

dbe[oh; tn"v] hq;Wtm] In Solomon's world, the common laborer such as those in the forced labor crews that worked on his building projects were near the bottom of the society.  However, at the end of the day the laborers were weary and so able to sleep soundly.

hBer“h'Aμai f['m]Aμai μai is a particle having a variety of uses.  This construction is one of the special uses in which alternative extremes are indicated.

The comparison between the laborer and the wealthy man presents one of the foremost illusions of great wealth.  The weariness of the laborer causes him to sleep after a day of toil, but the abundance of the wealthy man robs him of rest.  One cause of this situation was stated in the previous verse – the multitude of those trying to get some of his abundance.  Another is described in verses 12 and 13.

./t[;r:l] wyl;[;b]li rWmv; rv,[o vm,V;h' tj'T' ytiyair: hl;/j h[;r: vyE 12

There is a calamitous disease that I have seen under the sun – wealth is guarded by its owners to its destruction.

/t[;r:l] wyl;[;b]li rWmv; rv,[o rWmv; is a qal passive participle, and wyl;[;B] is a mp noun with an ms pronominal suffix – its owners.  /t[;r: is an fs noun with a 3ms pronominal suffix.  The suffix attached to wyl;[;B] clearly applies to rv,[, as this is the only ms noun in the verse.  In contrast, the Greek of the LXX changes wyl;[;B] to singular; so the wealth belongs to one owner, and the owner is hurt.  This is the origin of the NASB translation: 'riches being horded by its owner to his hurt.'  If we take the Hebrew text as it stands, then the verse describes the following scenario: Wealthy individuals are guarding (investing, doing business) with their wealth, but their own activities result in partial or total destruction of that wealth.  This is just the scenario described by the next verse.

.hm;Wam] /dy:B] ˆyaew“ ˆBe dyli/hw“ [r: ˆy:n“[iB] aWhh' rv,[oh; db'a;w“ 13

… And that wealth perished in a bad investment.  Then he begot a son, but he had nothing in his hand (to support him).

aWhh' rv,[oh; db'a;w“ db'a; is a 3ms qal perfect for from the root dba.  As previously mentioned, this root usually means 'perish', but it can mean 'lose.'

I suspect that this scenario fits better in our era than Solomon's.  When most people were subsistence farmers and shepherds, capital investment was not a major social issue.  Neverthelss, even then there were large building projects as well as trade that extended beyond local boundaries.  Failure of a business arrangement could result in loss then just as it does today.

aB;v,K] tk,l,l; bWvy: μ/r[; /Mai ˆf,B,mi ax;y: rv,a}K' 14

./dy:B] ËleYOv, /lm;[}b' aC;yIAalo hm;Wam]W

Just as he came forth naked from his mother’s belly, he will return to go just as he came, and he will not take away any part of his work that will go in his hand.

aB;v,K]  … rv,a}K' rv,a}K' is a conjunction that may have causal (because), temporal (when), or comparative (just as …. so) force.  Usually, the second part of a comparative construction is introduced by ˆKe, but this is missing from the text.  aB;v,K] consists of an abbreviated form of rv,a}K' followed by either a qal ms participle or perfect form of awB.  Since this verb must refer back to his birth, the verb must be understood as a perfect form.

/lm;[}b' aC;yIAalo hm;Wam]W hm;Wam]W is the direct object of the verb, but it is presented first in the clause for emphasis.  The peculiar thing about this clause is that the prepositional phrase /lm;[}b', which modifies hm;Wam], comes after the verb.  In a construction like this, the direct object and its immediate modifiers are usually kept together.

The sum of it all is this: No matter what you do, what you produce, or what you have accumulated, you will leave this life under the sun just as you entered it – naked.  This passage is alluded to by Rav Shaul in 1 Tim 6:7.

.j'Wrl; lmo[}Y"v, /l ˆ/rt]YIAhm'W ËleyE ˆKe aB;v, tm'[uAlK; hl;/j h[;r: hz<Aμg"w“ 15

This is also a calamitous disease – exactly as he came he shall go.  So what is his profit that he should toil for the wind?

tm'[uAlK hm'[u is an fs noun meaning 'juxtaposition.'  Here it is in construct form governing a noun clause.  The resultant force is 'in every respect as he came …'

j'Wrl; lmo[}Y"v, /l ˆ/rt]YIAhm'W This clause essentially repeats the initial question of 1:3.  What is the benefit for the man who spends all his life in pursuit of wealth when he must return to dust just as naked as he was when he was born?  Thus, one who spends his life seeking nothing but personal wealth really is toiling for wind, for nothing substantial.  However one understands the usage of j'Wr here, one characteristic is common to 'wind, breath, or vapor:' they cannot be contained or grasped, they are constantly in motion, and once they have passed by nothing remains.

