We find one such sentence in Ecclesiastes 10:13: "The beginning of the words of his mouth is foolishness, and the end of his mouth is evil debauchery." Ouch.
But who is this verse talking about? Kohelet Rabbah, a fascinating collection of rabbinic interpretations on the Book of Ecclesiastes, offers us a couple of compelling, if not slightly harsh, candidates.
First up: Cyrus, the Persian king who initially allowed the Jews to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the Temple. Seems like a good guy. Well, Kohelet Rabbah isn't so sure. It points to Cyrus’s declaration in Ezra 1:3: “He is the God, who is in Jerusalem.” The interpretation here is cutting: implying that Cyrus believed God’s power was limited to Jerusalem alone. This, according to Kohelet Rabbah, was the "foolishness" at the beginning.
But it gets worse! The text goes on to say that "the end of his mouth is evil debauchery." Why? Because, as Kohelet Rabbah states, Cyrus "recanted and abrogated his decrees." He reversed his decision, effectively saying: "Whoever has crossed the Euphrates has crossed, and whoever has not crossed shall not cross." Meaning, those who had already returned to Jerusalem could stay, but no one else was allowed to go. A pretty significant reversal! The initial promise of freedom and rebuilding turned into a limited, conditional permission. Was this evil debauchery? Perhaps a bit strong, but certainly a disappointment.
But wait, there's another contender! Kohelet Rabbah then throws another name into the ring: Ahashverosh. Yes, the very same Ahashverosh of the Purim story! The one whose foolish decisions and susceptibility to bad advice almost led to the annihilation of the Jewish people.
The text reminds us: “And in the reign of Ahashverosh, at the beginning of his reign, they wrote libel [against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem]" (Ezra 4:6). This, Kohelet Rabbah argues, was the beginning of his foolishness. He listened to slander and accusations against the Jews.
And "the end of his mouth [is evil debauchery]?" Because, as Kohelet Rabbah emphasizes, Ahashverosh "arose and abrogated the labor of the construction of the Temple." He stopped the rebuilding. He continued to prevent its rebuilding for the remainder of his reign.
So, what’s the takeaway here? Is it simply a historical critique of these two Persian kings? Perhaps. But it’s also a powerful reminder about the importance of consistency, of keeping one’s word, and of the lasting consequences of both foolish words and evil actions. And perhaps a warning: Be careful of how you start, but be even more careful of how you finish. Because ultimately, it's the end that defines the story.