Why do we read Koheles on Sukkos? The Avudraham brings two reasons in the name of the Even Harchi: 1) In Koheles (11:2) we are taught, "Distribute portions to seven or even to eight" which Koheles Raba explains in the name of R. Levi that "seven" refers to the seven days of Sukkos and "eight" to Shimni Atzertes 2) Shlomo Hamelech taught this megillah to many varied groups of pilgrims that came to spend the yom tov of Sukkos in Yerushalayim, as we find in the opening verse of the haftarah for the second day of Sukkos, "all the men of Israel gathered before Shlomo Hamelech, in the month of the mighty ones (Tishrei), on the festival of the seventh month" (I Kings 8:2.)
I'd like to share another reason based on the teachings of Rav Pinchus Friedman shlit"a, the Rosh Kolel of Belz. The Talmud (Shabbos 30b) teaches that our rabbis who canonized the latter books of scripture sought to exclude the book of Koheles from the canon, for they saw that its statements contradict one another. Why did they not exclude it? Because the beginning of the book consists of words of Torah and its end consists of words of Torah. What are examples of the statements that contradict one another? On the one hand, "anger is better than laughter" (7:3), but earlier, "of laughter I have said it is praiseworthy" (2:2.) In another example of seeming contradictions, chapter three begins with twenty-eight different times, fourteen good fourteen bad. Also striking is the tone of frustration that is found throughout the book, such as the opening verse of "futility of futilities or vanity of vanities, all is futile" and "so I hated life, for I was depressed by all that goes on under the sun" (2:17.)
In fact, Rav Moshe Avigdor Amiel z"l (former chief Rabbi of Tel Aviv-Yafo and an outstanding darshan) in Drashos El Ami II:7 asks a profound question: why was Koheles the longest of the megilos with its contradictory content? Why was it not shortened by eliminating the contradictions and keeping only the words of Torah which caused it to be included in the canon? His answer (and that of the Shvilai Pinchus) is that there is much to learn from the contradictions. In fact, Sukkos is zman simchaseinu and our rabbis teach "ein simcha kehatoras hasveikos", meaning there is abundant joy and contentment with the resolution of problems. Similarly, there is much joy in learning the lessons of the seeming contradictions.
A cursory view of the world often contradicts our pure belief in Hashem and His Divine Providence. In fact, the very precise nature of the world hides His presence. This is stated explicitly in (Devarim 4:19), "Lest you raise your eyes to the heaven and see the sun, moon, and stars, the entire legion of heaven, and you be drawn astray to bow to them and worship them." Thus, as Hashem replies to Moshe at the burning bush in response to his question as to whom shall I say spoke to me, "the G-d of your forefathers...this is my name forever" (Shemos 3:15.) The word l'olam - forever is written without the vav, and on the level of derash is interpreted to mean, l'elam - hidden. Hashem is hidden in His world, and thus gives man the choice to believe or not; if His presence would be more apparent, there'd be no room for choosing not to believe.
Moreover, one of the basic beliefs of Judaism is that of schar v'onesh - reward and punishment. Repeatedly in the book of Devarim, and twice daily in the second paragraph of the Shema, we are assured of the reward for observance of mitzvos and punishment for their neglect. And yet too often apparent tragedies lead one to question this reality. Indeed Moshe, the greatest prophet, asks Hashem, "show me your glory" (Shemos 33:13) which is understood by the Talmud (Berachos 7a) to mean, "let me understand you! Why is it that some righteous suffer and the evil prosper?" So too, Yirmiyahu asks, "why does the way of the wicked prosper?" (12:1.) How are we to explain the apparent contradiction between schar v'onesh and events that seems to indicate a lack thereof?