.5x,q;w: /yl]j;w“ hBer“h' s['k;w“ lkeayO Ëv,joB' wym;y:AlK; μG" 16

Also, each of his days he eats in the dark with much agitation, sickness, and chagrin.

lkeayO Ëv,joB' wym;y:AlK; At first one may be inclined to doubt that this verse characterized the lives of those who live for wealth and popular acclaim, but most of us never know such people well enough to evaluate what kind of lives they have.  Yet, the gossip papers are filled with stories about the collapsed lives of entertainers, sports figures, and others who have pursued a life of self-indulgence.  There are very few of such people who manage to hold on to their illusions until the end of their physical lives.

Verses 5:17 through 6:9 present Kohelet's conclusion from the investigations in chapters 2 through 5.  Verses 5:17-19 present the conclusion positively, and 6:1-9 present it negatively.

ynIa; ytiyair:Arv,a} hNEhi 17

/lm;[}Alk;B] hb;/f t/ar“liw“ t/Tv]liw“Al/ka‘l, hp,y:Arv,a} b/f

./ql]j, aWhAyKi μyhiloa‘h; /lAˆt'n:Arv,a} wY:j'Aymey“ rP's]mi vm,V,h'Atj'T' lmo[}Y"v,

Behold, this I have perceived. It is good that it is beautiful (fair) to eat and to drink and to see good in all his toil that he does under the sun the few (numbered) days of his life that God has given him, because that is his portion.

ynIa; ytiyair:Arv,a} hNEhi rv,a} is a relative pronoun that introduce an independent relative clause (Williams ¶363b).  Since there is no specific antecedent stated, the reference is to the entire scope of his investigations, and grammatically it is the direct object of ytiyair:.  The verb is a 1cs qal form and could be understood either as present perfect or as gnomic in force.  I have presented it as present perfect above – that is 'I have observed though my investigations and life experiences and now perceive .…'  Gnomic would be rendered 'this I perceive…' 

WNM,mi lkoa‘l, /fyliv]hiw“ μysik;n“W rv,[o μyhiloa‘h; /lAˆt'n: rv,a} μd:a;h;AlK; μG" 18

.ayhi μyhiloa‘ tT'm' hz< /lm;[}B' j'moc]liw“ /ql]j,Ata, tacel;w“

Moreover, every person to whom God gives riches and treasures and gives him the power to eat from it, to take his portion, and to rejoice in his portion - this is a gift from God.

/lAˆt'n: rv,a} μd:a;h;AlK; Any expression with AlK; is somewhat ambiguous, because it may be used to express a distributive (each, every) or a collective (all) meaning.  In this case the ambiguity is resolved by the singular pronoun /l.  The following description applies to individuals within the human race, not to all humans in general. 

/lm;[}B' j'moc]liw“ /ql]j,Ata, tacel; w“WNM,mi lkoa‘l, The assertion has two parts.  The first is the receipt of material treasures, whatever an individual may value as such.  The second is represented by three qal infinitives: j'moc]liw“   tacel;   lkoa‘l,.   The first – to eat – implies that the individual is able to gain physical sustenance from what he has received.  Second – to take up – implies that the individual accepts what he has received as his portion, or inheritance, in life.  Third – to rejoice – implies that the individual is enabled to find enjoyment in the toil he has been given to do.  Anyone for whom all three of these descriptions are realized has received it as a gift from God.  Because it is a gift, no person can automatically claim it for himself.

./Bli tj'm]ciB] hn<[}m' μyhiloa‘h; yKi wyY:j' ymey“Ata, rKoz“yI hBer“h' alo yKi 19

For he will not often remember the days of is life, because God will keep him occupied with the joy of his heart.

yKi…yKi These conjunctions introduce parallel clauses that provide the rationale for his conclusion in verse 18.  First, he will not often reflect on the fact that his life will be brief, that he will give up everything material thing he has received at death, and that he will be completely forgotten soon after his death.  Second, he will be able to remain content with his portion because God keeps him occupied with his own enjoyment of the life he now has.  Kohelet, who received all the material blessings anybody could imagine, did not remain content, so he himself did not experience the ultimate benefit in life expressed by this verse.  This sets the stage for the negative half of his conclusion in the first half of chapter 6.