Комментарий о цитате к Кохелет 1:1

Because these are words of admonishment, etc. For it should have said, “And Moshe spoke to all of Israel.” Therefore, Rashi explains: Because these are words of [admonishment]. In other words, we still need to explain why it says, “In the wilderness — on the Arava Plain etc,” rather than explicitly stating their actions. Perforce, we must say that these are words of admonishment etc. And the reason why Moshe said these words in an obscure manner is because in a single speech he recounted all the times that Yisroel angered Hashem. Therefore, he did not rebuke them in a direct manner. But if he was rebuking them for only one incident in which they had angered Hashem, he would have mentioned it directly. For, “There is not a righteous man on earth who does [only] good and never sins (Koheles 7:20),” and therefore it is not so embarrassing. Also, that is why it says הדברים (the words), for the term דברים indicates words of rebuke. Rashi explains this at the beginning of Koheles (1:1), and there his proof is from [this verse], “These are the words.” The primary source that the term דבר indicates rebuke is below (v. 17), “And the matter (דבר) that will be too difficult for you, etc.” Re”m writes: Rashi’s explanation is perplexing. For if “These are the words,” indicates words of rebuke, why does the verse say afterwards (v. 3), “with every detail that Adonoy had commanded etc.”? But, Moshe said the words of rebuke on his own. Perhaps the answer is: The words of rebuke were sanctioned by Hashem, although Moshe said them on his own. And since Hashem had allowed them, it says, “that Adonoy had commanded etc.” Alternatively: Hashem commanded Moshe to rebuke them, and it was on his own that Moshe waited until shortly before his death [to rebuke them]. But it seems to me: “With every detail that Adonoy had commanded etc,” is not referring to the rebuke, but rather to the mitzvos in general, i.e. the review of the Torah. Moshe did two things — he rebuked them on his own, and he also explained the Torah and the mitzvos to them, as will he explains later.

The song of songs which is Shlomo’s. Our Rabbis taught, “Every Shlomo (because they were at a loss to explain why [Scripture] did not mention his father,¹I.e., King Dovid. as it did in Mishlei and Koheles) mentioned in Shir Hashirim is sacred [=refers to God], the King to Whom peace שָׁלוֹם belongs.²Maseches Shavuos 35b. It is a song which transcends above all other songs,³Rashi offers this explanation because he questions why does it not state, “The song which is Shlomo’s,” why is “of songs” necessary? (Sifsei Chachomim) ⁴Alternatively “of songs” refers to the one thousand and five songs attributed to King Shlomo as it is stated, “and his songs were one thousand and five,” in I Melachim 5:12. (Gra) which was recited to the Holy One, Blessed Is He, by His assembly and His people, the congregation of Yisroel. Rabbi Akiva said, “The world was never as worthy as on the day that Shir Hashirim was given to Yisroel, for all the Writings are holy, but Shir Hashirim is the holiest of the holies.” Rabbi Elazar son Azaryah said, “To what can this be compared? To a king who took a se’ah of wheat and gave it to a baker. He said to him, ‘Extract for me so much fine flour, so much bran, so much coarse bran, and produce enough fine flour from it for one loaf, sifted and superior.’ Similarly, all the Writings are holy, but Shir Hashirim is the holiest of the holies,⁵Mishnayos Yodayim 3:5. for it is all comprised of fear of Heaven and the acceptance of the yoke of His kingdom.”⁶Alternatively “the song of ‘songs’,” the plural corresponds to the dual “songs” that comprise Shir Hashirim, the song that the congregation of Yisroel praises the Holy One, Blessed is He, and the song that the Holy One, Blessed is He praises the congregation of Yisroel. (Sefer Duda’im)