I'd like to share two approaches to dealing with this issue. Firstly, the sukkah is called tzila d'mehemnusa - sitting in the shade of faith. Just as the matzah is called ma'achl d'mehemnusa - bread of faith, and through its consumption one imbibes faith, similarly sitting in the sukkah enables an individual to connect with Hashem and with the belief that all that He does is for the best (Berachos 61b). The greater one's belief, the less contradiction and challenges one will perceive from without. The Vilna Gaon (whose yahrzeit is Chol HaMoed Sukkos) was asked: how do you know that Avraham observed the mitzvah of sukkah? The Gaon answered that the Torah's statement that Hashem blessed Avraham "ba'kol - with everything" (Bereishis 24:1) contains references to three pesukim about Sukkos; the beis in ba'kol refers to (Vayikra 23:42) "basukkos teishvu shiv'as yamim - in sukkos you shall reside for seven days", the chaf refers to the next verse, "kol ezrach", and the lamed refers to the verse after that, "lema'an yeidu." Why should ba'kol - with everything - be understood narrowly as referring to Sukkos? Rav Yeruchum Olshon shlit"a explains (in Yerach L'moadim) that emunah is a middah koleles - it includes all other positive traits, as it is the basic foundation of our faith. As such, the reference to Sukkos which is called tzila d'mehemnusa, is in fact a reference to everything we believe in.
Secondly, all the questions and perceived contradictions of life emerge from our attributing too much primary significance to this world. Yonah is asked by the captain of the ship, "who are you?" and he answers, "I am an Ivri - a Hebrew." Too many of us would first answer, "I'm a lawyer", "I'm a doctor", "I'm a computer programmer", etc., and perhaps only secondarily mention that we are Jews. What is primary in our lives and what is secondary? When one experiences setbacks whose repercussions are exclusively this-worldly, e.g. in business, is that justification to question Hashem and relax one's eternally meaningful and valuable religious observance? If the teaching of Rav Yaakov (Avos 4:21), that this world is a lobby to the next world which is the ultimate Dining Hall, is understood and internalized, then the ohel arei (temporary structure) of the sukkah presents a mindset that enables us to live with the apparent sfeikos-contradictions of life. The Rambam (end of Hilchos Deios) explains that one should not bear a grudge or harbor resentment to one who wronged him since after all is said and done, how important is it? Is it worth getting upset about? In the bigger picture it is all arei - temporary. Rabbeinu Bachya teaches that the sukkah represents olam ha'ba.
The Alshich teaches that "in sukkos you shall reside for seven days" (Vayikra 23:42) represents the seventy years of one's life, as it's all only arei-transient. In addition, commenting on, "These are the products of the heaven and earth when they were created behibarum" (Bereishis 2:4) Rashi teaches that this world was created with the letter hey. Among the many interpretations of this idea, the Alshich suggests that the way the world is like the letter hey is found in the minimum acceptable configuration of the sukkah's walls, "shtayim k'hilchoso u'shlishis afilu tefach-two complete walls and the third even a handbreadth", which can also describe the shape of the letter hey. This world is like a sukkah, as we have elaborated above.
The Jewish world was shaken and shocked by the killing of Ari Fuld, hashem Yikom Damo. I was privileged to know him from birth. He lived in accordance with the teachings of the Ramban on the opening verse of Koheles. The Ramban there explains the words, "haveil haveilim" not as a noun - vanity of vanities - but rather as an imperative: haveil haveilim - make temporary those things that should be temporary. His bullet proof vest, worn as part of his gear in the Lebanese War, essentially saved his life from shrapnel that hit him in that war. He permanently displayed the shrapnel alongside his kiddush cup and menorah in his modest break front. From that wartime moment on he lived haveil haveilim; he felt that Hashem saved his life to demonstrate what is important and what is not. His public debates with those whose ideology was contrary to his love of Eretz Yisrael, Toras Yisrael, and Am Yisrael and his sincerity in caring for so many that crossed his path were tremendous inspirations to so many. To his parents we say ashrei yoladito, and for his wife, children and his entire family, we pray that the legacy of his living a sukkah life with no questions and contradictions may be a constant nechama to you. The extraordinary courage and resiliency that his entire family has displayed has further uplifted Klal Yisroel's emunah and bitachon. Ari inspired in his life and is doing so in his passing as well. Yehi Zichro Baruch.