אִ֣ישׁ אֲשֶׁ֣ר יִתֶּן־לֹ֣ו הָאֱלֹהִ֡ים עֹשֶׁר֩ וּנְכָסִ֨ים וְכָבֹ֜וד וְֽאֵינֶ֨נּוּ חָסֵ֥ר לְנַפְשֹׁ֣ו מִכֹּ֣ול אֲשֶׁר־יִתְאַוֶּ֗ה וְלֹֽא־יַשְׁלִיטֶ֤נּוּ הָֽאֱלֹהִים֙ לֶאֱכֹ֣ל מִמֶּ֔נּוּ כִּ֛י אִ֥ישׁ נָכְרִ֖י יֹֽאכֲלֶ֑נּוּ זֶ֥ה הֶ֛בֶל וָחֳלִ֥י רָ֖ע הֽוּא׃
In Qohelet 6:2, we encounter one of the most haunting paradoxes in the Hebrew Bible. A man is given everything — wealth, honor, and even every desire of his soul — yet he is denied the ability to enjoy it. Instead, a stranger consumes it all. This verse does not merely describe irony; it performs it through language.
The key phrase — וְלֹא־יַשְׁלִיטֶנּוּ הָאֱלֹהִים לֶאֱכֹל מִמֶּנּוּ — “but God does not give him power to eat from it” — contains a rare grammatical structure that heightens the tragedy: the negative + imperfect verb with an object suffix. This construction is more than syntactic form — it encodes emotional frustration, divine inscrutability, and the futility at the heart of Qohelet’s worldview.
Denial of Enjoyment: The Syntax of Divine Withholding
Let us begin with the pivotal clause:
וְלֹֽא־יַשְׁלִיטֶ֤נּוּ הָֽאֱלֹהִים֙ לֶאֱכֹ֣ל מִמֶּ֔נּוּ
This translates as: “and God does not give him power to eat from it.” At first glance, this may seem like a straightforward negation. But its structure reveals much deeper layers.
The verb יַשְׁלִיטֶנּוּ comes from the root שלט (“to have dominion”), in the hiphil stem (causative), with a pronominal suffix attached — literally, “cause him to rule over it,” or “give him control.”
But what follows is not just denial of control — it is denial of enjoyment, specifically eating. The infinitive לֶאֱכֹל (“to eat”) adds a human dimension to the loss. It is not only that the man cannot manage his wealth — he cannot even taste it.
| Word | Root | Form | Literal Translation | Grammatical Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| יַשְׁלִיטֶנּוּ | ש-ל-ט | Hiphil imperfect, 3ms + 3ms suffix | “He causes him to rule over it” | Used with negative particle לֹא to express divine withholding. |
This construction — a negative + imperfect verb with an object pronoun — appears rarely in Biblical Hebrew outside of contexts of divine refusal or limitation. It is often used when something desired is withheld by fate or providence.
The Irony of Abundance: Wealth Without Taste
The verse begins with a portrait of complete success:
אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִתֶּן־לֹו הָאֱלֹהִים עֹשֶׁר וּנְכָסִים וְכָבוֹד
“A man whom God gives riches and possessions and honor…”
The list is comprehensive: material wealth (עֹשֶׁר), physical goods (נְכָסִים), and social status (כָּבוֹד). Even more, the text assures us that such a man lacks nothing his soul desires (וְאֵינֶנוּ חָסֵר לְנַפְשֹׁו מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר יִתְאַוֶּה).
Yet despite this abundance, the central tragedy unfolds: he cannot enjoy it. The very thing that should bring satisfaction — food, sustenance, pleasure — is withheld. And worse still, someone else — a stranger — ends up consuming it all.
This reversal is not simply ironic — it is structurally embedded in the syntax. The earlier perfective verbs suggest completion, fullness. Then comes the imperfective denial — an open wound that refuses closure.
From Blessing to Curse: The Role of the Stranger
The final lines deliver the blow:
כִּי אִישׁ נָכְרִי יֹאכֲלֶנּוּ זֶה הֶבֶל וָחֳלִי רָע הוּא
“For a foreigner will eat it — this is vanity and a grievous evil.”
The shift from third person plural (לוֹ) to singular (אִישׁ נָכְרִי) sharpens the tragedy. One man has it all; another takes it away without effort. There is no justice in this transaction — only randomness, and thus, futility.
The concluding phrase — זֶה הֶבֶל וָחֳלִי רָע הוּא — uses two powerful terms:
- הֶבֶל – “vanity,” “emptiness,” a core term in Qohelet’s theology
- חֳלִי רָע – “grievous illness,” or “sickening evil”
Together, they encapsulate the moral and emotional weight of the passage — a life filled with gifts, but devoid of joy, is not a blessing. It is a sickness.
The Verb That Denies Satisfaction
In closing, Qohelet 6:2 teaches us that possession without enjoyment is not prosperity — it is deprivation. And the grammar makes this clear. The use of the negative + imperfect verb with suffix (לֹא־יַשְׁלִיטֶנּוּ) marks this not as a temporary misfortune, but as a structural flaw in the world Qohelet describes — where God gives, but does not allow one to partake.
This is not just a theological observation — it is a linguistic performance of futility. Through syntax, Qohelet conveys what logic cannot: the unbearable lightness of having everything, yet tasting nothing.